I am deeply troubled by left-leaning social media (and other) companies attempting to limit speech through platform censorship, and by the double-standard applied when it comes to censorship of partizan political opinion. Their treatment with respect to President Trump’s messaging in regards to the capital protestors is the latest example of this one-sided treatment. That’s not to say I agree with the President’s opinions or comments, only that he has the right to express them without censorship.
Here’s an example:
Facebook blocks Trump indefinitely after Capitol riot response
“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Zuckerberg said in a statement Thursday. “Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”
And where were you when Antifa rioters stormed Portland and Seattle, Mr. Zuckerberg? How many Antifa or BLM members, and their political supporters, did you kick off of your site as a result of those very destructive riots? And just what are the “risks” that have brought you to this decision to ban Trump’s comments? That the President might be heard and his claims believed? Who are you to determine what others are allowed to hear and believe, true or not? People can, and should, think for themselves, and your firm should not interfere with that process.
Silencing opinions with which you do not agree and leaving no other but your own for people to accept is the height of arrogance; it is also a tactic that will not work. It is precisely when people believe that they are not being heard that they resort to the violent protests we saw yesterday at the capital. You are doing no one a favor by silencing the opinion of the President and his supporters on social media, you are simply pushing their voice into isolation to fester unquestioned.
I apply the same rules to the right as I do to the left (unlike you, Mr. Zuckerberg): peaceful protests are acceptable, violent protests are not. The actions of rioters at the capital yesterday was unacceptable, no question. However, unless Trump clearly incited the protestors to riot – which by the Trump statements I’ve read he did not, even granted his continued claim of a “stolen” election – his speech should be as protected as any other and he should be allowed to express it without fear of reprisal or censorship.
Now, in Mr. Zuckerberg’s defense, Facebook is a private company and can restrict use of its platform if it pleases. However, Facebook enjoys the protections of Section 230 by virtue of not restricting its content beyond the offensive or indecent – it acts not as a publisher, selecting and choosing what to publish, but rather as a printer for all to use. But if Facebook wants to exert control over content, then it’s time these protections are lifted. They are either a privately controlled publisher subject to libel laws, or a public forum for all speech with the protections offered by Section 230. Facebook should not have it both ways.
Here’s another example of a censorship action, albeit a “sideways” attack on speech:
Shopify closes websites associated with Trump following riots
How would you feel if your storefront landlord decided he didn’t like your speech regarding a particular political position, and so locked you out of your store? Because that’s exactly what Shopify is digitally doing, as noted in the above-cited story. And in doing so – much like when Google demonetizes web sites over their content – they prevent revenue streams that support the speech in question. Such actions are no less censorship than any other form.
Finally, today a slew of additional censorship actions were taken – including this one preventing users from downloading an app required to use Twitter’s new, censorship-free competitor, Parler:
Google suspends Parler app from Play Store over failure to moderate egregious content
A disturbing excerpt from this story:
A spokesperson for Google confirmed in a statement to Fox News that its “longstanding policies” require that apps with user-generated content have measures in place to remove certain obscene content – including posts that incite violence. Developers agree to those terms.
So now Google is the arbiter of what is acceptable on the Internet? Who made them autarch of the Web? What is most disturbing about this action is that Google is currently the subject of a government antitrust suit. How do we know whether they are acting on their own behalf, or on the new administration’s behalf in an attempt to curry favor with respect to the government’s lawsuit? I’ve warned previously about the potential for government censorship via threats of regulation or or other action against private companies; looks like I might have been right.
As far as Trump’s actions go with respect to the protest at the capital, in my (humble) opinion his actions were negligent but not criminal. He certainly did little to stop the protest, and may have even encouraged it. Nor did he act swiftly to calm the protesters and restore order when their protest turned into a riot. But nothing in what I have read regarding his posts and statements expressly encouraged violence or rioting, only protesting a la BLM. This is no different than when Democrat politicians encouraged BLM protests, many of which also turned into violent riots. How many of these Democrat politicians were banned for their efforts to incite violence (I’m betting zero…)?
No one believed that Trump had incited riotous behavior prior to the riot actually occurring. If Trump’s comments had been taken to inspire violence then it would have been obvious to the normal observer, and alarms could have been raised to prepare for the protest. The fact that additional security – which was available from the Army National Guard – was not requested, and no exceptional security steps taken prior to the protest, is proof that no one considered Trump’s statements sufficient to inspire a riot.
The fact is that the responsibility for the violence at the capital protest falls strictly on the rioters – just as is the media’s position when BLM protests turn violent. President Trump was not responsible, no matter his unflattering, anti-Democrat rhetoric.
These attempts to silence Trump and/or his followers are political, and we should see them for what they are: opposition censorship. And opposition censorship is a very worrisome thing – far more worrisome than the narcissistic ramblings of a soon-to-be ex-President acting like a 10-year-old.
(I apologize to all the 10-year-olds I might have offended with that last remark.)