There has lately been a lot of ‘discussion’ on the issue of censorship; and for good reason, the issue is incredibly complex.

Most of these companies operate internationally, and are often subjected to many different sets of law. If any solution exists for this modern day problem, it certainly won’t be an easy one.

The fundamental issue stems from the public at large, and more importantly the legislative body refusing to acknowledge the importance of some of these platforms, without pausing to ponder for a second.

Many have happily proclaimed: “Twitter is a public platform; it can do what it wants.”

Alright then, well, what about Yahoo? Is it fundamentally different than Twitter? It’s another Tech company that only exists online, offering no physical products.

What happens if Yahoo decides to refuse you an email address? Well, you might say, the ‘free market’ affords me many other options, there is Lycos, Gmail, ProtonMail but to name a few.

Well, here is the question then: What happens if each of these companies, separately, refused to issue you an email address? Individually, the same argument will still hold: “They are private companies doing as they please.” Collectively the effect of that, is a person simply unable to live a normal life.

Nearly every job I have had in the last 15 years, have been facilitated via Email. To argue that a service such as email, is just some elective thing that we can do without, is simply absurd.

And therein lies the problem, people for whatever reason, are simply refusing the acknowledge the extent to which humanity has migrated to an online existence.

It is the reality, however, and the laws will soon need to be updated to reflect this fact.

Another argument often espoused, specially by so called conservatives, is that of a “Free Market.”

My issue with it is, I feel as if, some people take this one line principle and apply it universally as if it holds true for all time. The notion is simply fallacious.

In reality, there is no such thing as a true “free market.” In the 2001 United States v. Microsoft Corporation, the government stepped in to assert exactly that the market is not “free.” It stepped in, to break up Microsoft which had gotten too big and too powerful (completely on its own by the way, Microsoft did not break any laws to achieve that status) and to allow for more competitors to enter the market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

The reason Microsoft has gotten as big as it did, is because of luck and timing. And that’s where the government role comes in. In a case like this, the government steps in to ensure a “fair market”, one where competition is feasible and realistic, most people conflate this notion with that of a “free market.”

In a recent TPUK, Charlie Kirk responded to an audience member’s question about capitalism and healthcare. Charlie argued for how a more free market in the United States is what’s needed to drive down prices.

While I will not go into my own politics in this article, generally, I would consider myself independent, in support of ideas simply based on their merits; and without going into a fine analysis detail of such a complex issue as healthcare and capitalism. I think it is prudent to recognize that there is a difference between how the free market or Capitalism, interact with the industry of healthcare versus car manufacturing, for instance.

To have a starting point that treats both the same, for me is just unrealistic. They are not, and if any meaningful discussion is to be had, that fundamental difference must be stated as a starting point for any constructive discussion.

Free Market and Social Media:

There is arguably a reason why companies such as Facebook and Twitter have all originated in the US. The business environment is conducive to the creation and proportion of such services.

The only reason these companies continue to exist, is a 1996 piece of internet legislation titled:  “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” It provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others.

The implicit message contained in the language of the law, is that the said platforms are afforded immunity from liability based on the fact that they don’t editorialize the material posted on their platforms.

The general notion being, is that simply facilitate a technology that results in essentially a “blank common page”, where others generate the actual content.

Lately, however, a form of ‘editorializing’ has been indeed taking place. By banning opinion of a certain bent, this is in effect editorializing. It may not meet what preconceptions of an editor in the 1920’s approving or disapproving a certain piece in the New York Times for instance; but make no mistake about it, this is modern day editorializing.

When a company like Facebook or Twitter, allows or disallows certain users, it can predict with a high degree of certainty, the type of content that will appear on their site.

This is very much editorializing, that is masquerading and hiding under the new code words of: Banning hate speech, empowering “marginalized” communities, targeted harassment and all the rest of it.

Legally, I am not persuaded these companies are entitled to maintain this immunity afforded to them. However, stripping them away, essentially spells their immediate demise; so the answer must lie somewhere in the middle.