Twitter vs. the First Amendment in Social Media Censorship
October 24, 2020
Tags: 1A, Censorship, New York Post, Social Media, Twitter
Posted in: Democracy

Twitter and Facebook are the censors the Founders feared when they wrote the First Amendment. In the 18th century, none of those forward-thinking men could have envisioned a day when technology and global corporations would overshadow the power of governments to control information. But that day is here, and @jack and his colleagues are trying to steal an election for Joe Biden in real time.
The social media giants this week tried to disappear a story from the
New York Post claiming Hunter Biden had sold access to his father Joe to a Ukrainian company. I’m afraid to include a link to the story, for fear this article too will be blocked and made to disappear. See, you can’t tweet a link to the Post’s story or send it as a direct message on Twitter and you can’t post it on Facebook without some sort of red flag. If you’re an unimportant person your message will just be blocked. If you are important, like the White House press secretary, @Team Trump, or a conservative
journalist trying to report out the fuller story, your account will be locked. The
NY Post, one of the largest mass circulation dailies, can’t
RT its own article on Twitter. In my case, I was
life banned from Twitter years ago, censored so broadly I can’t even buy a ticket for this ride. Orwell of course anticipated all this, creating the term “
unperson” for someone erased from society. But he, too, did not anticipate the power of the electronic media companies or he would have likely also created the term “unthought.”
The goal of Twitter and Facebook censorship is unthought, to make the
NY Post story go away to the extent possible, and to delegitimize it as much as possible in those spaces the giants do not yet control because it might hurt Biden’s chances in the election. They have reimagined free speech as a
liability to democracy. They have also crossed some border into the bizarro world by claiming the
NY Post story is unproven after years of pressing untrue Russiagate stories into the public conscious, and after featuring
NYT stories on Trump’s taxes based on purloined documents never made public. They have given voice to their self-created Blue Check experts who, simply based on imagination, claim the Post story has been spiked directly into the American vein by the Russians. The latter is especially insidious, using a fully disproven story (the Russians controlled the 2016 election) to support another new unproven accusation. This is sadly consistent with another blow to democracy, the media’s
abandonment of any commitment to objectivity in favor of ideological activism. This election, there is a Right Candidate and a Wrong Candidate and it is the media’s job to use the tools of censorship, propaganda, and now unthought to direct your vote accordingly.
We have no protection. For something like this to be unconstitutional or illegal, the
denial has to come from the government. Facebook and others can deny speech rights anytime they want. We now know the argument only the government is covered by the 1A has reached its limit. Technology and market dominance give great power with no responsibility to a handful of global companies even as the law hides behind the simplicity of the 18th century. That way of thinking requires you to believe that Facebook, et al, would never act as a proxy, barring viewpoints on behalf of a politician who would not be allowed to do it himself.
We are approaching a time when the freedom to speak will no longer exist independent of the
content of speech. What you’re allowed to say could depend on media’s opinion of how it will affect others, in this case, electing Joe Biden. Maybe you like Joe, but do I really have to include here “but what about the next time they use this power, maybe against something believe in?”
For those muttering “it can’t happen here,” look how American tech companies are already employing their tools to serve the 1A-free
China market’s social control needs. Companies exist to make money. You can’t count on them past that. Handing over free speech rights to an entity whose core purpose has nothing to do with free speech means it will inevitably quash ideas when they conflict with profits; it just happens to be going your way right now. Those who gleefully celebrate that the anthropomorphized @jack and good old ‘Zuck are not held back by the 1A and can censor at will seem to believe they will always yield power in the way “we” want them to. And trading away a little free speech, especially from a journalistic roach like the NY Post seems reasonable compared to another four years of Trump.
It makes sense for them to unabashedly mainstream unthought and censorship Because Trump. Never before have a large number of Americans feared a politician more. Trump isn’t just against what you are for, he is someone literally out to kill you, via COVID, via some war, your life is in danger. He is not just bad, he is a pure strain of evil without goodness, like a pedophile.
Google first introduced censorship in the most well-intentioned way: to stop child predators. The Internet giant tweaked its search results to block sites it believed linked to child porn. It went on to do the same for terrorist sites, and sites that encouraged suicide. But Google can skew search results any way it wants. It knows the higher an item appears on a list of search results, the more users will click on it. In a test, placing links for one candidate above another in a rigged search increased the undecided voters who chose that candidate by 12 percent. Burying an idea can have a similar effect; 21st century free speech is as much about finding an audience as it is about finding a place to speak. Censorship in the 21st century targets both speakers (example: Twitter blocks someone) and listeners (Google hides that person’s articles). There will soon be no fear anyone will lock up dissident thinkers in some old-timey prison to silence them; impose a new Terms of Service and they are effectively dead. As are their ideas.
The argument Twitter, Facebook, and Google are private companies, that no one forces you to use their services, and in fact you are free to switch to MySpace, is an out-of-date attempt to justify end runs around the First Amendment. Platforms like Twitter are the public squares of the 21st century (seven of 10 American adults use a social media site), and should be governed by the same principles, or the First Amendment will become in practical terms irrelevant.
Pretending a corporation with the reach to influence elections is just another company that sells stuff is to pretend the role of unfettered debate in a free society is outdated. These corporations understand their power to influence. They feel morally required in using it for partisan goals. They have exercised it for Joe Biden. When that happens, elections can be stolen in real time. Just watch.
Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Mr. Robert H Stiver said...
1First time for me at this site. I enjoyed the (difficult, for me) read. But who is the author? Peter Van Buren? Why not attribute the commentary appropriately? (Is PVB the sole user of this space and thus it’s “obvious” that he’s the author?)
10/24/20 2:41 PM | Comment Link
wemeantwell said...
2Welcome, Robert! This is my site and unless clearly noted, everything here is my work. Please check out the “Author” page if you want to know more about me.
10/25/20 9:29 AM | Comment Link
John Poole said...
3It must annoy Mark Zuckerberg that he is expected to feel morally obligated to use his accumulated clout to help a thoroughly corrupt, lesser-evil, loser pol like Joe Biden. Zuckerberg has to be thinking- why not me as POTUS?
Political parties per se might disappear. Maybe corporations will compete for complete and direct control over vast land masses like powerful princes in feudal times.
10/25/20 10:54 AM | Comment Link
Joe said...
4John: While some business types like Trump or Michael Bloomberg clearly want to be in the spotlight, I think most others are smart enough to remain content pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Governing (or pretending to govern) a country is a messy business, so why not let bought and paid for politicians (of both parties) do the grunt work and then just reap the benefits?
10/26/20 11:27 PM | Comment Link
John Poole said...
5Joe: It is not impossible that the tradition of a POTUS will be eventually jettisoned like the Czar tradition in Russia (Putin is determined to rekindle a defunct ruling format? Who will be America’s Rasputin to shepherd America’s final”first family”into obsolescence? I think Franklin Graham saw himself in the Rasputin role but that is not going to happen.
10/27/20 5:13 PM | Comment Link