Facebook, MailChimp Suspend Virginia Gun Rights Group’s Access

Philip Van Cleave. Credit: Rappahannock News

by James A. Bacon

Are the social media giants moving beyond de-platforming groups and individuals who participated in the mob assault on the U.S. Capitol building to de-platforming conservative groups indiscriminately?

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), says his personal Facebook account was suspended last week. That action followed Mailchimp’s suspension of its email service to VCDL.

The VCDL, which has sponsored peaceful gun-rights rallies in Richmond for 25 years, is organizing a vehicle caravan through Richmond Monday, the traditional “Lobby Day.” Due to reports that fringe groups may be planning violence in state capitals around the country, law enforcement authorities in Richmond are restricting activities in the state capital.

Van Cleave told the Rappahannock News that he was not in Washington, D.C., Jan. 6, and had “nothing to do with” the storming of the Capitol. “Our organization didn’t put anything out at all about it. It wasn’t in Virginia, it wasn’t gun rights, it wasn’t on our radar. … We’re being lumped in, I guess, with somebody. We’re working with the police doing our best to make sure that Lobby Day is another safe and peaceful event.”

Mailchip blocked a VCDL alert about Lobby Day but provide no warning and no explanation of what policy had been violated. MailChip did not respond to a Rappahannock News request for a statement. Similarly, Facebook provided no explanation of its action. When he protested, Van Cleave said, Facebook “immediately came back with, ‘Well, your violation is so severe we’re not going to be able to restore your account.’”

That’s Van Cleave’s side of the story, but the Rappahannock News found nothing to contradict it. If the account is an accurate rendering of events, it should send shudders through every conservative in Virginia. In reacting to the storming of the capital, it appears that social media are throwing out a massive dragline that is scooping up innocent groups and organizations along with bad guys.

Here’s the sad and frightening irony: Between VCDL’s de-platforming and Governor Ralph Northam’s refusal to schedule an election for the Southwestern Virginia senatorial seat left vacant by the death of Ben Chafin, the rural conservatives who comprise President Trump’s electoral base in Virginia, have every legitimate reason to think that their rights are being repressed. Fomenting discontent and right-wing radicalism may not be the conscious aim of these actions, but such is the inevitable result.

(Hat tip: Kim Singhas)


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

120 responses to “Facebook, MailChimp Suspend Virginia Gun Rights Group’s Access”

  1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Looks like for the left, silence is now bliss, not violence. There is more of this sort to come.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      This is just getting started.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yes, FB is going to change it’s business model. Coming soon: Conference Rooms. Admissions will be charged. Gun porn will no longer be free.

      2. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
        Emilio Jaksetic

        Gun rights groups will not be the only target. It’s just another version of the “don’t worry, we only are going after Confederate statues” ploy. Expect more ideologically-based censorship to come. Think about the various groups and issues that are anathema to the Left.

        The new “business model” will not be based on economics or traditional business practices, but rather ideological standards. Furthermore, once the primary targets are censored, there probably will be moves to censor anyone who associates with or does business with the primary targets — unless they “agree” to cut all ties with the primary targets.

        The Left seems to be adopting as its unofficial motto “Resistance is futile.” (from the Borg of Star Trek).

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Looks like for the left, silence is now bliss, not violence. There is more of this sort to come.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      This is just getting started.

      1. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
        Emilio Jaksetic

        Gun rights groups will not be the only target. It’s just another version of the “don’t worry, we only are going after Confederate statues” ploy. Expect more ideologically-based censorship to come. Think about the various groups and issues that are anathema to the Left.

        The new “business model” will not be based on economics or traditional business practices, but rather ideological standards. Furthermore, once the primary targets are censored, there probably will be moves to censor anyone who associates with or does business with the primary targets — unless they “agree” to cut all ties with the primary targets.

        The Left seems to be adopting as its unofficial motto “Resistance is futile.” (from the Borg of Star Trek).

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yes, FB is going to change it’s business model. Coming soon: Conference Rooms. Admissions will be charged. Gun porn will no longer be free.

  3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Take a soapbox, go to the park.

    It’s a public space in a private business. You and I can meet in a hotel lobby, sit on the couch and conduct business. We can arrange to meet at a Starbucks (unless we’re black) and do the same. Either way, we’re at the mercies of the business.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Riiiiiight. I just might not be able to reach 1,000 at a time rather than 10. Nope. We let them get the power and now they are using it.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yeah, but the ACLU will defend your soapbox for free…

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          No, they won’t. I’ve lost my prior respect….

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Bound to have happened. They’re lawyers.

    2. Amen. These are private businesses making business decisions. If they’re bad business decisions, I thought Mr. Bacon and the gang believe that the market will punish them. Problem solved, right?

      Whatever happened to free markets? I thought “conservatives” and “libertarians” were supposed to be ok with private businesses making business decisions.

      1. I guess you missed the conversation in a different blog post when we talked about the power of social media oligopolies. Combine those with the power of cloud providers to de-platform those who do try to compete — such as parler — and it looks like we’re seeing marketplace collusion the likes of which this country has never seen before.

        If lefties were being de-platformed, you know very well that you’d be screaming about it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No. DId not miss it but it’s simply not true. There ARE market providers for cloud storage and other internet infrastructure.

          As long as the market has other providers, it’s not a monopoly nor oligopolies.

          There are already hundreds/thousands of Conservative media, websites, blogs, “news”, think tanks, you name it.

          If it were actually true that “liberals” “controlled” they could shut down PJ Media, or Brietbart, or Thomas Jefferson Institute.. or WhatsUpwithThat, etc…

          It’s just not true..

          1. This isn’t market collusion. Market collusion is a group of businesses working to shut down competitors. None of the alleged “colluders” are actively trying to prevent others from competing.

            The alleged “colluders” are actually turning away business/customers. That is the exact opposite of an oligopoly or collusion. Oligopolies live to corner a market to force people to pay their prices and purchase their goods and services. These businesses are actively turning away customers. The market is free to create an alternative. This most certainly isn’t an oligopoly unless someone wants to demonstrate how others are being prohibited from creating a competing business to the cloud providers or online platforms. The fact is, this isn’t what the right is saying. They’re complaining because these companies don’t want their business. That ain’t collusion.

            In many small towns, there are just plain old, no good drunks. Guess what? Every bar in town bans these guys even though they’re willing to pay for alcohol. Why? They’re jerks and other patrons can’t stand them. Go to any town in America with some bars, and bar owners will tell you about “that guy” and why “that guy” isn’t allowed in their bar. It isn’t an oligopoly for the three bar owners in town to ban the no good drunk from drinking beer in their establishment.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Conservatives claiming to be victims… What the………

            some kind of weird virtue signaling… 😉

    3. djrippert Avatar

      Had they not shutdown Parler you might have a point. The systemic silencing of conservative and libertarian voices leaves those in those camps little to believe other than they are being persecuted. While I am adamantly non-violent … it’s probably best that you post under a pseudonym. Those conservative voices are not being silenced. They are being driven underground to the dark web. 70 million voted for Trump – most in specific, high Trump geographies. You want a civil war? The best way to get one is to stifle the voice of the large minority.

      In 30-50 years … when the winners write the history books – Facebook will be one of the great villains of our time.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        There are other cloud providers and other available internet infrastructure – it’s not at all like there are no alternatives.

        The reality is that everyone – left and right – stood by while businesses like AWS, FB and Twitter did their thing and became dominate but by no means do they control all cloud services and all internet infrastructure.

        In fact, FB and Twitter have been effectively neutered in some countries that do control the internet.

        The infrastructure is available. But it took some time for Twitter, FB and AWS to build up their systems and it will take time for competitors to also do that but nothing prevents them from starting.

        In fact, apps like Tiktock and Whatsapp are becoming more preferred and overtaking Twitter and FB.

        Stop the whining…

        1. djrippert Avatar

          Another of Larry’s Dispatches from La La Land.

          Please name one cloud infrastructure company that would accept Parler as a customer. Microsoft? Google? Oracle? IBM?

  4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Take a soapbox, go to the park.

    It’s a public space in a private business. You and I can meet in a hotel lobby, sit on the couch and conduct business. We can arrange to meet at a Starbucks (unless we’re black) and do the same. Either way, we’re at the mercies of the business.

    1. djrippert Avatar

      Had they not shutdown Parler you might have a point. The systemic silencing of conservative and libertarian voices leaves those in those camps little to believe other than they are being persecuted. While I am adamantly non-violent … it’s probably best that you post under a pseudonym. Those conservative voices are not being silenced. They are being driven underground to the dark web. 70 million voted for Trump – most in specific, high Trump geographies. You want a civil war? The best way to get one is to stifle the voice of the large minority.

