Mediaboss Marketing

If [Donald] Trump and [Bernie] Sanders take the same position on Big Tech censorship, David Catron writes at The American Spectator, the issue deserves serious attention.

Hes right, but in pretty much the opposite of the way he intends. When the mainstream right and left agree on anything, thats almost always a blazing neon sign warning us that our freedoms are under threat.

Catron (and Trump and Sanders) want the U.S. government to seize control of social media platforms and dictate which users those platforms must accept and what kind of content those platforms must permit publication of. They dont put it quite that baldly, of course, but who would? Their cause is implicit in their criticisms of Big Tech as a monopoly, which requires government regulation to promote competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Social media platforms arent monopolies. If you dont like Facebook or Twitter, you can go to Minds, MeWe, Diaspora, Mastodon, Gab, Discord, et al.

The U.S. government, however, is a monopoly. Everyones forced to do business with it, and in many areas it forcibly forbids or limits competition with its own offerings.

Arguments in favor of government regulation of social media platforms arent arguments against monopolies. Theyre arguments in favor of extending the government monopolys reach into new markets.

In this case, markets constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and by that amendments codification in statute vis a vis the Internet, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Social media platforms banning and content moderation decisions arent censorship.

Censorship is you cant say that.

You cant use out platform to say that isnt censorship.

If you tell me I cant sing my favorite Irish ballad and that if I do youll have me arrested (assuming you have the power to do so), thats censorship.

If you tell me I cant sing Foggy Dew on your front porch at midnight, thats not censorship. Im free to sing it on my own front porch, or on the sidewalk, or at karaoke night at the local bar.

By way of arguing the point, some of my friends point out that politicians bully major internet platforms into censoring by proxy. The popular example is Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, successfully leaning on Amazon Prime Video to remove anti-vaccine documentaries.

My friends are right. Its a problem. Politicians attempting to compel platforms to host speech they dont want to host is the flip side of the same problem, not a different problem.

Whatever the solution to that problem may be, repeal of the First Amendment or reform of Section 230 arent part of it.

Ideally, bad actors like Schiff, Trump and Sanders would be impeached and removed from office, or charged with conspiracy against rights (18 US Code 241), or both.

Barring that, we should work to ensure that these evil-doers lose in Congress, in the courts and at the ballot box. We mustnt sacrifice internet freedom, or freedom of speech and press in general, to politicians and their schemes.

THOMAS L. KNAPP is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. Email him at media@thegarrisoncenter.org. Follow @thomaslknapp on Twitter.

View original post here:
THOMAS L. KNAPP: Internet censorship is the real monopoly threat - Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal