Musk as well made good on a promise to bring about more transparency to Twitter. He gave journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss access to all of the internal communications regarding the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The day before the bombshell report by Matt Taibbi, I tweeted a reply to Elon Musk requesting my previous suspended account, as well as a few friends who have been suspended for dubious reasons to have our accounts reinstated. This included my prior account Guy Squiggs, as well as Joshua Smith, the Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party.

Taibbi’s report the following day was as shocking as it was entertaining. Elon Musk has his own spin on Occam’s Razor, the law stating that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Elon’s Razor, on the other hand, states that the most entertaining outcome is the most likely. Elon’s Razor proved accurate, as tweet #8 in Taibbi’s 36 tweet long report especially stood out to me. I, Guy Squiggs, was in that tweet. Of course I was.

In this tweet the world saw my previous account being “requested for review” by the Biden Campaign, and then being “handled.” Musk himself responded to this particular tweet asking, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” Then in the next tweet we learned that the same thing had happened to actor James Woods. He appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show vowing to file a lawsuit, and I will be closely paying attention.

Large Twitter accounts such as Scott Presler and Libs of TikTok were sharing screenshots of my old account which has been permanently suspended for about two years now. This disclosure for Taibbi might possibly be providing context for that suspension.

This all began on October 14th 2020, when New York Post published a bombshell exposé revealing emails recovered on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. Both Twitter and Facebook heavily throttled the story and prevented it from being spread, and Twitter took the extraordinary step of locking New York Post from its Twitter account. 

Twitter cited a “hacked materials” policy, but Taibbi revealed that Twitter executives didn’t believe that reason would hold up. The materials published were no longer the property of Hunter Biden, so his consent is no longer needed. They were the property of the repair shop he abandoned the laptop at, whose owner willfully turned over this material.

Following the censorship of New York Post, with the corporate mainstream media claiming the story was Russian disinformation, I set out looking for leaks of this material. Many photos from the laptop were leaked on Parler, where I spent an unfortunate amount of time looking at Hunter Biden’s nudes so you don’t have to. One photo however really alarmed me, which I censored and shared to Twitter. This tweet can be viewed in its original integrity in the archives on wayback, despite the account being suspended.

The photo, like many released on Parler, showed Hunter exposing himself (which was censored prior to being posted on Twitter). Behind Hunter however was a balcony where a girl was sitting. She appeared to be young, but the question was how young? That was the question, and that was the tweet’s entire purpose. This was the tweet that the Biden campaign requested to be removed. It’s also still a question I think is worth an answer.

While I have always wanted my old account back, now I heavily desire its return as it is part of a profound moment in history. That account vindicates everything conservatives believed was happening against them, but only up until now could be proven. I understand that the mass reinstatement of accounts is a work in progress, but I would humbly beg Twitter to reinstate the accounts listed in my pinned tweet. I also will eagerly be paying attention to any steps James Woods takes.

The post HANDLED: Guy Squiggs Reacts to Being Censored on Twitter appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Early in the day on Saturday, Kyle Rittenhouse favorited an image of a topless woman on Twitter. As Twitter will post tweets you favorite in the feeds of your followers, suddenly this image began to display in the feeds of Kyle’s followers, showing that he favorited it.

Conservative host Lauren Chen sent a general tweet reminding people how Twitter functions.

It’s been a little while since Kyle has been on social media, as all the platforms purged him following the incident in Kenosha where he shot 3 people in self defense. Not only did Social Media platforms like Twitter and Facebook remove Kyle, but they removed anyone who said “Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.”

Only after Kyle’s acquittal was he allowed to open new accounts. It’s pretty easy to forget some of the details pertaining to what activity is visible when you’ve been off the platform for an extended period. Twitter is also unique in that it is a social media platform that openly allows nudity and pornography.

Sure, something like this can be embarrassing… But really, who cares? 18 year olds are going to be 18 year olds.

This is the second time that Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.

The post Kyle Rittenhouse Caught Browsing Porn on Twitter? So What. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The next morning, I awoke to a bright red banner across the top of my article informing me and my readers that the article was “under investigation or found in violations of the Medium Rules.” The graphic accompanying this article is a snippet of Medium’s post on my page. The next day, Medium’s bright red notice of violation was on all my articles.

The issue is not whether my articles appear in any specific publication. That is an irrelevant concern. The issue is about the message Medium and other social media corporations send to the public when they censor.

The communications genius, Marshall McLuhan prophetically noted in 1964, “The medium is the message.”

