Tuesday, October 27, 2020

How to Limit Social Media's Power without Growing Government

By Peter St. Onge - October 27, 2020 at 10:01AM


Censorship by private companies is a topic that divides free-marketers but has suddenly become important in the wake of Twitter and Facebook’s recent attempts to squash a New York Post story alleging corruption in the Biden family. Last year, economist James Miller argued that, just as the power company can’t turn off your electricity for being a Trump supporter, social media companies shouldn’t be able to silence you for your political opinions. Others have argued that companies can silence whomever they like because it’s their company. This is a red herring that misses the fact that reform would actually reduce government intervention, by narrowing something called Section 230 immunity.

First, what free-marketers agree on: regulation of speech by government is both unconstitutional and a very bad idea. From 1949 to 1987, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” rule was used to utterly silence the right – Rush Limbaugh was still a salesman for the Kansas City Royals until Reagan finally repealed the rule, and Murray Rothbard famously could fit the entire libertarian movement in a living room. The Doctrine’s repeal opened the floodgates for talk radio, then Fox News, and now content from the Mises Institute to Prager University to the Babylon Bee. Given that the vast majority of Federal workers remain partisan Democrats -- the “Deep State,” if you will, hasn’t changed its colors – reimposing regulation of speech likely means a return to socialist domination of speech.

However, actual solutions being proposed involve, not more regulation, but less. In particular, narrowing an immunity that was granted to online platforms in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This was a special immunity from liability for user-posted content, so long as the company was acting as a platform open to all comers – think “common carrier” rules like the phone company.

Ironically, an original selling point of Section 230 was to prevent censorship, by creating a safe harbor so companies could let people express themselves online. And that’s how Section 230 worked for the first 20 years, on the understanding that active censorship would convert an online platform into a publisher with the same liability exposure as, say, a newspaper.

From a business perspective, this platform vs publisher distinction was existential for social media companies. Because liability exposure would mean either ruinous lawsuits for crazy things users say, or it would require an army of content moderating lawyers to meticulously pre-approve the 500 million tweets per day that are sent on Twitter. This meant, up until 2016, that social media companies were very careful to maintain a hands-off policy, allowing essentially all legal speech so they don’t lose that shield.

This started changing in 2016, as Progressive pressure was brought against social media companies for the sin of giving voice to conservatives during the Brexit referendum, followed soon after by Donalds Trump’s election victory. Meanwhile, individual judges increasingly interpreted 230 more broadly as permitting censorship-at-will. In fact, European regulators actually started requiring censorship for any speech individual regulators personally regarded as too right-wing. This, unfortunately, built a broad censorship capability in social media companies.

Given the existential importance of the shield, social media companies started gradual, demonetizing users so they couldn’t earn money on their channels. They moved on to outright bans, again starting gradual by banning intentionally provocative users like former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolos and Alex Jones of Infowars, and now on to increasingly mainstream users including, last week, the largest conservative newspaper in the US, the New York Post.

Because a divided Congress won’t rewrite 230, practical reform involves narrowing 230 immunities so egregious censorship becomes, once again, a bad choice for social media. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has openly wished for a test-case so the Court can do this, while market-friendly FCC director Ajit Pai has proposed rules narrowing 230 immunities back to what they used to be.

These solutions highlight that social media censorship isn’t a binary question of market-vs-regulation, rather it’s a question of an existing government intervention being now used to censor rather than give voice. Indeed, the pure free-market position would be repealing 230 altogether, so that Twitter or Facebook face the same liability as the New York Post or, indeed, as you and I.

The alternative to reforming 230, of course, is to leave it to the market. After all, Myspace was the dominant platform until Facebook came along. Unfortunately, the market isn’t as compeitive as it used to be. Conservative-friendly social media startups such as Gab and Parler have faced a gauntlet of harassment and chokepoints, from being denied bank accounts or payment accounts to being denied essential services like web hosting or hacker protection. Given the recent explosion in corporate “wokeness,” this harassment isn’t going away, in fact is likely to increase.

Beyond harassment and the natural network effects of social media, there are other anti-competitive tactics that hobble new entrants. Facebook itself rose by “scraping” user information from Myspace, something it now forbids, and other social media companies have copied this anti-competitive strategy. Meanwhile, Facebook in particular buys promising competitors like Instagram or WhatsApp, essentially buying an insurance policy against future competition. As a result, the competitive landscape in social media has changed markedly from the Myspace era. Of course, regulators could punish these strategies with aggressive anti-trust but, again, that brings government uncomfortably close to patrolling speech, so it’s playing with fire.

At this point, there is broad consensus that censorship is problematic – not only among libertarians and conservatives, but fully 76% of Americans think tech has too much influence on political discourse – just 6% think too little. Progressives would never tolerate being silenced by a roomful of activists at Twitter or Facebook, and neither should we.

Doing what we can to help narrow Section 230 immunities back to a free speech interpretation could solve this while actually reducing government involvement in speech. While naively throwing up our hands and hoping some free-speech startup someday survives the woke gauntlet is equivalent to quitting the field of ideas while the other side is very much on the march.

Reprinted with permission from Mises.org.

from Ron Paul Institute Featured Articles


No comments:

Post a Comment


Ron Paul America Cloud

Site Credits

Ron Paul America

is voluntarily affiliated with

Liberty Operations Group


Site created, maintained and hosted by

Liberty Web Services


#TurnOnTheTruth 2008 2012 4th amendment 911 ACTION Afghanistan war Agency Aggression Principle al-Qaeda Alan Colmes Alert America America's Fault Americans antigun AR 15 assault weapon Audit Authoritarian bailouts Believe Big Brother big government bill of rights Blame blowback bubbles Bush Campaign for Liberty Career Politician Eric Cantor Central Bank Charity China churches collapse Collectivism Commission committee Compassion Congress Conservative constitution Crash dangerous person Democrat Democrats Donald Trump Donald Trump. Planned Parenthood drones economic Economy Edward Snowden End the Fed European Union Federal Reserve Floyd Bayne floyd bayne for congress force foreign interventionism free market free markets GOP Nominee GOP Presidential Debates Government Great Depression gun control House of Representatives housing bubble HR 1745 I like Ron Paul except on foreign policy If ye love wealth better than liberty IFTTT Individual Individualism Institute Irag Iran Iraq war ISIL ISIS Judge Andrew Napalitano libertarian Liberty Liberty Letters Liberty Report Lost mass Media meltdown metadata Micheal Moore Middle East Mitt Romney nap National Neocons New Ron Paul Ad New York Times Newsletters Newt Gingrich No Non non-interventionism NSA NSA Snooping Obama Overreach overthrow Patriot Act peace Peace and Prosperity politicians Pope Francis President Presidential Presidential Race programs prosperity Race Racist Racist Newsletters Rand Paul Read the Bills Act recessions redistribution of wealth refugee crisis Repeal Obamacare Report Republican Republican Nomination Republican Nominee Republicans Revolution Rick Santorum Rick Santorum Exposed Ron Ron Paul Ron Paul Institute Ron Paul Institute Featured Articles Ron Paul Institute for Peace And Prosperity Ron Paul Institute Peace and Prosperity Articles Ron Paul Next Chapter Media Channel Ron Paul Racist Newsletters ron paul's foreign policy Ronald Reagan ronpaulchannel.com ronpaulinstitute.org Rosa DeLauro russia Samuel Adams Saudi Arabia Second Amendment Security Senate Senator September 11th attacks Show Soviet Spying stimulate Stock Market surveillance Syria tech bubble terrorist The the Fed the poor US US foreign policy Us troops USA Freedom Act Virginia Virginia Republican Primary voluntarism. Liberty Voluntary Warner Warning warrantless wiretaps YouTube