Monday, September 10, 2018

Danger ahead

Brendan O'Neill

First Facebook and YouTube and now Twitter: all the social-media giants have banned Alex Jones and Infowars. Many so-called liberals are cheering these acts of corporate censorship, this unilateral enforcement of correct-speak by some of the most powerful corporations on Earth.

This is folly of epic proportions. These people are giving a green-light to Big Tech to install itself as the moral arbiter of public discussion. Because let’s face it: the internet, particularly social media, is where public discussion takes place today. It is the new public square.

Asking unaccountable capitalists to control what may be said in this public square is wrong and dangerous. We’re entering an era of outsourced censorship, where the terrible things once done by the state – the silencing of dissenters, the punishment of the eccentric – is now done by Silicon Valley suits.

Who knows which ideas will next be branded ‘hate speech’ – that is, ‘verboten’ – by these corporate censors. It will happen. Soon. They have been given the power by foolish liberals to act as judge, jury and executioner on online speech, and they will use that power.



ScienceABC123 said...

When a social media platform bans people for telling the truth, what they're doing is promoting lying. It's time to find another platform...

Anonymous said...

When Social Media starts moderating the message they take RESPONSIBILITY for the message. That's actually the LAW.

Anonymous said...

Paul is right.
This just plays into the echo-chamber mentality of so many on the left.
People will unpopular views will abandon Facebook for other option - just leaving the self-congratulatory chattering of socialism and newspeak on the site.
So, what is the new destination of choice for the right?

C. S. P. Schofield said...

"When Social Media starts moderating the message they take RESPONSIBILITY for the message. That's actually the LAW."

I'm not sure that it is the law, but it could and should be. The 'Social Media' duck a lot of trouble by assuring that they are not responsible for the content they host, and that's probably a good thing. But if they meddle in what can be posted beyond a very basic "Nothing blatantly illegal" level (no child porn, no credible threats of violence, etc), then they should be held to be a liable as a Newspaper is for the articles it prints.

That would allow them to assume the role of molding public opinion if they are willing to also assume the responsibility and financial risk. That would be fair.

It would also NOT put the power of censorship (even negative censorship) in the hands of the government, which cannot be trusted with it.

Anonymous said...

I despise Political Correctness !