Johnny Rabbit
This rabbit tends to be in favor of free markets, and suspicious of big government meddling and monitoring, in folks' private lives, communications, and exercise of free speech, but after reading about Don Jr.'s troubles with getting his speech squashed,
I have come to believe that the large social media tech companies, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., that have become near monopolies, must now be reigned in, so that no person could be excluded from these communication platforms, because of their political views. In my view, the need to be able to use the internet for social connection and free exchange of ideas and opinions has become as necessary as electricity, water, gas, postal service and garbage pickup. No monopolistic tech company should have the power to take away any person’s social media platform, or to manipulate internet searches, to make that person invisible. This is one of those situations where government protection is needed.
Doc Possum
"Opine, Opossum!" demands Rabbit, poking at the fire. Possum stuck his white nose out of a hollow log:
Old Rabbit holds that social media should be regulated as utility companies are regulated, by the government, to protect free speech.
Me possum thinks Old Rabbit's notion is dangerous to our republic, unworkable, unnecessary, and incredibly statist. Rabbit means well, but perhaps has inhaled too much CampFire smoke. Been burning a lot of bay wood lately, and if my history is correct it was bay leaves that the Oracle of Delphi inhaled. Gave her visions, they say.
Rabbit's Idea is Dangerous to Our Republic
We are talking here about our most central freedom---Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment to the Constitution. Rabbit sez we ought to force Instagram to post DonJr's words, in service of his free speech rights. But the same amendment, very next phrase, forbids Congress from restricting the press. Freedom of the Press is explicitly co-equal, but not quite the same, as Freedom of Speech. Therein lies the rub.
Isn't Facebook the press? Why not? OK, maybe not exactly. Computer technology is changing our lives. How do we deal?
Possum says "Best always to study the past" (In this, Old Pouch is a Conservative: We ought heed what has gone before and worked, and honor it, even though it will always imperfectly model the present.) Social media is much like media of old---newspapers, radio, TV, all revolutionary in their own day. And they are, like Facebook, interactive. Much of their content is provided by the reader/viewer/listeners, just like Facebook. Letters to the editor. Obituaries. Opinions. Local columns. Obituaries. Radio opinion and interviews. TV Infomercials. All content provided by regular people. Don't you suppose these companies select what to publish and what not to? Is it not their prerogative? If not theirs, whose? The Constitution only says this: NOT THE GOVERNMENT. ANYBODY BUT THE GOVERNMENT. Now Rabbit knows this. It rings true in his libertarian soul.
Rabbit's Idea is Unworkable
The internet is vast. There are many, many more social media outlets than Facebook, Instagram, Google, etc. And they will evolve, as they have, and morph and disappear only to appear again. We carry around the internet on the super-computers in our pockets, our cell phones. Would this website be regulated? We are, after all, offering the words not only of the Delta Creatures, but of others who comment on our Campfire discourse. There are endless campfires. Regulating the vastness of the internet is nigh-impossible, at least in any free society.
Rabbit's Idea is Unnecessary
Because the market will work. There are lots of competing social media sites on the internet. Facebook's sign-up rate is falling off.
Lots of folks prefer FoxFire to Bill Gates... Companies provide services to make money. They exist as for-profit businesses. It's likely why Instagram took DonJr's words down, and certainly why they put them back up. They do not want to lose customers, viewers, advertising.
A lot of people love our president (not this particular possum, but many others). "A lot of people" means customers, profits. There is no need to regulate social media. The market will tend to much of this.
Rabbit's Idea Is Statist
Rabbit is quick. It's a rabbit's trick, after all. A rabbit can change direction in a moment, without loosing speed. Throws off the dogs. He's too fast to take most tests. So I'm not surprised at this jump. But as Sir Rabbit His Own Self has said, the idea of regulating social media ain't libertarianism. Nay, it is the opposite--statism. Here we are talking about Soviet Russia, China and North Korea today. Giving the state control over the media is plain insane. What's wrong with Rabbit? Raccoon! Otter Jane! Please somebody get him back away from that CampFire! Those bay fumes have got hold of his brains!
