Tag Archives: free speech

Government-Tech Censorship?

Posted on by
Reply

In his op-ed concerning social media censorship, Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law School Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, had this:

Amid growing revelations about government involvement in social-media censorship, it’s no longer enough to talk simply about tech censorship. The problem should be understood as gov-tech censorship.

He’s on the right track, but he doesn’t take it far enough, even as he writes this:

The Biden White House has threatened tech companies and federal agencies have pressed them to censor disfavored opinions and users.

That’s the nub of the matter. It’s not gov-tech censorship; it’s Government-directed tech censorship. Nothing less.

How to Save Twitter and Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Weinstein, founder of Twitter-competitor MeWe, wrote a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed on this subject; he suggested a number of “fixes” that Twitter owner Elon Musk should implement to save Twitter—and Weinstein’s conception of “democracy.” These are:

…immediately create an advertiser content-preference system. Allow advertisers to select the tenor and topical content that their ads are associated with….

Only if Twitter users can have access to the system and to which advertisers sign up for which censorship. That way, we can block the ads from Woke or otherwise too thin-skinned advertisers. They will have demonstrated that their products are too fragile for actual usefulness.

…[act to block] a rash of verified accounts impersonating public figures, companies, and organizations….

How does Weinstein propose that legitimate satire and ridicule be discriminated from the fraud about which he claims to worry?

…sites that allow absolute free speech are overrun with hateful posts, spam, pornography, bullying, doxing, and incitement of violence.

Yeah, and? Whose definition of any of this is to be applied? We’ve already seen how the Woke and the thin-skinned Left already cry loudly over petty hurt feelings. Weinstein is just proposing more of that. The concept of free speech is centered on being able spout the ugliest spew, with answering speech being the remedy, not naked censorship.

…oversee a Twitter with little propaganda. Marketers, politicians and governments use Twitter to target unsuspecting users and manipulate their emotions, opinions, purchasing decisions…. …the way to solve this is to stop letting users pay to boost and amplify content.

Weinstein can’t have it both ways. Either Twitter allows advertising—propaganda—and allows advertisers to use their propaganda/advertising to target unsuspecting users and manipulate their emotions, opinions, purchasing decisions and to boost their advertisements (see that content-preference bit above), or it does not.

Twitter must go an extra step: no algorithms manipulating user newsfeeds or boosting unwanted content, period.

Again, Weinstein must pick one of these. Either he allows some—e.g., his precious advertisers—to manipulate newsfeeds and boost content, or he does not.

Twitter and its leadership must remain politically neutral.

I look forward with great anticipation to Weinstein telling other communications entities—The Washington Post or The New York Times, for instance, that they must remain politically neutral.

It’s not surprising that Weinstein proposes his competition attempt such internally contradictory moves.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Elon Musk is, among other things with Twitter, taking steps to reduce or eliminate “accounts” that impersonate real persons without attribution.

[Musk] said Sunday that impersonating accounts will be permanently suspended unless they are specified as parody.

And yet, there are those on the Left who object to honesty in tweeting.

Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said Monday that by banning accounts that make fun of him, Mr Musk could have a chilling effect on speech on Twitter.

This is a typically cynical Leftist distortion of the facts. Musk isn’t banning accounts that make fun of him, he’s banning accounts that claim to be him, or that claim to be any other person.

Make fun of Musk to our heart’s content. Just expect Musk, at least occasionally, to answer in kind. Which actually will add fun to the matter.

It’s a Start

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Andrew Clyde (R, GA) has legislation he intends to introduce that would bar

federal officials from collaborating with Big Tech to censor Americans’ voices and create some legal recourse for those harmed by free speech infringement.

Explicitly, Clyde said,

It would also give an opportunity for those people who have been harmed by it to take legal action[.]

It’s a promising start, but I suggest a couple of fillips. One is to explicitly bar the agencies and departments of which those officials are a part from spending any money on the collaboration.

The other is to hold the agency and department heads and deputy heads personally liable for violating this law, regardless of who in their organization actually did the deed(s): these two are the MFWICs, and nothing goes on in their organization without their permission, if only because these two create the culture within which the misbehavior occurs and/or have the lax enforcement processes that let this sort of misbehavior go “unnoticed.”

In addition to that, and as a means of giving teeth to the responsibility deeming, the legislation should explicitly remove sovereign immunity and qualified immunity as defenses for the organization heads and deputy heads and the person(s) who actually did the deed.

Clyde needs to follow through on this, with the added fillips, as soon as Republicans gain majorities in both houses of Congress (whenever that happens), get the bill passed, and get it signed into law—or force President Joe Biden (D) to veto it, thereby demonstrating Progressive-Democrats’ continued insistence on government censorship of us citizens’ speech.

Progressive-Democratic Party Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bill, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, wending its way through the Senate that’s intended to let local news outlets band together to get enough scale to negotiate with Big Tech social media on a less uneven footing for payment from those outlets for their use of content that is taken by those social media and republished.

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) proposed an amendment that would plainly and explicitly prohibit[] payment negotiations from including discussion of content moderation—i.e., that would bar Big Tech from engaging in its penchant for censorship during payment negotiations. Cruz’ amendment wouldn’t even ban content moderation altogether, just during those content payment talks.

The Progressive-Democratic Party Senators voted it down. They blocked even this limited ban on Big Tech censorship.

Senator John Kennedy (R, LA), even as he is a sponsor of the basic bill, is on the right track.

Mr Kennedy said in a statement that he doesn’t understand why Democrats have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

­The Progressive-Democrats want to continue censoring the information us average Americans will be permitted to have. That’s why they have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) has a counter, she claims.

Ms Klobuchar countered that the bill already contained several protections to make sure it is content-neutral and doesn’t allow discrimination.

This is disingenuous. Were she serious about content neutrality—were she serious about no censorship—Klobuchar wouldn’t be opposed to a clear, simple ban on that along with, or replacing, her claimed protections.