Last week, I asked whether the social media companies that mine our data — which they obtain from our posts — might not expend a little more attention to allowing us to mine our own data with more ease and sophistication.
Today, let’s look at the biggest problem.
Politics.
Facebook and Twitter initially gloried in enabling users to easily communicate political ideas and activism.
Then they realized that people don’t all agree, and that platform headmen Zuckerberg’s and Dorsey’s friends got upset when they lost, blaming Facebook and Twitter for allowing “democracy” to be compromised.
Now, that was overblown. Democracy wins when people use communication technology to convince others — just so long as they do not opt out of democracy’s integral respect for minority rights.
Which is what Democrats accused Republicans — Trump was “obviously” authoritarian.
Which is what Republicans also accused Democrats — and throwing people off a supposedly non-partisan platform for partisan reasons sure looks anti-democratic.
Robby Soave, arguing to the contrary at Reason, says that “Both the Left and the Right Are Exaggerating the Threat Posed by Facebook.” His article’s blurb boasts his thesis: “Facebook can’t kill, jail, or tax you. It can only stop you from posting on Facebook.”
True — but is it true enough? The political ramifications of Facebook’s de-platforming strike me as a great breach of contract — not just a matter of no physical threat. Plus, as mentioned Monday and previously, big tech is not immune to Washington’s political pressure and massive financial clout.
Meanwhile, Mr. Soave quotes Candace Owens, whose advice seems apt to me: “Twitter and Facebook are Fascist companies” that we should be “slowly migrating away from. . . .”
Soave is spot-on to highlight the limits to Facebook’s clout, reminding that we can stop feeding their data mining operations.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
1 reply on “Threat/No Threat”
Thank you, Paul, for pointing out that censorship on these platforms is a breach of contract. I would ask why these platforms, given how they present themselves, are not required to comply with public accommodations laws. People say they are private companies but that doesn’t matter in this case.
Public accommodations, in the law of the United States, are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.
Why shouldn’t these companies be considered ‘service establishments’, just like a hotel or restaurant, and barred from discriminating against individuals and denying them the services given to everyone else?