McLuhan asserted a communications medium is not neutral. While the medium delivers content, it also has a character that is usually overlooked. The character delivers notice of a long-term structural, social change. He gives the example of a news story about crime. McLuhan explains the story is less about crime than bringing the crime into homes to create fear and change public attitudes about crime. Since the public focuses on the content of the story, it, many times misses the subtle attitudinal changes the medium’s character is foisting upon society. As to social media, the character of its long-term message is to change public attitudes about speech it finds objectionable and to foster an acceptance of censoring such speech.

McLuhan urges us to understand the character of the messages being delivered so we notice “change in our societal…conditions” which “indicates the presence of a new message.” He views the recognition of these new conditions as an opportunity to understand the detrimental changes being delivered and to address them before harm occurs.

Today, social media bombards us with its party-line content on specific issues; vaccine mandates, immigration, stolen elections, the January 6, 2021 “insurrection,” racism, and the list seems to be infinite. But the character the medium embeds in its messages is the need to censor what it deems objectionable speech. Social media is sending us early warning of the detrimental effects of its censorship. If we do not resist its message, the result will be the death of free speech.

Resistance can start today if each reader circulates a copy of this article and the graphic to their friends.

This is a long introduction to my article “A Scholarship for Every Student, Why Not We Pay for It Now!” which is set out in full below. Judge for yourself its content but also ask what is the character of the message being delivered by Medium and the other social media corporations about their right to censor free speech?

A Scholarship for Every Student, Why Not We Pay for It Now!

William L. Kovacs

The local, state, and federal governments already spend more, on average, on public education, than it would cost to award a scholarship to every student equal to the average cost of education in the U.S. Unfortunately, most of our taxpayer dollars just go to public schools that are very expensive, union-controlled, and do not produce results. For taxpayers to get value for their dollars, the money should follow the student and let the student and parents choose the school. If public schools want to stay in business, the motto should be “Let Them Compete for Students.” The competition will also foster much-needed creativity in the fossilized Teachers’ Unions.

The Number of Students: The Census estimates there are 53,591,620, K-12 students in the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics and the Council for American Private Education, estimates approximately 48.6 million of these students are in public schools. 5.7 million are in private school, which is comprised of Catholic (53%), nonsectarian (14.8%), conservative Christian (12%), and other religious (19.3). Since all the numbers are estimates, and school populations change yearly, the number of students does not add up as neatly as numbers on a corporate balance sheet. There is a small discrepancy in the different estimates, so for ease of calculating let’s round off the number of U.S. students to 54 million nationwide.

Cost Per Student: In constant 2019-2020 dollars, the cost per student in public education is $14,891, which includes teachers, capital expenditures, and interest payments. The total cost of public education in the U.S. is $762 billion.

The average cost per student across all of private education for its 5.7 million students is $10,740.00. This is the average of Catholic schools, $6,890; other religious schools, $8,690 and non-sectarian private schools, $21,510. Using the averages, the total annual cost of private school education is a little over $61 billion.

Total Cost of K-12 Education: The cumulative cost of educating all K-12 students in the United States is $762 billion in taxpayer funding for public education and another $61 billion in parent funding for private schools. Total funding for U.S. K-12 education is $823 billion or $15,240 per student.

Total Taxpayer Funding for Education in the U.S. that Can Be Distributed as Scholarships to Students: Taxpayers provide $762 billion to public schools and another $202 billion dollars to run the U.S. Department of Education, for a total expenditure of $964 billion. Since total K-12 education (public and private) is $ 823 billion, there is more than enough taxpayer funding for education to award a $15,240 scholarship to every K-12 student in the U.S. for use at the school of their choice and have $ 143 billion left over.

The U.S. spends more on education per student than 33 of the 36 OECD countries. Only Luxenberg, Austria, and Norway spend more, yet the U.S. ranks 28^th in math worldwide, 18^th in reading, and 22^nd in science. Clearly, the American taxpayer is not getting value for its money spent on its public school system.

Students Will Use Taxpayer Scholarships More Wisely than Government Directives: Almost every indicator on educational satisfaction finds private schools provide better-educated students, more satisfaction with teachers, happier parents, higher test scores, more advanced course of studies taken, and better and more manageable class sizes.

A Gallup poll of Americans found “Seventy-eight percent of Americans say children educated in private schools receive an excellent or good education.” It also found 69% believed parochial or religious schools provided an excellent or good quality education. Only 30% believed public schools provided an excellent or good education.

Parents of students attending private schools were substantially happier with the private school’s performance than parents of public schools, by significant margins. Private school parents had a substantially higher favorability rating for all aspects of school life than parents of public-school students. Specifically, there is a 78% to 57% public vs private favorability for teachers, 78% to 55% for academic standards, 83% to 56% for school discipline, and 81% to 56% for overall school satisfaction.

Another benefit of private school education is that students are more likely to have higher SAT scores, and attain college degrees. For private schools, the national average SAT score is Private 1230, whereas nationwide, the average test score is 1051.

The resources for providing good education to all students are available now. Students and parents will select the best school for the student; private, public, or trade. By allowing students to control their futures, rather than an authoritarian teacher’s union, out-of-touch school boards, or federal regulation writer, students will determine their educational path and career goals.

Action Items:

1. Each state and local school authority can redirect all current education funding from school districts to the students in those districts in the form of scholarships to be used for tuition at the school of their choice.
2. Congress should abolish the U.S. Department of Education. All funds presently appropriated to the U.S. Department of Education would be allocated to the states to fully fund student scholarships to the amount of $15,240 per student. The remaining $143 billion could be used by the federal government to reduce the federal deficit.

The post If the Medium is the Message, Free Speech Is Dead appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The tweet read: “Natural immunity >> vaccine immunity

So why force or coerce those with natural immunity from prior infection into taking the vaccine?”

Twitter labeled the tweet as misleading. Twitter disabled the ability to favorite or comment on the tweet, leaving Retweeting or Quote Tweeting as the only option.

According to Twitter, they’ve purposefully limited the ways in which people can interact with the tweet in order to diminish its reach.

However, prior to Thomas Massie authoring this Tweet, Bloomberg released a Tweet effectively making the same statement, based on a study.

The only difference between the Tweet from Thomas Massie and Bloomberg, is that Massie asked the logical follow up question. 

If a prior COVID infection provides better resistance against Coronavirus than vaccines do, then what incentive does a previously infected person have to get vaccinated?

The answer to that question is that there is clearly no benefit.  There is no scientific benefit, nor is there a moral argument to be had. This demographic of previously infected is also a threat to the idea of vaccine passports, if people who clearly do not need a vaccine opt not to do it, which is their right.

Yet Twitter, being the arbiters of whatever truth to whatever narrative they fancy, has censored an actual sitting Congressman who posted absolutely nothing misleading. His post was forthright and truthful, and the question he posed was logical.

The post Twitter Censors Rep Thomas Massie Over (Not) Misleading Tweet appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Whatever the American people believe this close working relationship might be, the key fact is whatever information is allowed into the public square depends on Big Tech’s willingness to allow the “information” into the public square.

First, a little of the history on this matter before discussing how the Biden administration has opened itself up to significant discovery (written and oral questions under oath) in civil litigation.

On April 15, 2021, ReformtheKakistrocracy.com was one of the first to post an article on Big Tech as a State Actor Having Constitutional Obligations to those whose speech in the public square it denies. At that time, the article had a theoretical evidentiary link based on second-hand media reports. It was part of three articles on breaking up Big Tech without new laws. A second article discussed the fact Congress does not have the constitutional authority to delegate to Big Tech the power to regulate other private parties. The third article discussed how citizens can break up big tech using the techniques of the Left.

Notwithstanding Biden’s broad-ranging Executive Order to twelve agencies to ensure competition in the tech market, it is highly unlikely the Biden administration will seriously take on Big Tech, with new legislation, new regulations, or challenge it in the courts. Big Tech companies are the friends, donors, protectors, and the sycophant speech censor for the Biden administration.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, if the Biden administration wanted to break up Big Tech, it could bring an antitrust action today. It has not. If Biden wanted to subject Big Tech to lawsuits, he could ask Congress to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that provides Big Tech with immunity from suit. Biden would likely have Republican support but he has not asked Congress for help. Or, Biden could direct the FCC to narrow Section 230 immunity through rulemaking by limiting the section to child pornography. He has not directed it. So, more talk, talk and talk from a politician.

To take on Big Tech, other ways must be explored.

The most likely way to take on Big Tech/White House censorship will be in Former President Trump’s class-action lawsuit against Big Tech. Trump claims Big Tech’s close cooperation with the government makes it a state actor. The Biden administration could also join the lawsuit if it truly believes what it claims. It has not.

Trump’s lawsuit has relied on much of the same public information as my April article, which is not sufficient evidence for a court of law.

All that changed with Jen Psaki’s admission, at a press conference on July 15, 2021, that the Biden administration is in regular conversation with Big Tech on censoring “misinformation.” Since the press conference, social media has exploded with commentary on the issue. More commentary is not needed. The White House secretary’s actual words are what people need to read to appreciate how she opens up many lines of discovery in Trump’s civil lawsuit.

A complete transcript of Psaki’s comments on “misinformation” opens the White House to civil discovery procedures.

[The content in brackets in the brackets after Psaki’s statements identifies the information that could be obtained through civil discovery.]

Alex: (16:19)
“Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation. Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation? Because we’ve seen from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.”

Jen Psaki: (16:38)
“Sure. Well, first we are in regular touch with these social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. Given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all participants in the conversation, the substance of each conversation, documents identifying specific disinformation and the basis for determining disinformation.]

