Big Tech bans and censorship, etc is not about "safety" nor "free speech," it's about PROPERTY

[Murray N Rothbard]

Big Tech bans and censorship, etc is not about "safety" nor "free speech," it's about PROPERTY

The news headlines and online reactions I'm seeing to actions by Twitter, facebook, et al are pretty discouraging. Not only do Liberals of course not get it and continue to drag us down the slippery slope of defending these companies on the grounds of "safety" and "reasonable limits" on free speech, but conservatives are even worse. There is so much outrage and butthurt they are practically inviting government to step in and regulate websites and the internet.

What Twitter, facebook, et al are doing might be annoying but we should defend it, and re-frame the entire issue, as in this article (https://mises.org/power-market/property-rights-vs-freedom-expression?page=1). Ultimately this is not about who or what "should be allowed" on Twitter but who has the right to control of their PROPERTY- their data, their servers, all the physical things keeping them online. This is rightfully theirs and not ours to regulate, same as gold and guns. Whether it's banning Nazis or Conservatives or Donald f'ing Duck, for whatever reason, is irrelevant.

I think strategically this is important for a few reasons. a) Property rights are fundamental to us and a basis for almost every Libertarian position. b) Liberals have no concept whatsoever of property rights and helping them use this defense helps when it's applied to other issues c) Many conservatives seem to be losing their own grasp of what property rights are, and need to accept that it's not always pretty.

Principles exist for this exact type of situation, not for when they're convenient or immediately to our personal benefit, but for when it's difficult, unpopular, even painful to defend them. This why books like Walter Block's "Defending the undefendable" (https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable) are written. We don't "even" defend things like price gouging, prostitutes, drugs, etc, we especially defend them.

/my 2 cents

 

[Peace Piper]

I think strategically this is important for a few reasons. a) Property rights are fundamental to us and a basis for almost every Libertarian position. b) Liberals have no concept whatsoever of property rights and helping them use this defense helps when it's applied to other issues c) Many conservatives seem to be losing their own grasp of what property rights are, and need to accept that it's not always pretty.

Principles exist for this exact type of situation, not for when they're convenient or immediately to our personal benefit, but for when it's difficult, unpopular, even painful to defend them. This why books like Walter Block's "Defending the undefendable" (https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable) are written. We don't "even" defend things like price gouging, prostitutes, drugs, etc, we especially defend them.

There was once a thing called "Anti-Trust"

These companies should have never been allowed to become monopolies, but the US Congress was too busy conspiring to murder foreign leaders to bother with any domestic issues, like the complete domination of the greatest communications tool ever created. Created thanks to huge investments of public tax dollars.

SpiritOf1776 explains it perfectly:

...Of course the tech companies are violating many other laws, and are monopolies. But that is not why the 230 argument was created. It was only created as a first jab at it 4 years ago, before it became worse. Among other things, they are constantly violating intellectual property and copyrights (google couldn't even exist without it), contract fraud on a massive scale, etc - I could easily make a pages long list.

The right response to "but it's their property", is it's on a network created by the united states and a public space. They can go build their own international network, underlining protocol suit, and user base if they don't like it.

And that is the fraud right there. Even malls, genuinely privately built, have more legal protection as a semi public area. But this is a network the government built with your tax dollars, and back in the day - circa 1992/1993, you could be kicked off the network if you discriminated the way these companies have. Existing law for telephone companies, ie, would have likewise made it illegal for them.

A high school business student could see that, without close attention and - yes- regulation, the brand new Internet would become dominated by a few lucky companies.

But in the US circa 2021, absolutely EVERYTHING is for sale. Even truth.

 

[CaptUSA]

The news headlines and online reactions I'm seeing to actions by Twitter, facebook, et al are pretty discouraging. Not only do Liberals of course not get it and continue to drag us down the slippery slope of defending these companies on the grounds of "safety" and "reasonable limits" on free speech, but conservatives are even worse. There is so much outrage and butthurt they are practically inviting government to step in and regulate websites and the internet.

What Twitter, facebook, et al are doing might be annoying but we should defend it, and re-frame the entire issue, as in this article (https://mises.org/power-market/property-rights-vs-freedom-expression?page=1). Ultimately this is not about who or what "should be allowed" on Twitter but who has the right to control of their PROPERTY- their data, their servers, all the physical things keeping them online. This is rightfully theirs and not ours to regulate, same as gold and guns. Whether it's banning Nazis or Conservatives or Donald f'ing Duck, for whatever reason, is irrelevant.

I think strategically this is important for a few reasons. a) Property rights are fundamental to us and a basis for almost every Libertarian position. b) Liberals have no concept whatsoever of property rights and helping them use this defense helps when it's applied to other issues c) Many conservatives seem to be losing their own grasp of what property rights are, and need to accept that it's not always pretty.

Principles exist for this exact type of situation, not for when they're convenient or immediately to our personal benefit, but for when it's difficult, unpopular, even painful to defend them. This why books like Walter Block's "Defending the undefendable" (https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable) are written. We don't "even" defend things like price gouging, prostitutes, drugs, etc, we especially defend them.

/my 2 cents

There are 2 principles at play here. One is property rights and the freedom of association. The other is the right of free speech. Believe it or not, we CAN defend both.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from infringing on your natural right to free speech - it does not grant you that right. You already had it before governments came along. So, if the government is pressuring a company to suppress free political speech, that IS an infringement.

If a company decides they don't want to be associated with a particular point of view, that is perfectly fine. But if they are colluding to actively suppress a political point of view, then they are infringing on the right to free speech. It's not a 1st Amendment violation, but it is still a violation. They should be shamed, boycotted, and if it can be proven that they colluded to violate contracts to suppress a political viewpoint, they should be sued.


This is something that is extremely important to understand right now. We are not in the position of defending either/or. Freedom of association is a primary principle. If my company doesn't want to host Marxist ideology, I shouldn't be forced to. But if I take the extra step of trying to use my power and influence to suppress ideological Marxists from expressing their point of view or communicating with each other, I have now violated their rights. Worse yet, if government is coercing me to suppress their views under threat of regulation, fines, or lawsuits, they are not only violating the rights of my patrons, they are violating my property rights as well.

Be careful not to get this twisted.