Let the internet trolls weep
History has so many turning points it’s easy to lose track. A book on my desk lists decisive battles on every single day of the year. But the choice to ban a sitting American president from major social media represents a significant moment for the internet, and not for the obvious reasons.
It might seem simple because Trump capped a long string of revolting conduct by promoting sedition, and Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and Google are private firms. And while having to ban a sitting U. S. president is certainly bizarre, the problem arose in the short run because he should not have been president.
I always opposed his election. And how Nancy Pelosi could declare him a clear and present danger, including on nuclear grounds, then saunter off for the weekend instead of impeaching him on the spot I have no idea. But in banning Trump, the social media giants definitively unmasked themselves as publishers not platforms, and there’s no turning back.
For starters, Jordan Peterson noted, they haven’t banned the president of Iran. And they host any number of other bad actors who unmistakably promote violence. They cannot continue to do so for reasons that go beyond consistency or decency. And the internet will never be the same again.
The change is not the one captured by that clever cartoon of the evolving Twitter icon acquiring a Democratic donkey head in 2021. For these publishers to lean left may be commendable or it may not. But while it’s not censorship, despite many claims to the contrary, we’re not out of the legal woods because there are legitimate binding restraints on speech.
Specifically, governments forbid spreading libel and sedition, and rightly so. Uh, unless you’re a social media giant, in which case Section 230 of the U. S. Communications Decency Act shelters you from the obligations placed on everyone else.
It is a weird reflection of the libertine- liberal left that it discards almost every aspect of personal responsibility including this one then gapes in horror at the result. And to compound the weirdness, one politician who long advocated repealing 230 was a certain horrifyingly irresponsible Donald J. Trump.
NBC just ran a piece by a “human rights technologist,” a job I did not know existed, saying “Had Trump succeeded in his yearslong effort to change the law … it’s entirely possible that the platforms on which his supporters organized their riots would have kicked them off long ago or been sued into doing so.” Which you’d think was an argument in favour although the HRT instead denounced capitalism as racist and oppressive then endorsed censorship. But never mind.
The point is, as publishers these media giants should not be free to spread second- hand filth or threats. Of course I realize they can’t read everything their users post any more than Youtube can watch all the videos people upload, so putting them under the same rules as every other firm would be very bad news for their business model. But I’m not some politician in the pocket of wellheeled lobbyists so I say too bad. If your business model is unsound, even illegal, you better start Googling “job opportunities” like the rest of us.
Speaking of illegality, a further major complexity is that when the online Establishment hurled Trump out the window, his true believers rushed to alternative platforms including Parler, which Apple and Google promptly removed from their app stores and servers. Which is dangerously double-edged.
It’s a legitimate publishing choice not to give space to voices you deplore. And while trying to turn the whole internet into Wokeland will fuel paranoia on the right, it’s just too bad for the right as far as the publishing decision goes. If you don’t like what a bookstore sells, don’t shop there. Start your own. Which is precisely why the uncompetitive behaviour is a whole other story.
The problem isn’t “censorship.” It’s predatory behaviour that governments normally forbid and prosecute. Some libertarians dispute the effectiveness and even necessity of antitrust law. But it certainly exists, and must be invoked even for huge Silicon Valley firms with whom liberal politicians form a mutual admiration society.
It is easy to focus on politics especially where the spectacle of Donald Trump is concerned. But since a major complaint about Trump is that many of his followers abandoned their principles and their IQS, it would be ironic as well as destructive for his critics to do the same.
We must recognize the major social media platforms as publishers and treat them accordingly including on libel, sedition and antitrust law. If you like their publishing choices, by all means continue to patronize them. But they can no longer be two- faced about it, in public or in court.
The internet will never be the same. And trolls everywhere will weep. Let them.
RECOGNIZE THE MAJOR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AS PUBLISHERS.