Jen Psaki: (16:57)
“In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken, or we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connected medical experts who are popular with their audiences with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all disinformation being conducted and tracked by the Surgeon General’s office, all post flagged for Facebook, the identity of all “trusted” doctors and professionals who will do the outreach.]

[Psaki discusses other issues not relevant to Covid – 19 “misinformation.]

Jen Psaki: (17:27)
“We also created the COVID Community Court to get factual information into the hands of local messengers. And we’re also investing, as you’ll have seen, in the President’s, the Vice President’s, and Dr. Fauci’s time in meeting with influencers who also have large reaches to a lot of these target audiences who can spread and share accurate information. You saw an example of that yesterday. I believe that the video will be out for tomorrow. I think that was your question, Steve, yesterday, full follow-up there.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all local messengers and influencers who share the administration’s version of the facts. Discovery would also include the soon-to-be-released video, who made it, what information was relied on in making it, and What is the COCID-19 court, what will it do and who is on it?]

Jen Psaki: (17:56)
“There are also proposed changes that we have made to social media platforms, including Facebook. And those specifically are four key steps. One, that they measure and publicly share the impact of misinformation on their platform. Facebook should provide, publicly and transparently, data on the reach of Covid – 19 vaccine misinformation. Not just engagement, but the reach of the misinformation, and the audience that it’s reaching. That will help us ensure we’re getting accurate information to people. This should be provided not just to researchers, but to the public so that the public knows and understands what is accurate and inaccurate.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of how the government believes Facebook should measure misinformation and the reach of such misinformation? How the government believes Facebook should inform the public of what is the specific misinformation. Additionally, identification of the target audiences and the “accurate” information government wants to reach the public?]

Jen Psaki: (18:32)
“Second, that we have proposed that they create a robust enforcement strategy that bridges their properties and provides transparency about the rules. So I think this was a question asked before. There are about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. All of them remain active on Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including ones that Facebook owns.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of what the administration considers an appropriate, robust, enforcement strategy Facebook should undertake?  Also, what is the identity of the 12 people producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation and the specific misinformation?]

Jen Psaki: (18:58)
“Third, it’s important to take faster action against harmful posts. As you all know, information travels quite quickly on social media platforms. Sometimes it’s not accurate, and Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful violative posts. Posts that will be within their policies for removal often remain up for days. That’s too long. The information spreads too quickly.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of the administration’s discussion of what does it want Facebook to do “more quickly?” Additionally, what does the White House consider a quick removal, and how does it determine what “misinformation” should be removed?]

Jen Psaki: (19:19)
“Finally, we have proposed they promote quality information sources in their feed algorithm. Facebook has repeatedly shown that they have the leverage to promote quality information. We’ve seen them effectively do this in their algorithm over low-quality information. And they’ve chosen not to use it in this case, and that’s certainly an area that would have an impact. So these are certainly the proposals. We engage with them regularly, and they certainly understand what our asks are.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: What proposal has the administration made to Facebook on promoting quality information on their algorithms? What does the administration determine quality information? Is the White House following the guidelines in the Information Quality Act to determine “quality information?” Identify each time the administration has engaged with Facebook or any other Big Tech company on this issue?

[The Information Quality Act requires Federal agencies to comply with data quality guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity of the information disseminated by the Federal government.]

Alex: (19:45)
“One of the problems with vaccines right now is that they have become politicized. The White House has obviously made the calculation that it’s important to be more aggressive in confronting this information, but is there at all concern that that could backfire and further contribute to politicization? And is there anything that you can do to prevent that at this point?”

Jen Psaki: (20:02)
“Well, you’re absolutely right, I should say, Alex, in that we have to be very careful and we are mindful of being quite careful of not politicizing the effectiveness of vaccines. The fact that they can save lives, young people, old people, middle-of-the-road people. It’s important for us, we’ve made a calculation, to push back on misinformation. You’re right.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identify all the information relied upon in making the calculation to push back on misinformation? Who reviewed the data to make that determination and was all the data subject to the guidelines of the Information Quality Act?]

Jen Psaki: (20:22)
“But that’s one of the reasons, as Dr. Murthy was conveying, we have empowered, engaged, funded local voices because they are often the most trusted voices. Doctors, medical experts, clergy, people who are civic leaders in communities. That’s where we are putting most of our resources, even as we are working to combat misinformation that’s traveling online or traveling, unfortunately out of the mouths of elected officials from time to time.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all local “trusted” voices to be participants in the administration’s outreach, as well as what resources the administration deploying and the cost of such effort?]

With the July 15, 2021 press conference, Jen Psaki, opened up the administration to answer questions under oath in a civil deposition or by written question. This discovery will likely be used by Trump’s attorneys. With even reasonably good lawyering, the public will discover what the Biden administration believes is misinformation and what is good information, who possesses which type of information, and the rigors of ensuring “good information” is tested against the Information Quality Act. It will also let the public know what information the Biden administration wants us to know is the “truth.” That by itself will be interesting in a day when 58% of people believe media has become “the enemy of the people.”

The post How the Biden Adminstration is Helping Trump’s Lawsuits Against Big Tech appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

We can add Section 230 to that list, an obscure provision of the Communications and Decency Act (1996) that was previously unknown to most.

Section 230 is a frequent target of President Trump’s ire, and as such it can now frequently be found trending on Twitter, being debated in Congress, and featured in primetime media coverage. All in all, dozens of bills to repeal or modify Section 230 have been introduced in 2020.

TechDirt journalist Mike Masnick writes, “If you were in a coma for the past 12 months, just came out of it, and had to figure out what had happened in the last year or so solely based on new bills introduced in Congress, you would likely come to the conclusion that Section 230 was the world’s greatest priority and the biggest, most pressing issue in the entire freaking universe.”

But while it is a recurring topic of discussion, it seems the incessant chatter has only left Americans more confused. This explainer is here to break down the code and the debate swirling around it.

What Is Section 230?

So what’s the truth about Section 230? What does it actually say and what are its implications? Fortunately, the original author of the bill, Senator Ron Wyden, is still around and on record when it comes to the current dispute.

“Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online. Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That’s what I call the shield.”

“But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump’s recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down. Section 230 gives the executive branch no leeway to do either.”

It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward. Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.

Section 230 was written early on in the internet age, long before social media companies even existed (although much of this debate has focused on those platforms). Within the bill, the authors explicitly say the law is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services.”

And it has been successful. The government got out of the way and the internet expanded rapidly. Private companies invested millions to build their online enterprises, encouraged by provisions like Section 230 that secured their rights against unjust legal charges that would have otherwise put those investments in severe jeopardy.

Online companies want and need internet users to interact with their content and share feedback on their platforms. That goes for publishers (like Vox.com and us here at FEE.org), platforms (like Twitter and YouTube), and everything in between. But they shouldn’t be held liable because someone writes something untrue on their pages, nor should they have to host content that they find offensive.

Ronald Reagan once said,“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Individuals should be held accountable when they break the law or violate the rights of others. But it would be morally wrong to hold society at large, or even parts of society like private businesses, responsible for the action of an autonomous individual. In fact, this course of action would let the party actually responsible for harm off the hook while punishing a third party who did nothing wrong.

Shoshana Weissmann, the head of Digital Media and Fellow at the R Street Institute, recently wrote a punchy (and hilarious) article illustrating this concept—tying Section 230’s protections to Jeffrey Toobin’s Zoom “reveal” earlier this year. For those who’ve forgotten, Toobin accidentally exposed himself on a work Zoom call. As Weissmann points out, without Section 230, Zoom itself would have been liable for his lewd content rather than Toobin being held responsible.

Thankfully, we have Section 230 which creates a just and sensible legal apparatus for the internet and conduct on it. Without this protection, it is highly unlikely that the internet would have taken off and grown to its current state, much less produced the social media websites, online news outlets, and other user-reviewed services (like Yelp) we all now enjoy.

What Do Both Sides Want To Do About It?

Section 230 became a hot topic in the fall of 2019 when President Donald Trump drafted an executive order requiring the Federal Communications Commission to develop rules that would limit its protections. Ultimately, that order never went through, as even the mention of it was met with confusion and alarm by regulators, legal experts, and First Amendment advocates.

The storm died down until May of this year when Twitter found itself in Trump’s crosshairs after slapping one of his tweets with a violence warning. This feud reignited Trump’s fury and determination to do away with Section 230.

Since then, Trump and his allies have regularly called for the repeal of Section 230. Trump believes that social media companies are unfair to him and his agenda, and his response to that is to use the government to force the private companies to act in a way he deems appropriate. He also believes that doing away with Section 230 would block social media companies from “censoring” information on their websites.

There has, of course, been pushback against all this. Many conservatives and libertarians have pointed out that Trump and his supporters fundamentally misunderstand the legal code and its implications. Supporters of Section 230 say it upholds the right to free speech in the age of the internet, and that it protects the free market as well.

Meanwhile, others like Republican Senator Roger Wicker have called for modifications to the law that would leave the liability shield in place, but that would force companies to host content that may violate their values.

Social media companies, who have incurred the bulk of the derision in this debate, are left between a rock and a hard place. Democratic leaders want them to censor more and guard against “fake news,” while some Republicans want to take away their rights for any content moderation.

True defenders of free speech, limited government, and the free market are largely being drowned out by the tidal wave of politicians and their supporters pushing for big government responses to a societal issue they dislike.

What Would Happen If It Was Repealed?

While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “censor” information the company does not like, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties, they would instead have to censor vigorously.

We’ve already seen a preview of what this would look like with the passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTRA). Signed into law in April of 2018, FOSTRA carved out an exception to Section 230 that essentially said websites would be held responsible for content promoting or facilitating sex trafficking or prostitution.

Internet companies reacted quickly, even those whose primary purpose had nothing to do with sex work. Craigslist removed its personals section altogether. Reddit and Google also took down parts of their websites. Notably, these actions were not taken because these sections of their websites promoted prostitution, but rather because policing them against the possibility that someone else might advertise illegal services was an impossible task.

It is almost inevitable that further eroding Section 230 would have similar impacts throughout the internet. Consider, for example, a company like Twitter. If it could potentially be sued for the millions of user posts on its platform, it would have to start censoring many more of them, or even running them through a pre-approval process. This would likely slow down the flow of information on these channels as the companies would be forced to sort through and approve content. Ultimately, these actions would result in all of us having less of a public square, fewer information streams, and a less rich internet experience.

Especially concerning is the impact these actions would have on smaller companies and start-ups, many of whom cannot afford losing liability protections. Ironically, those who seek to harm Facebook or Twitter by repealing this law would actually end up entrenching their power even more by putting their competitors out of business.

Take Parler for example. It is a growing, popular competitor of Twitter’s that many conservatives are flocking to. Should Section 230 be repealed, this new company would almost certainly be put out of business tomorrow as it does not yet have the revenue to withstand litigation. Twitter, on the other hand, would have the resources to survive and adapt.

“If Section 230 were to be repealed, or even watered down, this next generation of platform will likely be thwarted by liability threats. “Big tech” firms have the resources to comply with new mandates and regulations, so erecting this barrier to entry to nascent firms will artificially lock currently dominant firms in their lead positions.”

-An open letter to Congress from a coalition of conservative and libertarian think orgs, including Americans for Prosperity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedomworks, and more

What If It Was Modified?

Some bills seek to modify Section 230 instead of repealing it. There are too many to name in one article, so we’ll focus on the worst and the most prominent: Senator Josh Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.”

This legislation would remove liability protections for companies with more than 30 million US users, 300 million global users, or $500 million in annual revenue. The bill also says that these large companies can apply for immunity from the bill if they go through a process that allows the FTC to screen their protocols and attest that their algorithms and content removal policies do not discriminate on the basis of political views.

So Hawley wants to fight “censorship” with – wait for it – actual government censorship of private companies.

Real censorship almost always involves the government, because without this tool of force, it is unlikely information could be totally suppressed. While people like to call social media content moderation “censorship” it really isn’t, not in the true sense of the word. Those who have their posts removed from one platform can easily go post them elsewhere. But what Hawley wants to do, which is use the government to censor the protocols of private companies, actually does constitute censorship as it would force them to allow the government to dictate what speech they would (or would not) host on their websites.

The notion that it would ever be wise to give the government this kind of power is quite jarring to encounter in America. It’s easy to see how this system would quickly eviscerate our fundamental rights to free speech by allowing the government to determine what belongs in the public square of discourse.

And, it’s important to remember that Biden appointees will soon be running these departments. This is an important reminder that the government bureaucrats who decide what counts as “neutral” will not be picked by your team forever. It would be prudent to stop giving the government more power that will only one day be used against you when your “team” is no longer in charge.

What’s next? Will they call to nationalize these platforms? This approach is antithetical to the ideals of limited government, free markets, and free speech.

“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association.“That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”

Myths About Section 230

While many seem to think that Section 230 makes a distinction between ideological publishers and neutral platforms, and that companies who act as publishers do not enjoy its protections, this isn’t true. Section 230 applies to all internet companies and makes no such distinction between publishers and platforms.

Section (c.) of Section 230 specifically addresses this point and speaks to the protection of companies who block and screen offensive material. It immediately states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It goes on to say that when it comes to matters of civil liability, “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lews, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Publishers can be sued for defamatory language online, just as they can be sued for it in print. So can Twitter or Facebook, if they issue a statement or a post. But that isn’t a relevant scenario to Section 230, which again, merely maintains websites are not liable for content you may choose to write on their pages.

Removing content they find offensive is well within their First Amendment rights, and within their Section 230 rights. It doesn’t change their status as a company or their protections under the law.

Many advocates for repealing Section 230 have hung their cases on the “publisher vs. platform” argument in an attempt to mislead their followers. But the good news is, Section 230 is relatively short. You can literally read it in less than five minutes for yourself and see that the publisher vs. platform discussion is a non-issue.

