“For I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – T. Jefferson
I don’t do social media for several reasons. However, if I’m sitting at a table killing time between drink orders and the person I’m with has their phone out, I’ll cruise their social media just out of curiosity. I saw this and just had to snag it:
Honestly, both sides, left and right, have a history of this sort of thing. Difference is that now it’s become a bloodsport. Used to be that if you didn’t agree with someones politics, you called them a dirty name and left it at that. Nowadays, if you don’t like someones politics you ‘deplatform’ or ‘cancel’ them…if you’re too lazy to go to their home and terrorize their family.
Silencing a group, no matter if you agree or not with them, is the necessary first step towards marginalizing that group. And, historically, groups that get marginalized wind up suffering…sometimes it manifests as lack of a voice in political issues and sometimes it’s cattle cars and barbed wire. But it always has to start with silencing that particular group.
Do I think people who think like me are heading for striped pajamas and labor gangs? Nope. But what I do see happening is laws and regulation being passed that will incrementally chip away at my liberties and the people who oppose those infringements will not be allowed a voice to try to sway the public and policymakers. With the increasing complicity of large communication outlets like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc * in shutting down certain opinions and certain topics, there aren’t a lot of high-traffic venues left to get your message out when your message goes against the official narrative.
This is one of the reasons that for the last several years, since Trump was elected, that I accelerated my gun/ammo/mag purchasing – because I could see that the people pushing for a ban were getting more airtime and more distribution than the people who opposed it. When Trump got elected, the ‘deplatforming’ and ‘cancel’ thing really took off. Doesn’t matter if the ban/no-ban support is 50/50 when one of those 50’s doesn’t get to state their case.
Next time you read some article about a particular belief or ideology being shut out of the popular media channels, ask yourself how that will affect you. For example, shutting down the pro-gun voices mean the anti-gun voice will be that much louder, thus enabling them to sway more people to their cause and probably leading to more gun prohibitions. Result: go buy more guns while you can.
And although this is an extremely personal choice, and most people won’t agree with me, try not to become the kind of person who shuts down other peoples speech. Remember, popular speech never needed First Amendment protections to begin with….its the unpopular, the non-mainstream, and yes even the extreme speech that needed protecting. I don’t have to like the message, but I like people trying to silence other people even less.
* = YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are companies that are absolutely free to censor whomever they want. Thats their right. And I have the right to badmouth them, choose not to support them, refuse to deal with people who do support them, etc. That’s part of the bargain when it comes to freedom…you have to take the good with the bad, otherwise it isn’t really freedom.
Unlike the majority of bloggers out there, you have a middle-of-the-road approach to life that I like. I’m glad you don’t do social media because this blog would be a lot more bitter if you did.
Two things about rights and free speech.
(1) I keep hearing “I have the right to…!” but what these folks who scream about their rights forget is that for every right a person has, they have a corresponding obligation to use that right responsibly. Yes, you have the first amendment right to free speech, but is it responsible to scream fire in a crowded movie theatre?
(2) The rights you enjoy are not things you can do, but things that governments cannot do to you. That is the reason YouTube, Facebook et al can get away with shutting down certain opinions and topics, they are private companies, not the government. And as such, like you CZ, I stay the hell away from them.
I have a couple of problems with what you are saying.
1 Yes, they are private companies and may censor whomever they wish. The problem that I have is that once you decide who may or may not post on your website, you are no longer merely a platform who is not responsible for what is said. You are a publisher, and a publisher is responsible for whatever is published. That includes libel, slander, and defamation.
2 The whole argument of “fire in a crowded theater” is complete horseshit. Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 50 years ago. The ACTUAL quote is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It isn’t the speech that Holmes was objecting to, it was that he then becomes responsible when his false statement causes a panic.
People continue to claim that this means censorship is permissible. It is not.
1) I’ve never been comfortable with the libertarian ‘private companies can abrogate God-given rights’ argument. The government is whoever governs. These country-sized multinationals control your communications – and there’s almost no way around it. So just who is in charge? Moreover They work with state institutions, both explicitly and implicitly. A March 5th comment on VD’s blog puts it this way:
“… 4AM against illegal search and seizure? Your data will testify against you, via subpoena of 3rd party IoT data.”