Rabbit
Doc, your arguments are similar in many ways to those made against the Civil Rights act of 1964. Would you allow a company like Google to suppress and hide this discussion, for the simple reason that it might not agree with my views, or yours? If so, could the power company cut off your electricity, for the same reason? I say no. What Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., are doing, it has been shown, is a clear violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech. These companies have become the digital town square, and government must protect our right to Free Speech, in that public forum.
Raccoon
Freedom of Speech is null and void in this age, boys. Why? Because most don’t know if or when they’re interacting with a Chatbot when they post their precious thoughts on social media.
How many are, right now, arguing with a Chatbot on some dark forum at the muddy bottom of the web?
The bot, yeah! He that challenges you in the “comments” section at the bottom of a news article. The Chatbot that pops up when ya try to order that pair of fuzzy socks for yer missus, asking ‘Hi, I’m Chad! Can I help you?”
That ass at the bottom of the news article that pissed ya off with his post?
He’s no liberal snowflake. He’s not a hard-right Nazi. He’s a fukin’ BOT ya scragly swamp rats! A chunk of math that understand what you wrote, and instead of spell correcting ya, or grammar-suggesting ya, has engaged ya in a game of verbal chess. And that bot has in its mind - the agenda of the entity that created it.
And who is that entity? The enemy within? The enemy of old?
The Chatbot has no rights.
The Chatbot has no soul.
But the Chatbot can influence the mind. The country. The election. The leader. The follower. All with the efficiency and conservation of energy of a swarm of wasps.
The bots must be outed, and made visible to the unsuspecting, rights-allocating/rights-denying human idiots that would grant “freedom of speech” to a mathematical algorithm that ‘chats’ with ya whilst yer ordering that cool vintage T-shirt online.
Willin’ ta bet that most of them freedom fighters who want free speech don’t even know what a Chatbot is- and yet they’re voting for its rights! The future is here mates. And it owns ya.
I’m off to watch Terminator. (The original “B-Movie” one with that lo-fi look)
The one where we understood the danger- because we could see the danger.
Over and out.
Raccoon.
RABBIT:
So. All hope is lost. Internet bots will start WW3.
https://www.oann.com/social-media-fake-news-fans-tension-between-india-and-pakistan/.
But Sir Racoon, not all the evil is caused by web bots. There are lefty idealogues, who will do anything to squash the speech of those that oppose their lunatic ideas. The internet and social media have replaced the old-fashioned print media and telephone, as the means by which we communicate ideas. Unfortunately, many folks now rely on Facebook, to receive and send news and opinions. I argue that it has become a utility, like the broadcast wavelength spectrum, and that big D democracy is doomed, if the masters of that media are allowed to censor free speech.
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/02/27/facebook-insider-leaks-docs/
POSSUM:
Uh-oh. Sir Coon just scrambled us up with his hard techno-truths.
Hey, Rabbit: When we invited Raccoon to the CampFire, I thought we wuz gettin’ a thoughtful, plodding, soft-spoken moderate. But this here Coon, he is a wild one.
But that don’t mean he ain’t right. We’re gonna protect the free speech of an algorithm? A batch of bytes? It goes to my argument that regulating internet speech is technically impossible.
It is also debatable whether social media, taking Facebook for example, is particularly Left or Right. Facebook sold $150 million in services to the Trump campaign, sending a company man to the campaign to help, and providing a “market”--a list of targets (people)--upon which the campaign launched armies of bots and machine learners in efforts to get them to vote for the candidate (or to not vote at all). Facebook also sold services to the Russians in their skullduggery. And if the Crazy Socialists of the Left get their way, Mr Zuckerberg’s tax burden will grow heavy. I’m pretty sure Facebook, like most companies, is more about Facebook than it is about politics, Right or Left.