      In 30-50 years … when the winners write the history books – Facebook will be one of the great villains of our time.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        There are other cloud providers and other available internet infrastructure – it’s not at all like there are no alternatives.

        The reality is that everyone – left and right – stood by while businesses like AWS, FB and Twitter did their thing and became dominate but by no means do they control all cloud services and all internet infrastructure.

        In fact, FB and Twitter have been effectively neutered in some countries that do control the internet.

        The infrastructure is available. But it took some time for Twitter, FB and AWS to build up their systems and it will take time for competitors to also do that but nothing prevents them from starting.

        In fact, apps like Tiktock and Whatsapp are becoming more preferred and overtaking Twitter and FB.

        Stop the whining…

        1. djrippert Avatar

          Another of Larry’s Dispatches from La La Land.

          Please name one cloud infrastructure company that would accept Parler as a customer. Microsoft? Google? Oracle? IBM?

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Riiiiiight. I just might not be able to reach 1,000 at a time rather than 10. Nope. We let them get the power and now they are using it.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yeah, but the ACLU will defend your soapbox for free…

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          No, they won’t. I’ve lost my prior respect….

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Bound to have happened. They’re lawyers.

    3. Amen. These are private businesses making business decisions. If they’re bad business decisions, I thought Mr. Bacon and the gang believe that the market will punish them. Problem solved, right?

      Whatever happened to free markets? I thought “conservatives” and “libertarians” were supposed to be ok with private businesses making business decisions.

      1. I guess you missed the conversation in a different blog post when we talked about the power of social media oligopolies. Combine those with the power of cloud providers to de-platform those who do try to compete — such as parler — and it looks like we’re seeing marketplace collusion the likes of which this country has never seen before.

        If lefties were being de-platformed, you know very well that you’d be screaming about it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No. DId not miss it but it’s simply not true. There ARE market providers for cloud storage and other internet infrastructure.

          As long as the market has other providers, it’s not a monopoly nor oligopolies.

          There are already hundreds/thousands of Conservative media, websites, blogs, “news”, think tanks, you name it.

          If it were actually true that “liberals” “controlled” they could shut down PJ Media, or Brietbart, or Thomas Jefferson Institute.. or WhatsUpwithThat, etc…

          It’s just not true..

          1. This isn’t market collusion. Market collusion is a group of businesses working to shut down competitors. None of the alleged “colluders” are actively trying to prevent others from competing.

            The alleged “colluders” are actually turning away business/customers. That is the exact opposite of an oligopoly or collusion. Oligopolies live to corner a market to force people to pay their prices and purchase their goods and services. These businesses are actively turning away customers. The market is free to create an alternative. This most certainly isn’t an oligopoly unless someone wants to demonstrate how others are being prohibited from creating a competing business to the cloud providers or online platforms. The fact is, this isn’t what the right is saying. They’re complaining because these companies don’t want their business. That ain’t collusion.

            In many small towns, there are just plain old, no good drunks. Guess what? Every bar in town bans these guys even though they’re willing to pay for alcohol. Why? They’re jerks and other patrons can’t stand them. Go to any town in America with some bars, and bar owners will tell you about “that guy” and why “that guy” isn’t allowed in their bar. It isn’t an oligopoly for the three bar owners in town to ban the no good drunk from drinking beer in their establishment.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Conservatives claiming to be victims… What the………

            some kind of weird virtue signaling… 😉

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hard water? Prell shampoo. Great stuff. It’s the only soap I know of that lathers in saltwater. Rinse with fresh, and you’re clean all day.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        The cheapest shampoo from Dollar General lathers just fine in my 250PPM hard water.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hard water? Prell shampoo. Great stuff. It’s the only soap I know of that lathers in saltwater. Rinse with fresh, and you’re clean all day.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        The cheapest shampoo from Dollar General lathers just fine in my 250PPM hard water.

  5. Calm down everyone. This stuff will eventually find its was to the U.S. Supreme Court. Problem solved.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      where it gets tossed. $ says it never makes the docket.

  6. Calm down everyone. This stuff will eventually find its was to the U.S. Supreme Court. Problem solved.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      where it gets tossed. $ says it never makes the docket.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    Things may have gone overboard on reactions – but now there is some real doubt as to who with guns will actually be peaceful. Just because it is a group that historically has been peaceful does not fix it. How would you allow them then tell others that you’re not sure about them?

    Everything changed when we started hearing about “protests” at state capitols.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      My $$ says you didn’t see that chatter on VCDL channels. I know VanCleve. And there is a TV crew at every state Capitol today with nothing so far…….All I see is the kind of martial law display that was supposed to be Trump’s move. A full combined arms division at the US Capitol? Reichstag Fire indeed…..

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        They’re not gonig to decide some groups are “ok” and some “not”.

        In terms of Martial Law, it was said to be advocated so Trump could stay in office – not suppress those at the Capitol.

        You can’t have folks parading around with weapons and say that some are “okay” and others not. There are no guarantees at all that those who would be bad actors won’t become part of those who are supposedly “okay”.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I dunno. Trying to beat a cop to death with a “Blue Line” flag staff is kinda funny.

          1. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
            Emilio Jaksetic

            I find it appalling that Nancy_Naive (or anyone else) would say there is anything “kinda funny” about any person trying to beat anyone to death.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, there’s funny “ha ha”, and then there’s funny like “this fish smells funny.”

            So, yeah, there’s something funny about it.

        2. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Cold dead hands, Larry, cold dead hands.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            right.. used to that rhetoric… that’s why we have folks who think they can take guns to a protest in a capitol and it’s “okay”.

            Nope. There are places you cannot take guns. You bring the guns and they’ll take them and if you insist they’ll do it the hard way.

            You ain’t boarding a plane with a gun or going into a courtroom or going into the National Capitol right now.

            Them’s the rules – cold dead hands or not -your choice.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    Things may have gone overboard on reactions – but now there is some real doubt as to who with guns will actually be peaceful. Just because it is a group that historically has been peaceful does not fix it. How would you allow them then tell others that you’re not sure about them?

    Everything changed when we started hearing about “protests” at state capitols.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      My $$ says you didn’t see that chatter on VCDL channels. I know VanCleve. And there is a TV crew at every state Capitol today with nothing so far…….All I see is the kind of martial law display that was supposed to be Trump’s move. A full combined arms division at the US Capitol? Reichstag Fire indeed…..

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        They’re not gonig to decide some groups are “ok” and some “not”.

        In terms of Martial Law, it was said to be advocated so Trump could stay in office – not suppress those at the Capitol.

        You can’t have folks parading around with weapons and say that some are “okay” and others not. There are no guarantees at all that those who would be bad actors won’t become part of those who are supposedly “okay”.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I dunno. Trying to beat a cop to death with a “Blue Line” flag staff is kinda funny.

          1. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
            Emilio Jaksetic

            I find it appalling that Nancy_Naive (or anyone else) would say there is anything “kinda funny” about any person trying to beat anyone to death.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, there’s funny “ha ha”, and then there’s funny like “this fish smells funny.”

            So, yeah, there’s something funny about it.

        2. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Cold dead hands, Larry, cold dead hands.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            right.. used to that rhetoric… that’s why we have folks who think they can take guns to a protest in a capitol and it’s “okay”.

            Nope. There are places you cannot take guns. You bring the guns and they’ll take them and if you insist they’ll do it the hard way.

            You ain’t boarding a plane with a gun or going into a courtroom or going into the National Capitol right now.

            Them’s the rules – cold dead hands or not -your choice.

  9. Mailchimp, I’d have to see the data on that, but FB, Google, Twitter, have outgrown their pants to become more predatory and more like utilities. Problem is, is getting people with a pair up in DC to do something about it.

  10. Mailchimp, I’d have to see the data on that, but FB, Google, Twitter, have outgrown their pants to become more predatory and more like utilities. Problem is, is getting people with a pair up in DC to do something about it.

  11. Bacon’s Rebellion will one day get canceled as the tolerant Leftists work their way down…
    Even though Jim Bacon allows posts by the likes of DHS and PG, and a number of trollish comments (and his “right-wing” posters are not THAT right wing), BR will eventually be found guilty of permitting CrimeThink.
    And don’t give me “private company” BS – it’s because the Cultural Marxists cannot engage in free and fair debate…

  12. Bacon’s Rebellion will one day get canceled as the tolerant Leftists work their way down…
    Even though Jim Bacon allows posts by the likes of DHS and PG, and a number of trollish comments (and his “right-wing” posters are not THAT right wing), BR will eventually be found guilty of permitting CrimeThink.
    And don’t give me “private company” BS – it’s because the Cultural Marxists cannot engage in free and fair debate…

  13. From Glenn Greenwald:

    “The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg pronounced herself “disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is” and added that “it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.” She nonetheless praised these “young tech titans” for using their “dangerous” power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. In other words, liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced (Facebook and other platforms have for years banned marginalized people like Palestinians at Israel’s behest, but that is of no concern to U.S. liberals).

    That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism. Liberals now want to use the force of corporate power to silence those with different ideologies. They are eager for tech monopolies not just to ban accounts they dislike but to remove entire platforms from the internet. They want to imprison people they believe helped their party lose elections, such as Julian Assange, even if it means creating precedents to criminalize journalism.”

    Cool to watch BR liberals’ rhetoric on the unilateral flexing of corporate power boil down to “hehe, they’re private companies! hehe!” Completely unserious. You see 1/6 and the Mossy Oak Legion as the greatest threat to American democracy in generations — which ought to prompt us to take a real hard think on how we got here and what to do — but as soon as tech titans flick these people away like so many ants, all higher thought shuts down. “hehe, get BTFOed!”

    If there’s common ground to be found between left and right, pulling the rug out from under the oligarchs is a good place to start. The difficult part is making sure we prioritize that over partisan schadenfreude. Ironically (and certainly unintentionally), the very dynamics of social media make that a hard ask, but it’s where we need to begin. Any other start is an acceptance of the civil war frame that so many are already pushing.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      What keeps alternative sites from standing up? They certainly do that with alternative blogs and a slew of other media websites?

      I just don’t see the problem. No one is preventing anyone from building their own “libertarian” or right-leaning social media…

      The folks on the right just don’t like being kicked of “liberal” sites.. they want to stay there and offer their views but there is no right to do that – left or right.

      The current situtation is temporary and I would posit it will be resolved in a month or less… and then the right will have their own sites to say what they want and I’m gonna bet – that even then not everything will be acceptable. We have reached the point where those who openly advocate violence are not wanted on many sites… even some conservative sites.

      1. At the scale needed to compete with Facebook, there is no viable business model that a Parler 2.0 can leverage. Parler already found a new host — I forget who, but I think it’s a Russian company that’s hosted such unsavory sites as 4chan, etc.

        Anyone with a small blog or web business can find a host, but anyone that truly wants to compete with Facebook using different speech TOS will get canned by the few cloud companies able to work at that level.

        Facebook effectively owns the public square. Anybody can build their own salon or coffee shop, but if you want to communicate in a way that only a public square allows, Facebook is where you go.

        Facebook should, of course, prevent people from advocating violence on its property. Facebook, should not, of course, ban peaceful folks like Mr. Van Cleave.

        And yet it is banning folks like Mr. Van Cleave. When asked why, “Facebook provided no explanation of its action. When he protested, Van Cleave said, Facebook “immediately came back with, ‘Well, your violation is so severe we’re not going to be able to restore your account.’”

        What avenue for recourse does he have? A functioning and well-regulated public square is not one where its lord gets to do anything to any person with zero consequence. This suggests to me that greater regulation is needed.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No, that’s excuses. It takes time to get the scale. That’s something that any GOOD business has to do whether it’s FB or Walmart or Verizon, etc.

          The infrastructure and market to do that are there… You have to start somewhere and build up. You can’t tear down large companies because they are large because they are good.

          FB provides a LOT of value-added. No everyone really wants all of that and they may well be drawn to a FB lite competitor.

          Conservatives, of all people, should be able to do this.

      2. What a crock.
        Who is openly advocating violence? And there is no Leftist violence advocated? This is like the Horowitz IG report – how come all 37 errors went the same way?
        And there are other things involved – a “taking” and “chilling” of free speech. If you have a YouTube channel and have to live in fear of being de-monetized for offending a young Marxist at Google, that ain’t fun (besides being arbitrary). And what Amazon Web Services did to Parler kind of destroys Amazon’s credibility to be trusted. I think there is a breach of contract suit and a denial of civil rights lawsuit. I also think Twitter and HomelessJack will have shareholder suits, and it will be hard to justify that the Board will be able to get the protection of the business judgment rule.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          So the security measures being deployed in DC and State Capitols is not warranted?

          I don’t recall anything of that scope and scale from BLM…even Antifa !