2. The platform/publisher approach has merit, but it really doesn’t solve the problem: They’ll continue to censor, shadow ban etc. Sure, they’ll have to remove libel, but they’ll also continue to remove “misinformation” eg. about elections. The oligarchs key advantage is the economy of scale. They have the network data built up by *users* over years. That network constitutes the distribution system for most of the public.
“That is the reason YouTube, Facebook et al can get away with shutting down certain opinions and topics, they are private companies, not the government.”
These companies while private have been given exemptions by the federal government from anti-trust laws much like MLB and the NFL. So, with that they have to be held to a higher standard in respecting the peoples constitutional rights. If they can not do this then they should be broken up as monopolies under the anti-trust laws of the United States. If it was good enough to use on Maw Bell and Standard Oil, then so be it for twitter and Facebook!!
“And although this is an extremely personal choice, and most people won’t agree with me, try not to become the kind of person who shuts down other peoples speech.”
I sincerely hope that isnt true. I like to think folks here are, for the most part, more intelligent than that.
It’s a difficult thing, being willing to let someone speak their mind when it may be vitriol and hate directed at you. But the bigger picture is that your freedom to say what you want includes other peoples freedom to say stuff that you really disagree with. We see this most in religious contexts…. we want OUR religion taught in schools but THEIR religion is a religion of [hate/peace/cult/etc]. Can’t have it both ways. Problem is, most people say they support free speech until it’s something they really disagree with….then they start with “Im all for free speech BUT….”.
Someone once said and correctly “The First Amendment is not meant to protect speech we all agree with but speech we do not agree with.”
I wonder if most people who disdain fee speech so easily realize that in almost all places where free speech is blocked or outright outlawed dictators rule. Examples Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao, and China today if that is what you want with your book burning and censorship please move to those countries that support this there are plenty in the world that enjoy your point of view but I do not and many Americans both liberal and conservative don’t these are not partisan issues I value all points of view even though I may disagree but when you say I can’t have my opinion because you disagree with me and somehow the government and government lackeys like the media get together to both block and cancel out people then you create a culture of antagonism that can spiral into terrorism dew to frustration because there is no outlet for legitimate debate. Sometimes those forced into silence only have violence as a way to get their messages heard and those who do the silencing actually caused this
Currently, a substantial portion of society spends huge amounts of each day on social media. For many, it is related to making a living, promoting their products, or promoting their services. I get that.
For others, they have no life, and it is easier to “connect” with the digital forms of humanity they meet on line than to do so in person.
I have heard that Parler is making a comeback. Now, if the world could just have a non-Leftist alternative to Facebook.
It is just my [weird] opinion but I consider Facebook users to be enablers for the Left, just as drug users are enablers for the Mexican cartels. The latter are responsible for the severed heads found in the street gutters of Juarez. The drug cartels’ customers just want their pot and hard drugs and really don’t care what happens to anyone as long as the drug supply chain is not interrupted.
Facebook users just want to engage in narcissistic efforts to tell the world how perfect their lives are, how perfect their marriage is, and how perfect their children are. (How often have you seen postings about what a mess the person’s marriage is, how abused the person feels at work, or how distant and uncaring a person’s children are? Not often.) They are thankful for Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey providing a platform for them to do so. As part of the Devil’s Bargain, these social media users might grumble, but, the bottom line is that they put up with the censorship for privilege of using the platforms. Sheep.
Since November 3, there has been much rancor about the election being stolen by the Democrats. Yet, if Rush Limbaugh ever said that Joe Biden only won because of fraud, I must have missed it. Tucker Carlson called the idea the other night “nonsense.” EVEN IF actual ballot box fraud did not change the outcome of the election, the election was stolen before the first ballot was cast when Big Media and Social Media essentially swore a blood oath to take Trump down and to censor anything that might negatively affect Dodderin’ Joe’s chances.
This has to stop if democracy is to survive. What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt to bring down the monopolies.
I have heard that Parler is making a comeback. Now, if the world could just have a non-Leftist alternative to Facebook.
Check of MeWe as an alternative to Facebook
I have a different view. The US taxpayer paid for research,design and build out of the internet infrastructure. Private social media companies are using that infrastructure. If they want the power to decide what speech is permitted they can build their own infrastructure, otherwise serve all equally just like the electric or phone company Yes those (phone/electric/gas) build their own infrastructure, but with .gov monopoly controlling competition and power to take land from private owners (my mothers family farm is now 60 feet under water). They (social media/search engines) are now big enough to be considered a utility. Our host here is not in that category. So I disagree about their censorship. Serve all or build your own net.
