EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The right to free association should only apply to companies that have not received state benefits, otherwise it is favoritism
Last Friday, Paypal closed the account of controversial American TV host and “far-right” conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Infowars. In this way, the technology giant joins Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Apple and many others, who closed all his accounts with them within a matter of hours a month ago. As if in a coordinated manner. Now they not only don’t let him talk, but they also don’t let him receive and send money.
Jones is not alone. This purge also affects names like Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, Stefan Molyneux and many other online celebrities on the right who supported President Donald Trump in the last presidential election. That all of this is happening just months before the contested congressional elections in the fall is just a "coincidence", of course.
Given the size of these companies and their status as de facto monopolists in their specific sectors, as well as the predominant left-wing political ideology of their employees and management, being based in California, the logical question cannot help but arise: Is this censorship?
Private companies by label only
No, some in the libertarian movement will say. These are private companies and can sell or refuse their products to whomever they wish, much like the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married. But these examples are not identical.
The scale of tech companies, much greater market power and lack of meaningful competitors compared to the small pastry chef - aside. There are also some qualitative (in addition to quantitative) indicators that distinguish Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Apple from the pastry chef.
First of all, the entire Silicon Valley is built on federal subsidies, tax gifts, and direct funding, not a weak Apple cult leader who hasn't changed his clothes. The prototype of Google, the owner of YouTube, was developed with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), DARPA (the government agency that develops advanced technologies for the US military), and NASA in 1998. Facebook was able to open its first data center in Prineville, Oregon in 2011 thanks to a $42 million income, property, and excise tax holiday.
And Apple was founded with a $500,000 federally guaranteed loan in 1976. It announced in 2012 that it would build a massive new data center in Reno, Nevada, when the state reduced its tax burden by $89 million over the next 10 years. It was the largest such discount in the state’s history. And all this without mentioning that the Internet they operate on is a creation of the US military. Have any of their other right-wing competitors received similar treatment?
The Democratic Party is putting pressure on tech giants, which is 100% government censorship
But that’s not all. The tech giants are in clear cahoots with the Democratic Party. Democratic Congressman Ted Deutsch pressured Facebook and YouTube to ban Infowars just a few months ago. Congressman Mike Quigley of the same party pressured Twitter to remove hashtag references to Paul Joseph Watson’s tweets. And they did. These companies are not private, but quasi-state entities. They are suppressing reasonable criticism of mass migration and Islam as hate speech, with the cooperation of the state.
Once they are funded and built by taxpayers, they lose their right to exclude certain taxpayers from using their services. To do otherwise would constitute favoritism on the part of the state, which would make it illegal. Like a state-owned bank denying you financing because you are a critic of the government.
Furthermore, the distinction must be made that if Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube choose to restrict certain views from their sites, they no longer become legal platforms, but publishers. If they become publishers, their platform license must be revoked.
Platforms or publishers?
The “platform” status, which includes limited editorial authority, was invented so that sites can remove illegal content like some forms of pornography. It’s not there so that they can identify political ideas they don’t like and censor them. Either they protect your First Amendment right to free speech as a publisher, or you’re a platform that’s not responsible for the speech on it. You can’t be both. The moment they become publishers, they’ll be held accountable for any illegal content on their sites, like the verified Hamas account and the Antifa demolition videos.
The decision is far from painful
This problem can be solved very easily and companies will not have to be nationalized or broken up. They provide a public forum. Therefore, they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, age, or religious beliefs. It is time for these anti-discrimination laws to start including the political beliefs of consumers.
