Social Media and Freedom, Addendum
The question of "what to do" about social media abuses seems no closer to a resolution. Even if Elon Musk buys Twitter, problems will remain. How about giving freedom a try? Novel idea, I know, but...
Given the recent (and not-so-recent) condescending arrogance of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and the like setting themselves up as the final arbiters of truth, justice, and the anti-American way as they ban, delete, and/or label what they deem as false, i.e., positions with which they disagree, it is way past time to force them either to abandon any pretense to openness and objectivity and declare themselves as publishers subject to liability as are other companies OR to adhere to the clear intent of Section 230c1 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 and announce that they will follow the requirements of being common carriers, i.e., simply be the platforms they fraudulently claim to be with ZERO editorial involvement with what posters say, just as phone companies do not monitor or censor what users discuss.
Yes, the government should not be involved in breaking up or regulating social media companies (though I rue the day that Google purchased YouTube in 2006…). The heavy hand of the State usually (always?) makes things worse, not better. (And it’s true that simply repealing 230 would hardly be the end of the world. See, for example, newspapers/magazines/books/radio/TV/movies/music/art/etc. that somehow manage to survive without liability protection.) But it is also true that the government should not get involved in this arena by granting social media companies special legal immunities that absolve them of liability with no attendant restrictions on their (potentially) repressive behavior.
Too many libertarians refuse to face or deal with this dichotomy. They simply throw up their hands, declare that the companies are private, and therefore can do whatever they want, no matter how egregious, arbitrary, or abusive those actions might be. But people (or companies) that offer a service that involves other people/customers do NOT have a one-sided carte blanche to do “whatever” without legal ramifications and consequences. There are niggling little things called “contracts” (perhaps you have heard of them…?), either implicit or explicit, that place LIMITS on what is or is not acceptable behavior in dealing with other human beings in any transactional situation. If social media want to be manipulators of the body politic, then I say, “Have at it”…just as soon as they give up any special government privileges that other companies do not enjoy. Make them show their true selves, fully and openly, without pretense, dissembling, or disguise. No more shams, no more feigning “openness,” no more lies.
Congress needs to repeal Section 230c2A, a proviso that is nothing more than a gutting of the intent of the CDA, a weasel-worded betrayal that gives a wink-and-a-nod to social media companies to do whatever the hell THEY want—without penalty or restriction—in regard to the user generated content that makes the very existence of those companies possible IN THE FIRST PLACE. This situation should—and can—be rectified, but no one with a wide-reaching voice will speak out about even the POSSIBILITY of correcting this heinous situation. Even most libertarians—who are supposed to stand up for the smallest minority there is: the individual—refuse even to whisper a hint of opposition to Section 230. Why? Who the hell knows? I guess they forget that a proper government DOES have actions it can do that are within its purview and that do not violate freedom or property rights. This one-note approach is tiresome. The silence of organizations that are supposed to champion the rights of the individual is deafening.
And while Congress is at it, it can fix the damned DMCA and force the BURDEN OF PROOF for copyright claims on the entity making the claim—a principle that forms the foundation of our legal system—rather than just accepting any accusation willy-nilly and requiring the accused to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. Any reform must create AUTOMATIC PENALTIES FOR FALSE CLAIMS as should be the case (but is not) for our legal system (roughly equivalent to “loser pays” proposals).
Enough of this unsavory and disgusting bullshit.
(NB: If social media act as de facto agents of the State, they FORFEIT ANY FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION.)
For more detailed discussions of these issues, see these articles, available on Amazon:
There appear to be two overall sides to the argument about how to handle the ever-growing power and influence of social media companies such as YouTube, Twitter, Twitch, and Facebook. The first is that the current laws should be not be changed in any way; that how things operate now is the best possible solution. The second viewpoint maintains that social media companies should be broken up (e.g., separating YouTube from Google) or monitored by the government as to how they treat content providers, e.g., having the Federal Trade Commission (the FTC) scrutinize companies’ algorithms to ensure “neutrality” of viewpoint on the part of the social media companies.
As is too frequently the case, both sides are wrong.
Give social media companies an option: either be a common carrier á la phone companies—which means: no intrusive monitoring of users or their content, no blacklisting, no banning, no deletions, no prohibitions—or be a publisher that can engage in all those practices within the confines of their written policies. Social media companies should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. The current neither-fish-nor-foul, contradictory, Frankenstein’s monster, illicit hybrid version is untenable. It needs to stop.
In the end, we need to worry first and foremost about doing what is right and proper in the context of maintaining a defense of freedom and property rights. If a company wants to do the wrong thing, then we should make certain that it does so without the sanction of a corrupt government policy.
We deserve nothing less.
“Freedom versus Social Media: Can Companies Do ‘Whatever They Want’?”:
An essay on the uneasy relationship between the principles of freedom and the actual conduct of social media companies in today's world.
Anything real, any existent is delimited; has boundaries; has conditions/circumstances surrounding it; exists in a context. Even though, for example, “freedom” is absolute within the properly defined context, it would be ignorant and ludicrous to claim that one is “free” to do whatever one wants without regard to that established context.
Just because a company is private doesn’t mean it can “do whatever it wants,” not as long as contracts with other people are involved. Private companies do not exist in a vacuum. We do not exist in a literal anarchy.
(This is all spelled out in greater detail in my article, “Social Media and Freedom.”)
Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act is, in essence, a subsidy to social media. In this case, it’s a legal subsidy and should come with strings attached. Instead, our social media overlords lie to us and commit fraud by violating the principles of justice and their own terms of service while being given legal carte blanche to do so.
Accepting special favors from the government always comes with restrictions. Social media want special exemptions in any area of society? Then they are required to accept government requirements. In this field, that translates into acting as common carriers a la phone companies that don't monitor and censor what users do. They just have to provide a service.
I abhor hypocrisy. I despise the lies spewed by social media companies. End the charade, the travesty once and for all.
Enough, already.
https://twitter.com/maddrus/with_replies
Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Russell-Madden/e/B00C7XTUEK
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/1maxruss
You can help support and encourage my writing by purchasing one of my 300+ articles, essays, short stories, novels, or book collections on Amazon or by becoming a paid subscriber.
Chat available.