Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty newsletter has expanded on a previous note of mine from a few months ago, with a historical background perspective which legitimates my surmises:
"Concerning big tech censorship of Conservative voices - I have a suggestion for how to quickly and relatively painlessly remedy this vexatious situation:
Simply unilaterally revise their end-user licensing agreements, (EULAs) as the big tech firms themselves routinely do to their own users!
Since all current CHARTERS OF INCORPORATION are granted with only a few CONDITIONAL CATEGORIES PROHIBITED from them "discriminating" against - mostly some inherent qualities like race, ethnicity, place of origin - and also others which are more suspect and optional like religion and 'gender' - right now neither Trump nor any other besmirched and banned, censored politician or public figure has any authority over "private companies!"
But that could easily be changed to deny them business licenses if they act contrary to the First Amendment (and, for good measure, throw in all the other Constitutional Amendments so they ALL apply to any and all businesses who want to operate under Federal aegis and jurisdiction, too). That's something that should have been already done long ago.
Also, many corporations are already now routinely discriminating on the basis of race and gender. It's flaunted in their mission statements, such as jobs advertised as "We particularly welcome applications from women and minorities." That is workplace discrimination.
Ditto for government-funded universities and colleges (which, as they do receive public funds, act as agents of the government anyways).
Right now, duplicitous governments often engage in 'Rights Laundering' because by using private third party firms, the US government is able to circumvent the Rights it must uphold by using a proxy, which I think violates the spirit of the intention of the Constitution on the First Amendment.
So, for example, imagine if the US government explicitly hired third party security contractors, and they beat up some guy. Replace 'third party security contractors' with, say 'the military' or 'the police' - surely if the law applies the second two, it should also apply to the first?
No-one would deny that a third-party firm is acting on the US government's behalf in that capacity. They're paid by the US, directed by the US, and complete objectives for the US, so why are they exempt from law?
Likewise, if the US finances Universities, and the Universities then go on to beat up some guy, or silence him, it's as if the US government themselves had done it. It doesn't matter if the University is 'third-party', the US government knew there was a risk of censorship and/or violence the moment they financed them. Given how often it occurs, it'd be impossible to claim otherwise."
;-)
================================
The issue of censorship by major tech companies is a precarious one, and I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of the nature of the debate. There are some complexities, but it can be boiled down to this:
Big tech social media conglomerates argue that their websites are like any other private business and that they are protected from government interference by the Constitution. In other words, they have a right to platform or deplatform anyone they choose. Of course, they have decided that the people they want to deplatform most are conservatives and anyone else who disagrees with hard left ideologies such as social justice movements or the handling of the pandemic situation. Statements or comments that run contrary to leftist philosophies are simply labeled "hate speech" or "conspiracy theory" and erased.
Conservatives argue that big tech is a monopoly with far too much power, that social media should be treated more like a public resource or "town square" and that these companies are violating the free speech rights of conservatives by specifically targeting them for censorship. Many conservatives are also demanding that Donald Trump and the government step in to regulate or punish such companies for these actions.
The truth is that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The real solution to the problem requires a radical change in how we view the institution of corporations and how they interact with government, and it's a solution I doubt any political official will consider, and that includes Trump.
Let me explain...
Social media and big tech do in fact represent a monopoly, but not in traditional terms. Instead of acting as an economic monopoly controlling market share, big tech is really a political monopoly controlling the majority of communication platforms. If only one political and social ideal dominates every major social media and digital information outlet, this in my view represents a completely unbalanced power dynamic that does indeed threaten the free speech rights of the populace.
Rabid censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, a scandal that is supported by facts and evidence that big tech has chosen to bury because it's inconvenient to them rather than a violation of their community guidelines, is just one more example of the incredible danger that social media monopolies present.
That said, there is also the issue of private property rights to consider. Government itself is an untrustworthy entity that craves a monopoly of power, and by handing government the authority to micromanage the policies and internal practices of web companies we might be trading the big tech monster for an even more dangerous governmental monster.
Who is to say that the government will stop with sites like Facebook or Twitter or Google? Maybe they will exploit their newfound powers to go after smaller websites as well. Maybe they will attempt to micromanage the entire internet. Maybe they will start dominating and restricting conservative websites instead of the leftist conglomerates we intended, and then we will be doubly screwed.
If you value freedom and the Bill of Rights, then this debate leaves us at an impasse. Both sides (perhaps conveniently) lead to a totalitarian outcome. The thing is, the publicly presented argument is a contrived one, a manipulated discussion that only presents two sides when there are more options to consider. The narrative is fixed, it is a farce.
The public has been led to believe that government and corporations are separate tools that can be used to keep each side in check. This is a lie. Big government and big corporations have always worked together while pretending to be disconnected, and this needs to stop if we are to ever defuse the political time bomb we now face.
To solve the social media censorship debacle, we need to examine the very roots of corporations as entities. First, corporations, as we know them today, are a relatively new phenomenon. Adam Smith described the concept of a corporation as a "joint stock company" in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations, and stood against them as a threat to free-market economics. He specifically outlined their history of monopoly and failure and criticized their habit of avoiding responsibility for mistakes and crimes.
Joint stock companies were chartered by governments and given special protections from risk, as well as protection from civil litigation (lawsuits). But they were supposed to be temporary business entities, not perpetual business entities. The point was to allow for the creation of a joint stock company to finish a particular job, such as building a railroad, and once the job was finished, the company was dissolved and the government protections were no longer needed. Smith knew that if corporations were ever allowed to become permanent fixtures in an economy, they would result in disaster.
This is exactly what happened in 1886 when the Supreme Court allowed companies like Southern Pacific Railroad to use the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to protect the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves, as a loophole to declare corporations as "legal persons" with all the protections of real persons. Not only that, but with limited liability, corporations actually became super-citizens with protections far beyond normal individuals. Corporations became the preeminent force in the world, and it was their relationship with governments that made this possible.
This fact completely debunks today's notion of what constitutes free markets. Corporations are not free market structures. They are, in fact, government chartered and government protected monopolies. They are socialist creations, not free market creations, and therefore they should not exist in a free market society.
The alternative option was for businesses to form "partnerships," which did not enjoy protection from government, limited liability or the ability to form monopolies. When the owners of a partnership committed a crime, they could be personally held liable for that crime. When a corporation commits a crime, only the company as a vaporous faceless entity can be punished. This is why it is very rare to see company CEOs face prosecution, no matter how egregious and catastrophic their actions.
Today, certain corporations continue to enjoy government protections while also enjoying government welfare. Meaning, these companies get a legal shield while also getting the advantage of tax incentives and taxpayer dollars.
For example, Google (Alphabet and YouTube) has long received huge tax breaks as well as rarely if ever being forced to pay for the massive bandwidth the company uses. In fact, YouTube was facing bandwidth affordability issues, but when it was purchased by Alphabet and Google it no longer had to worry about — Google gets over 21 times more bandwidth than it actually pays for.
The same rules apply to companies like Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Apple, etc. All of them enjoy extensive tax breaks as well as cheap bandwidth that makes it impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to compete, even if they operate on a superior model or have superior ideas. Many times the corporations pay no taxes whatsoever while smaller businesses are crippled by overt payments.
A true free market requires competition as a rule, but the current system deliberately crushes competition. Again, we live in a socialist framework, not a free market framework.
Now that we understand the nature of big tech and what these companies actually are (creations of government), the debate on social media censorship changes. How? Take for example the fact that public universities in the U.S. are not allowed to interfere with free speech rights because many of them survive by consuming taxpayer dollars. They are public institutions, not private. Why then are we treating major corporations that survive on endless taxpayer infusions and incentives as if they are private? They are not — they are public structures and therefore should be subject to the same rules on free speech that universities are required to follow.
Of course, these corporations will surely argue against this and will attempt to use legal chicanery to maintain their monopolies. Trying to dismantle them could take many years, and there are no guarantees that government officials will even make the attempt? Why would they? The relationship between government and corporations has been an advantageous one for establishment elites for decades.
Instead of challenging the corporate model in the Supreme Court, an easier option would be to simply take away all the tax incentives for any big tech companies that refuse to allow free speech on their platforms. If Google had to pay normal price for the bandwidth it uses, the corporation would either implode, or it would be forced to break apart into multiple smaller companies that would then compete with each other. More competition means lower prices for consumers. The threat of losing tax incentives would mean more large companies would refrain from censorship.
Donald Trump as president could conceivable make this happen, but he will not, and neither will any other political officials. The partnership between government and corporations will continue, I believe, because there are other agendas at play here. The establishment wants the public to argue in favor of tech totalitarianism on one side and in favor of government totalitarianism on the other side. They aren't going to allow any other solutions to enter the discussion.
To confront the power dynamic
between governments and major conglomerates is to confront one of the
fundamental causes of corruption within our society, which is why it
won't be allowed.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment