Dennis Prager's Conservative Hypocrisy
If you have blaze TV, watch it here if not, listen to the interview here.
Another free speech in private domain post.. I do not address a lot of arguments and ideologies on the left because there are those who probably do it better than I could, I do not really have an itch to try my hand at it, and those positions are personally seen as differences in world-views instead of the result of faulty logic. Perhaps even worldview differences are the result of faulty logic somewhere along the line, but that is a subject that does not concern the purpose of this post.
On Saturday nights, Glenn Beck is broadcast on the local conservative radio station. Tonight, 9/14/2019, he was talking to Dennis Prager from PragerU. Perhaps the interview dealt with a lot more than this subject, but from the point I joined, this was the only topic covered. The normal arguments were raised against Google, Facebook, etc as well as some attacks on those, on the right, who would dare support an evil company such as google et al ("I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire). I have generally found it to be a great tactic to use when addressing those who disagree with me - vilify them while overlooking my own principles.
To my thinking, there are two questions Prager's position must pass in order to be an ethical endeavor. First, is the picture painted an accurate one, and second, even if accurate, do the unintended consequences outweigh the benefits. While I believe that both answers are negative, I only heard the first one addressed on the show. The intent of the following ideas is for those who want government intervention to stop and reassess what their motivations are, to analyze those motivations to see if they are in line with their principles, and finally, to decide for themselves whether the end result is one they would truly be happy in having.
First Question's Constituencies
Prager said, or implied, the following about the state of social media as it relates to free speech concerns (seeing as this is from memory, I will correct any inconsistencies I, or anyone else with sources, find):
1) Collusion against conservatives
2) There are no other comparable options
3) You are guaranteed to reach a significant percentage of the market
4) Companies can and should moderate ALL content, and thus be liable for libel, otherwise they cannot moderate anything
5) Social media companies are publishers and should be treated as such
1) While there are some other "bad actors" who are on the left and either denied a platform or monetary returns, the instances of censorship of the right seem to be on looser and harder to define grounds - by this I mean instead of content being sexually graphic or hitting 'x' number of swear words, the ideas are found to be what is reprehensible... so? Do we, as a society, actually think it is a good idea for government to decide which ideas are approved of and which are not? This is exactly what this argument pushes for because a line has to be drawn somewhere.
The Question I always ask at this point is: at what point is the line where the customer's freedom of speech is enforced and the owner's speech and liberty are infringed upon? Is it upon buying your home that you must allow offensive speech on your property? Is it when you open a business that the government can insist the rights of other individuals trumps your own? Is it when you decide to install a bulletin board on that business's wall? Or perhaps it is when you create a virtual space for customers to interact that you lose the right to dictate what speech is permitted. Most, who hold this position, will insist that it is when an entity holds a certain percentage of the market but this has its own issues: there are laws for this already (monopolies) and what is the percentage this occurs?
2) This is one of the bigger hypocrisies of the group, betrayal of free market capitalism ideas, and perhaps an embarrassing and worrisome admission: either liberals outnumber conservatives or conservative ideas are weak - both leading to the same result of being unable to win on ideas alone so must resort to government intervention. I do understand the hurdles involved when starting a media and social interaction site - not as well as those who have attempted to do so, but I admit they exist. With that said, is the American dream predicated upon there being zero hurdles or perhaps we are the leader of the free world because we believe in adding hurdles to those dominating the market ahead of us? Is this not the epitome of crony capitalism?
Looking at the actual marketplace, there are a number of startups which have been gaining traction and market share. There have also been battles taking place on the platforms themselves which are bringing about slow but positive changes. There have even been a growing number of those on the middle and left which are speaking out against this activity and, most likely, helped lead to the win of President Trump in 2016.
3) Nowhere in the constitution am I aware of it making a reference to one's rights being violated if 10% vs 100% of the market being reached. Thinking to the time period of the founding, an individual could only reach a handful of people at once. If the argument is that one's reach must be equal or comparable to another's, where is this found in the constitution? Conservatives are supposed to be for constitutionally based governmental action but I see none of that here. If anything, they are undermining the balance of power setup by the constitution since there is court precedent concerning these issues (found in number 5 below).
4) This is, in essence, a governmental takeover of social media since this would necessitate a change in business practices, at the most fundamental level. Businesses will now be open to lawsuits if something false is put up on their platform. This, while bringing a grinding halt to all social media, would require immense overhead to hold all content until it could be seen to by a team of lawyers and verified for authenticity. Not only this absurdity, but there would be un unprecedented increase in suits submitted against these social media companies and those on them who are rich (possible false statement made by Dennis Prager and covered in section 1 under "The Unintended Consequences").
