Things heated up today in the war between Facebook/Twitter/Instagram and conservatives with the banning by Facebook of Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, and Paul Nehlen. Infowars itself was also banned. And, just for grins, they threw in Louis Farrakhan.
BONUS QUESTION: Which of those is not like the others?
This article was also getting a lot of play:
"The vast majority of serious public debate takes place there. Thus, access to large social media platforms is a civil right. When private companies violate civil rights, we pass laws to stop them from doing so."
— Mark in Madrid (@markmoby) May 4, 2019
It’s very good and definitely worth your time.
The President chimed in to let everyone know he’s not oblivious to what’s going on.
I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2019
Alrighty then. Is platform access a civil right today? No. What the article argues is that it certainly could and should and that there are ways to do this. I think that’s a discussion in the right direction.
I posited that one of the issues with these platforms is that uses can access them for free but have an expectation of a level of service as long as they stay clear of the platform’s Terms of Service. Companies such as Right Side Broadcasting and people such as Laura Loomer have built businesses from these services. However, there’s little to protect them, as we have seen, if these platforms want to ban you or make your life difficult.
Just something to think about — if you’re trying to build a business on something that’s free and can be pulled from you at any time, you better have a backup plan.
One of the other things that happened was that a user reported that photos with him and Milo, Alex, and Paul Joseph Watson were removed from Instagram as violating community standards.
Possibly the scariest thing was this:
Wow. Not only is Facebook banning Alex Jones. It will remove Infowars content posted by any account. And if you share infowars stuff too many times, you'll get banned too. https://t.co/tSbh9j0X8w pic.twitter.com/YUal6LnVui
— Alex Kantrowitz (@Kantrowitz) May 2, 2019
It’s time now to take a page from the Left’s playbook. What the left does in this instance, often via the ACLU, is to look for the ideal trial case to eventually take to the Supreme Court. If you can’t find one, it’s OK to create the circumstances to create one.
In this instance, Scott Adams was interviewed on Infowars and I believe Scott has every right in the world to reference that content anywhere he wants. Banning Scott Adams from Facebook and/or Twitter for promoting content of a show he was on is Supreme Court fodder of the finest kind. Can you only imagine reading in the history books that a cartoonist saved the First Amendment rights for all Americans by ensuring their access to social media? It’d also make a pretty good movie.
Personally, I think a test case like this has a better chance to affect close in change which is why, of course, the left uses it as a strategy so often. It’s also why controlling the judiciary and particularly the Supreme Court is so important to them.
The day wouldn’t be complete without seeing what people are saying about banning the Minister Farrakhan:
The banning of @LouisFarrakhan from @instagram and @facebook was disgusting. USA has so much past mud in its engine now you wanna bitch about it coming up on your flaps. You need to take a survey on how Blackfolk really feel about using your Bulsht Soc Med ….as a hanging tool
— Chuck D (@MrChuckD) May 3, 2019
OK. We’ll go with that.
Now everyone please turn to your neighbor and say “we demand that Minster Louis Farrakhan be reinstated to Facebook and Instagram!” Who ever thought we’d be on the same side! It gives one pause.