There are also those who claim that Section 230 is a special protection or an exemption for social media companies. This argument also fails to hold water.

One of the few, legitimate functions of government is to uphold the rights of individuals; when that is done businesses have a secure and just climate to operate within. That is exactly what Section 230 did. When the internet came about, it opened up an entirely new marketplace and one that needed such rights affirmed in order for people to invest in it.

Section 230 merely applied the same types of laws we see in the tangible world to the online marketplace. Would Burger King be liable if you came in and shouted obscenities at their customers? Should they be forced to host you on their premises and allow your attack on their clients to continue? Of course not. The same rules should apply to an internet company, and thanks to Section 230 they do.

Furthermore, without this provision to protect an online free market, the courts would likely be bogged down with frivolous lawsuits, which would cost taxpayers dearly. Even sorting through and throwing out such suits is an expensive and time-consuming process.

The Right Way To Handle Social Media Bias

On this issue, those who believe in limited government and free markets need to put their principles over short-term political expediency. Individuals, whether acting alone or jointly through a business, have the right to free speech, meaning the government has no right to tell them what they can or cannot say. While we may disagree with their choices to remove some users or throttle access to certain content (and I do), it would be a violation of their fundamental rights to force them to host speech they disagree with.

This argument is akin to one that caught the attention of many conservatives years ago: The Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who famously refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding citing his free speech rights. Just as the baker had a First Amendment right to not endorse a message that violated his beliefs, so too do the owners of social media companies. If we dislike the ways in which they run their platforms, the proper solution is for us to create or fund their competitors—not use big government as a weapon to tread on them.

This is the beauty of the free market. We don’t need the federal government to get involved in this picture outside of creating a fair legal apparatus in which companies can flourish. With Section 230 they got this right, and consumers now enjoy a wide range of options online thanks to its provisions.

If users are unhappy with Twitter or Facebook, they can take their business elsewhere and vote with their feet. If enough users do that, Twitter and Facebook will willingly change their policies to attract users back, or they will cease to exist.

Some have noted that the network effect makes it difficult for social media competitors to attract new customers, referring to the fact that for some products users find more enjoyment in them when a large number of their peers partake in the experience. But MySpace used to have the network effect advantage, and it still lost out to upstart competitors. And the recent (and impressive) success of Parler shows that there is still room for competition in this picture.

As always, free people are far better equipped to solve this problem than the government.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post What Is Section 230 and Why Does Trump Want to Repeal It? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Strossen’s first premise is that in countries with stricter hate speech laws, there was a rise in racist hatred such as in France with Marine Le Pen and in Germany with Alternative for Germany. She disagrees with the claims made by the pro hate speech laws advocates. Her view is that these laws are ineffective and people who are racist, sexist, etc. have their ways of getting around them.

 For example, in social media, the alt-right had been allowed (by social media companies) to post about their beliefs in the superiority of the white race. When free market pressure and government legislative threats against social media companies began, the alt-right started changing their language into certain codes such as “1488” or “redpill” (different definition between the alt right and conservatives). It’s less understandable to those who don’t know the terminology but once they do, they become radicalized. They find these definitions in radicalized areas of the internet, where there is no one arguing against them because the people with ‘approved’ speech aren’t in those areas of the internet or aren’t using those keywords to debunk those arguments.

This brings me to Strossen’s second argument: hate speech laws make the situation much worse for the people who oppose hate speech. For example, Milo Yiannopoulos rose in popularity when he was banned from Twitter. Then, when he wasn’t allowed to speak at campuses, he became even more popular through Breitbart. He became the punk rock of the Trump team. When he was finally allowed to speak his mind, he repeatedly made pedo-sympathizing/ pedo-joking remarks. He flopped and lost his popularity. The only time he has made a resurgence is when he got banned from platforms like Facebook or Instagram, or when his Australia (comeback) tour was cancelled. 

Fighting hate speech with more speech is more effective than prohibiting others from freely speaking because prohibition feeds their popularity. Strossen uses a utilitarian argument about why hate speech should be allowed. She borrowed the idea which originates from John Stuart Mill’s utility argument that any policy that improves people’s overall happiness or action that benefits everyone as whole is good policy. The ends justify the means.

In the short run, there will be people offended by bigoted speech. However, in the long run, their own bigotry will be exposed. On the contrary, when hate speech laws are implemented, some would feel immediate gratification, but the majority would ultimately suffer increased hate speech through multiple alternative outlets.