In the midst of the books that Amazon is “burning,” you won’t find “Mein Kampf…” by Adolf Hitler…
…Curious indeed…
As per usual CZ you have voiced the most reasonable observation on this issue.of censorship and media bias. It is regrettable that modern media has turned so far left and into the realm of Orwellian thought control.
I would like your opinion however on your contemporary over at Survivalblog. Jim Rawles recently cancelled all of their comments section after he claimed they were inundated by comments from trolls and nefarious leftist tools. This I found a little to reactionary and perhaps a sort of caving in to this activity? If these people can cause even a person so antithetical to their views as Jim Rawles then I believe this only empowers further actions of this type to infiltrate our freedom loving blogs and contrarian information outlets. What say you on this matter?
Well, first of all, SurvivalBlog is ,Rawles show and as such he can run it as he sees fit. I don’t know for certain but I am guessing that with as large a readership as he has there is a commensurately large base of people commenting. Screening all those comments can be a pretty big job for one person. I figure if he just doesn’t want to deal with it, that’s his business. I’ve seen other bloggers with ‘high round counts’ in the comment sections close them down just because it got to be too much work…Tam, for example, shut down comments years ago and it doesn’t seem to have slowed anything over at her blog.
Broadly speaking, I don’t have nearly as large a readership as ,Rawles so it’s not a big deal for me to swing thebanhammer on those rare occasions someone really steps over the line. Also, I think trolling and being a general asshat is not the same as putting forth a generally unpopular opinion. If someone curates their comment section to reate an echo chamber of their own opinons thats not the same thing as kicking the drunk screamers to the curb.
Anyway, I don’t think I see any moral or ethical inconsistency in closing comments if people start using it for something other than reasonable discourse (and, yes, reasonable is subjective). I very seldom delete comments but I do read every comment before it is posted, mostly to keep the spambots at bay.
Your notion that perhaps spamming and trolling is an effort to force a blogging venue to close it’s comments as a form of censorship is interesting. I suppose it’s possible but I’m not entirely sure ‘the other side’ has the attention span required to do that sort of thing consistently. I’m more inclined to believe that people being jerks is usually just…people being jerks.
Commander:
I have been reading “SurvivalBlog” for the prepping information, not his deeply religious worldview.
I suspect he stopped the Comments section because not enough of his readers want to share his beliefs.
I was blocked from SurvivalBlog for calling some of his favorite people Klu Klux Kretins –
I rest my case….
CZ
I am not at all knocking Rawles blog as I read it myself everyday like I read your pithy blog everyday ( or when you post ). I was just observing on his new policy. No biggie. But you are correct in another observation: people being jerks. That ain’t never going away.
If enough people come into a man’s parlor and call his friends names, even the most tolerant will stop inviting people over.
He rejected one of my comments (written in rebuttal to a HORRIBLE guest article, full of bad info) because of tone. He was gracious in his email and suggested I revise and resubmit it. I rewrote it without the personal comments and he posted it. It was BETTER when I stuck to facts and provided alternatives instead of snide attacks.
He doesn’t like a free for all in his comments. His wife gets stuck doing the moderation (she said she felt a lightness and relief knowing she was done with that) and it is hard work. Doesn’t seem like it should be but it is. And it’s never just ‘one comment’ it’s dozens or more, all the same and all shitty.
I’m sure it’s a lot like getting dick pix if you are on a dating site. One in 100 isn’t that bad. When it’s 100 with one genuine reply, it’s pretty wearing.
I always thought the comments were a great way to respond to the varying quality of the guest posts. And you could count on someone correcting any errors. I felt free to ignore the stuff I found less useful without commenting on it. I suspect the current plan to review response emails and then publish some of them will be more work… but the additional layer of effort will likely screen out a bunch of comments before they even get written. Net net might be less work and more good info. We’ll see.
nick
FWIW, I’m with CZ on the unlikelihood of it being a denial of service attack of sorts. They love to mob, but rarely stick around.
Writer Larry Correia gets their attention every so often, and it soon fades. Persistent trolls are mentally ill, and aren’t behaving rationally. Nothing to do but ban hammer them whenever they show up, wearing whatever guise they wear.
nick