Tag: Twitter

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies Regulating Protest

Gatekeeping 2.0

gate keeper, Jordan Peterson, censor, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, censorship, new media,

There once was opinion hegemony, almost a monopoly. Official gatekeepers kept unwanted ideas — including some of mine, including many I strongly oppose — out of public consideration.

Then came the online media revolution, which switched influence from corporate, academic-approved media outlets to truly new media, like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

And now? The counter-revolution.

We saw it obviously in the downgrade and then banning of Milo Yiannopoulis’s Twitter, last year. Since then, new measures surface on a regular basis.

We helots, we commonfolk, must not be allowed actually to affect an election!

Or the hearts and inquiring minds of Americans, Europeans, and others worldwide.

Unless that opinion has received the imprimatur of the Center-Left.

I’ve written about this return of the Gatekeeper mentality before. The latest malefactor is YouTube, which locked Dr. Jordan Peterson out of his account this week* as well as put in place new policies to hobble the social sharing elements of YouTube.**

A week or so earlier, Patreon, an online crowdfunding patronage web service I’ve been thinking about trying out, cancelled independent journalist Lauren Southern’s account. Patreon managers charged that her most recent endeavor might cause “loss of life,” but, tellingly, “showed no evidence or proof, are allowing no appeal and have acted as judge, jury and executioner” — as one concerned netizen not inaccurately summarized.

The company’s CEO calmly explained himself to Dave Rubin on YouTube. Does he convince you?

I catch a whiff of panic.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Dr. Peterson’s account has since been reinstated, no explanation given.

** You can learn all this and more on YouTube itself — so the platform hasn’t been shut down as such. Instead, a new Artificial Intelligence will restrict videos that do not even break YouTube terms of service, removing Likes, Comments, and Search features.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly national politics & policies

Weiner’s Place in History

Anthony Weiner, sexting, twitter, folly, sex, scandal, Clinton, election, Huma Abedin

As if to finalize the Great Derailment of 2016, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner pleaded guilty in federal court to felony sexting: transferring obscene materials to a 15-year-old girl.

Prosecutors are asking he serve 21 to 27 months in federal prison, register as a sex offender and continue mental health therapy.

Also Friday, Huma Abedin, Weiner’s long-suffering wife, quietly filed an “Anonymous v. Anonymous” petition for divorce.

Though, apparently, not anonymously enough.

Personal train-wreck? Sure. But as I wrote yesterday at Townhall, because it so deeply affected last year’s presidential contest, the wreck is also very public.

Back in 2011, Anthony Weiner made Andrew Breitbart a hero, propelling Breitbart.com into the limelight. Weiner had tweeted a picture of his underwear-clad crotch to a woman . . . who was not his wife. Though quickly deleted from his Twitter account, a screenshot was shared with Breitbart, who ran with the story.

Weiner claimed a hack, challenging Breitbart’s credibility. This spurred Andrew Breitbart to commandeer a news conference called by Weiner — with more evidence to share. Soon, Rep. Weiner admitted his bad behavior and officially resigned his congressional seat.

Fast-forward to 2016, with wife Huma Abedin busy helping Hillary Clinton run for president. Weiner again becomes the subject of a sexting scandal — this time with an underage North Carolina girl. The FBI investigates, seizes Weiner’s laptop and discovers emails on it from Hillary Clinton to his wife, Huma. Then-FBI Director James Comey reopened his investigation of Hillary’s emails just ten days before Election Day.

Upshot? Trump is the 45th U.S. President, with Breitbart.com Editor Steve Bannon as key advisor.

Thanks to Weiner.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Photo of “Anthony Weiner cut-out by the port-a-potties” by Katjusa Cisar on Flickr

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

No One Owns Anybody Else

DePaul University, Black Lives Matter , Social Justice Warriors, Dangerous Faggot Tour, Milo Yiannopoulis , provocative,

“The left does not own homosexuals anymore,” said Milo Yiannopoulos, to a crowd outside the Republican National Convention. And the crowd cheered.

I’ve talked about Milo before. He’s a controversial figure. So much so that Twitter just banned him for life. (That had something to do with his tweets about, of all things, the new Ghostbusters movie, and the racist tweets of his followers directed at one of its stars.)

Openly gay, he nevertheless has his priorities. “Donald Trump is best placed to end the tyranny of political correctness in this country. Many Trump supporters and Republicans have their challenges with the gay thing. But there’s a world of difference between refusing to bake a cake and opening fire” . . . at gay men and women in a nightclub.

There’s a lot to be said of Milo’s somewhat startling acceptance amongst conservative Republicans. Robby Soave deals with the important stuff at Reason.

What interests me is the basic contention: “The left does not own . . .”

The idea that people of certain races or sexual proclivities belong, naturally, to one side of the political spectrum is . . . itself racist or sexist.

The issues that divide left, right, center, today, are not primarily about race. Or sexual orientation/preference/display, etc. Balanced budgets, war, rule of law, taxation, redistribution — positions on these issues don’t adhere to people because of race or sex or what-have-you.

I wish gays and Republicans the best in coming to terms with this most obvious of truths. Let’s hope blacks, Asians, the homely and the beautiful also come to their senses. So we can all discuss politics rationally.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

DePaul University, Black Lives Matter , Social Justice Warriors, Dangerous Faggot Tour, Milo Yiannopoulis , provocative,

 

Categories
general freedom

Don’t Aid and Abet

Some countries are ratcheting up their regulation of foreign Internet companies. These efforts, a New York Times article explains, “increasingly” oblige firms like Google, Facebook and Twitter to mull “which laws and orders to comply with,” which to resist.

The juggling act is nothing new. Cyber-companies have always wrung their hands about which tyrannical demands to obey.

On the one hand, we have such praiseworthy examples as Google’s eventual decision, in 2010, to stop censoring its search results in China. In consequence, the Chinese government kicked Google off its Internet.

More recently, Turkey sought to prevent leaked documents from being distributed via Twitter, demanding that Twitter block posts providing access to those documents. When Twitter refused, the Turkish government blocked its service. But it then lost a court battle over the issue even as users found ways to skirt the ban.

Also heartening is the fact that, so far, American tech firms seem determined to reject a new Russian imperative that they store user information on Russian servers.

But the firms do sometimes obey demands — saying they must abide by laws that, however lamentable, are verifiably on the books — and such obedience does amount to abetting repressive efforts.

Here’s what I suggest, instead: always say No.

Never agree to help violate the rights of users, even if your services are formally banned as a result. Instead, use your ingenuity and resources to help people end-run the obstacles to free expression that governments keep imposing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

Tweet, Tweet, Zoom

Recently, Peter Thiel, a very interesting mover and shaker in today’s most vibrant markets, criticized the upshot of today’s technology: “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” That’s a slam at Twitter, a free service that somehow makes enough to stay afloat.

The lack of flying cars, though: Is that a problem?

Joshua Gans thinks we should ask ourselves whether we really want flying cars. You know, in our heart of hearts. After all, kids want to be Superman.

Markets only deliver the possible.

And much of what they deliver we hadn’t thought of before: iPods/iPhones/iPads weren’t really dreamed about much, outside of Dick Tracy/Star Trek fandom.

As for Twitter, Gans says it’s “a new communications protocol and more than just social media,” which makes it “more than merely trivial.” I’m sure he’s right. But I still keep kicking myself: whose time is worth so little that it’s worth complaining about free stuff?

Thiel’s focus is on technology, not markets — but it is the market that brings us stuff. Free markets are not “free” as in no price, they are free as in being unencumbered by busybody regulators, prohibitionists, and thieves. Such markets strike me as amazingly effective at providing a wide range of goods to the rich and the poor and everyone in-between. Hobbled, subsidized markets, on the other hand, exhibit Tweetable perversities — and usually serve the rich better than the poor.

Still, a lot of folks complain about what markets have to offer. I don’t get that, either. Hey, I reject most offers. So can they.

I say we stick to complaining about offers we can’t refuse.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights media and media people national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Dick Durbin’s Dangerous Idea

Politicians think in terms of institutions. If you identify yourself as an individual, a mere citizen, pfft: you’re nothing. But say you are from a lobbying group, or a government bureau, or a news organization — suddenly you matter.

That’s even how they interpret the Constitution.

They are wrong.

Back in May, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin expressed doubt whether “bloggers, or ‘someone who is Tweeting,’ should be given media shield rights.” He believes a big unanswered question looms:

What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?

Durbin thinks he’s both clever and profound to ask “21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”

But he is actually missing the whole enchilada, the point of the Constitution.

First, our two-century old freedoms don’t have an expiration date. Second, individuals have rights, not “institutions.” And not because we belong to a group. Either everyone has a basic right, or no one does.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds countered Durbin’s institutional prejudice with a fine piece in the New York Post, where he takes a common sense position: “a journalist is someone who’s doing journalism, whether they get paid for it or not.”

Reynolds reminds us that, in James Madison’s time, “it was easy to be a pamphleteer . . . and there was real influence in being such.”

Just so for today’s Tweeters and bloggers.

Hey: as far as I’m concerned, you’re being a journalist just for commenting on this at ThisIsCommonSense.com.

I’m Paul Jacob.