5) Due to some of the issues raised above, in section c, paragraph 2, subparagraph A of 47 US Code § 230 (and a brief history of its birth here), protections are provided for digital companies. For convenience:
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
What is pornography? Famously, it was said that, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." What does "obscene, lews, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" mean EXACTLY? Are these terms not also subjective? Can you imagine the nightmare scenario if social media companies WERE treated like publishers? If anything, treating social media companies as publishers would have EVEN MORE people banned from social media BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FROM THE CONTENT. (section mainly provided to combat the section 230 arguments and is again covered below in section one under "The Unintended Consequences")
Question One, Accurate?
I think it is quite obvious that I do not believe the picture painted by Dennis Prager to be even slightly accurate on a single count. However, question two remains unaddressed.
The Unintended Consequences
As stated before, even if all concerns and fears are accurate concerning social media's treatment of conservatives, we need to look at the possible consequences if pursuing government intervention - you do not want to rear end the individual who cuts you off even if he/she deserves it.
What follows assumes that those who are for these governmentally enforced changes are operating in good faith - i.e. they believe the shit being dished out. As a result, there are natural progressions and reactions that can be predicted and addressed.
1) A slowing for faux morons: One of the assertions made by Prager dealt with changing the status of these social media companies to that of publisher and so opening them up to legal suits. The natural tendency of most living things is to protect from unnecessary risk so it seems to me that anyone who thinks this change will grease the rails for conservatives is an utter moron. Since Dennis Prager is not a moron, I believe he is using this as a stick to drive social media sites to letting him, and others, have as much freedom as those with more 'palatable' views enjoy. Seems to be a short-sighted bitch move, but that is another matter. I am personally not a fan of advocating for laws you hope do not get enacted.
2) Scope: As stated above, how does one decide which business entity qualifies for this special treatment? Would minds have to let everyone post even though I only see the same dozen or so folks each day vs the millions on other sites? Or is it market share? If so, at what percentage do you lose the right to moderate? Would there be a government issued T.O.S.? If not, how do you allow punishment of users but still protect against political bias?
3) Startups: Is it going to make it easier or harder for companies to enter the market if they don't have the content of established companies and cannot draw user via funds received from investors and advertisers? Currently, the draw for Minds is that it is a free speech platform and people are currently leaving the big ones because they are not.
4) Adpocalypse V3: or maybe we are on version four now... ridiculous. If everyone has to be admitted to social media, it would seem to reason that there would need to also be advertisements on everyone's content (an utter nightmare) otherwise it is another form of banning/punishing ideas. A grand total of zero companies will want to sponsor white supremacists (I sadly do not think I can say the same for other supremacist groups but maybe I am wrong), but you cannot allow that to happen, for the previously stated reason, so what do you do? You have to pay them from your own profits, but then you are directly subsidizing ideas you find reprehensible. There are more issues here, and more complexity to explore, but that should be enough to at least get the ball rolling.
5) Advertisements: Had to mention this again, in its own section due to how absolutely horrible the scenario is. YouTube and Facebook are getting bad enough without it being on absolutely every page and/or post. Please, do not allow this to happen!
Alternatives/Solutions
A popular idea in the military is to not voice a complaint unless a solution is ready to be provided as well.. so:
1) Grow the fuck up: There seem to be some taking this approach via fighting the powers where they are and starting their own alternatives.
2) Seriously, grow the fuck up: It is complete hypocrisy to be against government intervention until you are the one getting picked on. Has anyone ever wondered if this is the leftists plan? To piss conservative off so badly, they turn on their principles which then ushers in the very government they have fought all along? One who has absolute control over the citizenry?
3) What if the government were to create its own social media platform? After the stellar rollout of the healthcare site, it should be a thing of beauty. What arguments would these people have then? I am assuming there would still be market share issues, but where is that a guarantee? I think this is an absolutely horrible idea (social score.. I see you China), but it is one which would provide a way for the government to ensure that every single person has the ability to voice their opinions. There are still issues with taxation being used for frivolous pursuits, but, like a border wall, it is possible to argue this under First Amendment protections.
----
This was an absolutely draining endeavor. I was working on this in between other tasks at work. I apologize in advance for those ideas that I see as absolutely crystal clear but are as clear as mud... I sometimes forget that others don't have the benefit of my internal thoughts to provide context. Anyway, sincerely looking forward to feedback and, I hope that if you find yourself on the side of wanting government intervention, you take the above barbed comments in the way they were intended: a friendly poke in the ribs. If not, I'll try to be a bit understanding to any heat coming my way.