Google Images
[I'm not doing so good so I'm going to keep this short- but there's an element in the ongoing tech giant censorship of conservative voices that hasn't been addressed yet, but needs to be]
With the deleting of Alex Jones from many of the larger internet sites, fears arise that others will likely share the same fate... and this is almost surely the case. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are all guilty of shadowbanning if not outright censorship. The excuse being given- discounting the outright lies- is that they are private companies and can cite their own nebulous "community guidelines" as justification. However, are these tech giants actually as private as they claim?
Enter In-Q-Tel... In-Q-Tel, formerly Peleus is a venture capital "community" working through the private sector for DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, of the Department of Defense. "IQT works side-by-side with the venture capital community to identify great startup technology for our customers. Our areas of interest include cybersecurity, biotechnology, novel materials, remote sensing, deep learning for data analytics, and much more." In other words In-Q-Tel is a mechanism through which the government channels taxpayer money from the DOD into the private sector to fund tech startups.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube as well as a myriad of other Silicon Valley companies have accepted taxpayer funds making them less "private" than they claim. They are in fact public utilities in the sense that the public (taxpayers) are in part responsible for their creation making them beholden to the same public to provide their services in an even-handed manner for all users, not upholding services for some yet withholding from others. The same argument would apply to a telephone company allowing service to individuals with whom they agree, but withholding from others they did not.
The same principle applies to shadowbanning... a telephone company cannot provide limited service because they disagree with a customer's point of view- they must provide complete service in an identical manner to all (consistent with whatever plan the customer chooses). The most prevalent reason given for the censorship- at least in the case of Alex Jones- is "hate speech." Hate speech, however repugnant, is protected by the 1st Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court:
The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
And again, Justice Anthony Kennedy:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Free speech is free speech and if it's to be meaningful it must be upheld in every milieu. For example, if I am allowed to speak my mind on the telephone, or in a public place, the same right must be upheld in an internet venue regardless of who is said to own said venue... like I said, free speech is free speech. It is also arguable that telling the truth is not "hate speech," but that's a subject for another conversation.
The point of this is that these tech giants, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google and the rest are public utilities... not necessarily because they fit the commonly cited paradigm, but because they accepted startup funds from the government, and that, ladies and gentlemen, means us, the taxpayer. Because internet platforms are public forums, all speech is protected... with the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception upheld in Chaplinski v. New Hampshire (1942). Moreover, the "my company-my speech code" argument doesn't work either... and here's why. Many of the recent SCOTUS free speech cases have been brought about by speech codes on college campuses. Because colleges and universities accept public funds, they are public forums... so too are internet platforms because, once again, they accepted public funds for their startups.
It's arguable that because In-Q-Tel is allegedly a private, nonprofit venture capital firm they don't fall under that same statutory guidelines. However, their investment capital comes from the government (mostly the DOD). They are no more private than a telephone company or university that accepts public funds. Instead of "my company-my speech code," what should actually be cited is "my money-my free speech." Another cogent argument centers around monopolies and the Sherman Antitrust Law. If any of these censorship cases should come to court- and they certainly should- there are a plethora of arguments that can be used to prevent this incessant censorship. Not the least of which is "my money- my free speech."
Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11
Ways you can help the @informationwar
While I think you can make the argument that internet service is a public utility (though they really shouldn't be), I don't think you can say that companies like Youtube and Facebook are such. While they should not get taxpayer money, that's hardly a criteria for a public utility. Any company will take taxpayer money if it is offered. You can't attach strings after the fact. The solution isn't further government regulation. That would be disastrous at best. The solution is more and better censorship resistant distributed services like the one we are using now.
While I completely agree as to your proposed solution, I do not agree that the FAANGs aren't beholden to respect the First Amendment. Not only are they publicly funded, they aren't making chocolate bars, they're public fora. Their business model requires that they use public funds in a manner that completely conforms to the First Amendment - and particularly if those funds are covertly disbursed, as the gambit with Peleus and InQTel shows was attempted.
Otherwise you're arguing that the government can covertly fund and create Fakebook and avoid the First Amendment. Since simply laundering government funds doesn't wash away the restrictions on government power, that is not a lawful and just argument.
I disagree. I control the speech in my house. I control the speech in my business. They are not "public". I don't believe that private businesses should generally receive taxpayer money but that is another issue. Regardless, companies like Youtube are still private businesses and unless there were legal strings specifically attached to whatever money they received from the government, then they should not be subject to any additional restrictions. I don't believe government should be able to fund private businesses at all except to purchase legitimate products and services needed for government function. But like I said, that's a separate problem. If government created its own facebook then it wouldn't be a private company at all. The government does not own youtube nor should it and it should not be forced to behave as if it did.
Why do you believe Youtube should be required to host your video any more than a newspaper should be required to print your story? Or a TV station to show your video? Or a book publisher to publish your book?
Do you have any links to how government funds youtube? I couldn't find anything after a quick search and I would be curious as to how much and for what purpose this funding is for.
But, government DID create Fakebook. It also has ownership stakes in all the FAANGs, and much covert influence as well.
Have a look at the image that fronts this post for a lead on where to seek the funding routes. The image isn't exhaustive. When you think you've found it all, there'll be more.
Much laundry passes through advertising as a mechanism, and the financial links between corporations are extensive. Let's not ignore the fact that Goldman Sachs is basically a CIA front, either, and covert infestation of the financial industry is rampant.