Although Mill’s utilitarian argument serves to justify free speech, his no-harm principle is weak compared to Strasson’s argument about why hate speech should be allowed. Harm isn’t just physical, but also mental. To some degree, some speech by certain people can cause trauma and enhance mental instability. What if someone says something that can cause trauma? That’s why Mill’s no-harm principle by itself is insufficient to defend hate speech or free speech overall. Thus, Strasson’s efficiency of free speech or inefficiency of hate speech laws arguments are much better to defend free speech overall. 

Although hate speech laws haven’t passed in America’s legislature, social media censors certain ideas, just like laws. Social media companies unilaterally decide what is right or wrong. For example, hundreds of Instagram accounts, most of which were conservative and libertarian, were removed before the elections. Also on Instagram, many hashtags were temporarily hidden to prevent “false information”. On Twitter, a story from the New York Post about the Hunter Biden emails was taken down.

Whether it’s the government or private companies doing it, censoring speech will lead to the same results. It will push more radical thinking into the black market, producing the opposite effect of increasing hate speech.

The post Best Speech Wins when All Speech is Allowed appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mailchimp determined it will use its “sole discretion” to determine whether messages are misleading and can be removed.

In a customer message obtained by The Daily Signal, Mailchimp stated it made the policy change effective Oct. 28. The message said the policy seeks to clarify “what kinds of Content are prohibited for distribution using the Mailchimp platform.”

“Mailchimp does not allow the distribution of Content that is, in our sole discretion, materially false, inaccurate, or misleading in a way that could deceive or confuse others about important events, topics, or circumstances,” the message goes on to state.

The company said it will enforce new rules by “issuing a warning to, or suspending or terminating an account.”

Mailchimp’s public relations did not immediately respond to an inquiry from The Daily Signal.

Founded in 2001, Mailchimp states that it has millions of customers around the world and aims at allowing entrepreneurs to reach customers through email marketing. The company is headquartered in Atlanta and has offices in New York, Oakland, and Vancouver. The company remains owned by its founders Ben Chestnut and Dan Kurzius.

Republished with permission from The Daily Signal.

The post Email Marketing Firm Warns It May Censor Content appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

How, in a country that has a Bill of Rights claiming we have Free Speech and Freedom of Press in the First Amendment, are speech and press so controlled?

The goal isn’t to tell the truth or make sure everyone on the internet is honest. The goal is to manipulate people into believing the narrative of these organizations. For example, Snopes, one of the most popular “fact-checkers”, is run by a prostitute and an idiot. They do no research, but people will read the headlines back to you like it’s a universal truth. “SEE, SNOPES SAID IT’S FAKE.” What does this do? Well, it just manipulates idiots that want their opinions repeated back to them via a website.

We’re at a point where it’s not just edgy people pushing uncomfortable posts being censored by these supposed “fact-checkers”. It’s memes and posts I see from grandparents, mothers, daughters, etc.. And anything that makes fun of the Left or Democrats. If it makes fun of Trump or Republicans, no one cares if it’s negative or misleading. But as soon as you point out Joe Biden or Kamala Harris flaws, the internet dweeb army of fact-checkers take over your post. Blur your post. And have 75 links underneath it calling whoever posted the meme a liar.

I’m sure we all have our personal censorship war stories at this time, but it’s hard for me to take companies seriously that violate several amendments with their “terms of service” and violate the Sherman anti-trust act, use slave labor, and other inhumane, crazy things. They’re trying to be the word police online and people love it—typically because it aligns with their own uninformed opinions and penchant for being wrong.

It feels good for ignorant people to feel smart without actually having to do the work to be smart. Why read an article to educate yourself, or learn and grow in any way when your narrative can be supported by regurgitating a headline back to people? It’s too much work to do any research, so why not just pretend with Snopes and all the other “fact-checkers”? You can stay dumb and feel smart. Win-win!

Anthony Rogers is an artist, professional tourist, and entrepreneur. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

The post [Opinion] FACT CHECK: Most Online “Fact Checks” are Propaganda appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Following the showing of their original teaser trailer, Activision seemingly had every language version of the media edited down substantially and re-released. In the process, their prior trailer was quietly removed. This came after the game’s teaser was banned in China due to featuring less than a second of footage of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

A large portion of real recorded events from history were removed from the trailer entirely, though it should be noted that only China objected to the trailer’s contents.

Unsurprisingly then, the new teaser lacks this footage, leaving many wondering if this was an excuse to assure access to the Chinese market. Considering the burgeoning size of the Chinese gaming demographic, it stands to reason such censorious accommodations are made for the sake of profit.

This compilation of the events by YouTube Content Creator Memology 101 shows the less than one second of removed footage:

It is ironic that a major tagline of the newly announced AAA game is “Know your history or be doomed to repeat it”. There is a hint of irony to that, now.

Image: screenshot Memology YouTube

The post New Call of Duty Trailer Released, Now With 100% Less Tiananmen Square appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.