A recent NPR article is (in my opinion) gloating about how an alternative social media site, Gab, has been effectively shut down by internet and financial service providers. Before those of you who disagree with the ideas and people found on the Gab web site start giggling with glee over their predicament, maybe we should examine the matter a little closer. I’ve said this before, but it is worth repeating: we should be particularly concerned when those who control the means of speech use it to effectively limit speech – even that of our opposition.
Some of my concern emanates from the implication that Gab is simply a private haven for right-wing zealots (who, by the way, have just as much of a right to exist and communicate their views/opinions as the rest of us), and thus deserves to be shut down. For instance, this quote from a Wired article on the Gab social site:
However, it was not the purpose of Gab to isolate anyone. The isolation is instead an unintended consequence of such people being systematically excluded from mainstream mechanisms for personal expression. What if left-wing thought had been excluded from social media platforms? How would Gab have evolved then? Demonizing a group for being isolated – particularly when that isolation was not self-imposed – and using this as justification for silencing their opinions is wrong.
Another, more serious concern is the denial of basic services required for speech to be heard. What if phone companies refused to provide you telephone service because they didn’t like what you might say, or simply left you off of all their phone directories and directory assistance systems? What if banks refused to allow you the ability to process financial transactions for the same reason? What if this was a coordinated effort among Internet service providers specifically to silence some opinions? This appears to be what is happening to Gab. According to a Washington Post story, Gab has been: banned from a popular online payment processing system; given 24 hours to move their domain to another provider; and had both their internet service provider and hosting service suspend or pull their service.
Some might argue that Gab should simply find a different service provider, hosting company, or even bank under these circumstances. But what if someone refused to bake a cake because of the message it sent – say, a wedding cake for a homosexual couple? Would you say the same to them – that they should simply find another provider? I think not; why, then, is that an acceptable response now?
When the mechanisms for popular speech are used in such a way that some few get to say who can speak and what can be said, we are violating the spirit of free speech enshrined in our constitution. When these mechanisms are part of a limited resource with significant barriers to entry for the common people, and as a result are effectively able to shut down speech, then these mechanisms should be regulated as the oligarchy that they have become.
Think of it this way: What are you going to do when it is your opinion being silenced? And if you’re too dim to realize that possibly, then fear not; you will eventually get exactly what you deserve.