The FAANGs are essential government services. Not only aren't they private 'public' fora, they aren't independent of each other either. From the purging of Infowars we see they are all utterly coordinated and under the control of one entity.
They are utilities. They are a monopoly. They are a creation of the USG. On all three counts they aren't free to censor whom they will.
But if all that is true then the solution isn't even more government regulation and control which if they were enforcing their idea of the 1st amendment on them is exactly what you would get. The solution is to eliminate those financial ties and influence. In other words, end efforts like In-Q-Tel. But regardless, just because the government put up some of the venture capital, doesn't mean they created something. Nor does it mean they should have control of it unless you are saying they are the majority stakeholder and own most of the stock. I do not believe that to be true though.
If I start a company, make the company public (i.e. sell stock) and then the government decides to buy some of that stock (possibly covertly), then they should have control over my company and be able to tell me that I can't decide who publishes on my platform? If it turns out the government has stock in a newspaper company or publishing company then that means anyone then has the right to publish there? That's giving the government an awful lot of power.
I don't see how on earth you could call facebook or youtube monopolies. There are plenty of alternatives, one of which we are using right now. They also compete with other media entities around the world.
Hey, good info here! I knew the government was behind facebook....I just knew it....I would love to see the contract when they received the funds because I'm sure there was one rather than just giving them money.
I also knew that whole congressional crap with Zuckerberg and Facebook was just for show.
Yup... I think it was PJ O'Rourke who said: Washington is just Hollywood with ugly actors.
Explains the Reagan Presidency... and President Camacho, too.
Truly, 'Idiocracy' was all too prophetic!
I figure the shooting was a message to Reagan from Bush about who was really in charge!
LOL! I like that...it's true!
Thanks for the great post covering an aspect of this censorship not covered by very many!
So much for living in a free country. I suppose it's a matter of time before they start censoring steemit. Thanks @richq11
anyone can censor steemit. if a government or any institution wanted to they could power up a few hundred thousand steem and make any steemit posts that offended them disappear with a flag.
Or empower one of the cucks already here!
exactly, there was some of that going on for a while except it was not a government plot but a @steemit inc plot and they were not very well funded.
The flaw with this is the telephone company gets paid by you on a recurring basis for service and the others do not. I am also unsure I agree with the public utility as an argument. While I disagree with welfare in its different forms as it is theft by threat of kidnapping and death from producers to fund, I in no way think someone on food stamps, section 8 etc, nor businesses that receive corporate welfare are public utilities. Leeches yes, public utilities no.
Leeches don't create public fora with the food stamps. The FAANGs did, on purpose.
Laundering doesn't wash away the taint of restrictions on government power, or money. Publicly funded fora are held to standards chicken Mcnuggets aren't.
Also, the FAANGs receive funding continuously from their market, in the form of data whcih they sell. It doesn't matter what form the continuing payment takes, it's recurring payment for the service.
A clear post - people need to understand how they are being played.
Don't be working too hard mate, stay as healthy as you can!
I'm trying... gotta keep a cash flow- too many people are depending on me!
....yeah well, less cash flow for a longer period of time is more beneficial to everyone _ including yourself_...
Dead bloggers make far less I've heard...
Your uncle Patriot has spoken...lol
Ok Unc, Ok!
The big difference between the phone company and these internet companies is that the phone company was a government created and regulated monopoly. There was only one phone company to choose from because the government granted them a monopoly. These internet companies are anything but monopolies, there are endless alternatives. I see all this banning and kicking off content creators as a very good thing, it is just these companies hastening their eventual decline. Any of them could become the next Myspace as people leave their platforms to follow the content creators they exile.
right now there is not really a legal argument to be made but one possible solution for this problem would be to declare these sites as public accommodations, like a hotel or restaurant and for political affiliation to be a protected status, that would require an act of congress though. Under the current laws they are totally within their rights to kick off anyone who offends them from their platforms. I am glad they are doing it, they are only fucking themselves. It's probably the best thing to happen to Alex Jones all year.
That's kind of the point I was making- by accepting public funds they are a public utility. When all of the tech CEO's were in Congress they all said they were public forums, so free speech laws apply. They all just lied about censorship.
any public utility is like the phone company, they are legal monopolies, you only have one water pipe, telephone wire and electric wire coming to your house so the government grants those providers monopolies and as a result they have to be subject to government regulation and oversight.
I think that you are on to one possible solution of the problem but that the current law does not currently apply to them for various reasons. Some legislation is needed for that solution to occur. Congress could declare the alphabet to be public accommodations. They would also have to make political affiliation a protected class to keep people from discriminating on that basis and as we see from various incidents of people being thrown out of restaurants, which are public accommodations forbidden from discrimination in who they serve, political affiliation is not a protected class except for employment in some cases. In who you serve you may discriminate on the basis of political affiliation under federal law.
If free speech laws apply then a corporation should be free to decide what is said on their website. So I think a better solution to this problem is to let these giant CIA backed quasi monopolies ban who they want and be totally biased and evil and for all good people to use sites that don't do those things like @steemit and to let Facebook and twitter pass into internet oblivion like Myspace when the next thing comes out which will hopefully be steemit.com.
You are exactly correct IMHO. IANAL, but our analyses are remarkably consanguine.
Thanks!
PS Feel better soon.
Nice article ....keep it up..