          What happened in Washingon, changed minds…

  14. From Glenn Greenwald:

    “The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg pronounced herself “disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is” and added that “it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.” She nonetheless praised these “young tech titans” for using their “dangerous” power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. In other words, liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced (Facebook and other platforms have for years banned marginalized people like Palestinians at Israel’s behest, but that is of no concern to U.S. liberals).

    That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism. Liberals now want to use the force of corporate power to silence those with different ideologies. They are eager for tech monopolies not just to ban accounts they dislike but to remove entire platforms from the internet. They want to imprison people they believe helped their party lose elections, such as Julian Assange, even if it means creating precedents to criminalize journalism.”

    Cool to watch BR liberals’ rhetoric on the unilateral flexing of corporate power boil down to “hehe, they’re private companies! hehe!” Completely unserious. You see 1/6 and the Mossy Oak Legion as the greatest threat to American democracy in generations — which ought to prompt us to take a real hard think on how we got here and what to do — but as soon as tech titans flick these people away like so many ants, all higher thought shuts down. “hehe, get BTFOed!”

    If there’s common ground to be found between left and right, pulling the rug out from under the oligarchs is a good place to start. The difficult part is making sure we prioritize that over partisan schadenfreude. Ironically (and certainly unintentionally), the very dynamics of social media make that a hard ask, but it’s where we need to begin. Any other start is an acceptance of the civil war frame that so many are already pushing.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      What keeps alternative sites from standing up? They certainly do that with alternative blogs and a slew of other media websites?

      I just don’t see the problem. No one is preventing anyone from building their own “libertarian” or right-leaning social media…

      The folks on the right just don’t like being kicked of “liberal” sites.. they want to stay there and offer their views but there is no right to do that – left or right.

      The current situtation is temporary and I would posit it will be resolved in a month or less… and then the right will have their own sites to say what they want and I’m gonna bet – that even then not everything will be acceptable. We have reached the point where those who openly advocate violence are not wanted on many sites… even some conservative sites.

      1. At the scale needed to compete with Facebook, there is no viable business model that a Parler 2.0 can leverage. Parler already found a new host — I forget who, but I think it’s a Russian company that’s hosted such unsavory sites as 4chan, etc.

        Anyone with a small blog or web business can find a host, but anyone that truly wants to compete with Facebook using different speech TOS will get canned by the few cloud companies able to work at that level.

        Facebook effectively owns the public square. Anybody can build their own salon or coffee shop, but if you want to communicate in a way that only a public square allows, Facebook is where you go.

        Facebook should, of course, prevent people from advocating violence on its property. Facebook, should not, of course, ban peaceful folks like Mr. Van Cleave.

        And yet it is banning folks like Mr. Van Cleave. When asked why, “Facebook provided no explanation of its action. When he protested, Van Cleave said, Facebook “immediately came back with, ‘Well, your violation is so severe we’re not going to be able to restore your account.’”

        What avenue for recourse does he have? A functioning and well-regulated public square is not one where its lord gets to do anything to any person with zero consequence. This suggests to me that greater regulation is needed.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No, that’s excuses. It takes time to get the scale. That’s something that any GOOD business has to do whether it’s FB or Walmart or Verizon, etc.

          The infrastructure and market to do that are there… You have to start somewhere and build up. You can’t tear down large companies because they are large because they are good.

          FB provides a LOT of value-added. No everyone really wants all of that and they may well be drawn to a FB lite competitor.

          Conservatives, of all people, should be able to do this.

      2. What a crock.
        Who is openly advocating violence? And there is no Leftist violence advocated? This is like the Horowitz IG report – how come all 37 errors went the same way?
        And there are other things involved – a “taking” and “chilling” of free speech. If you have a YouTube channel and have to live in fear of being de-monetized for offending a young Marxist at Google, that ain’t fun (besides being arbitrary). And what Amazon Web Services did to Parler kind of destroys Amazon’s credibility to be trusted. I think there is a breach of contract suit and a denial of civil rights lawsuit. I also think Twitter and HomelessJack will have shareholder suits, and it will be hard to justify that the Board will be able to get the protection of the business judgment rule.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          So the security measures being deployed in DC and State Capitols is not warranted?

          I don’t recall anything of that scope and scale from BLM…even Antifa !

          What happened in Washingon, changed minds…

  15. VanCleve is not my favorite person. Parler and 4chan users generally are not my favorite sources of information. But who are we to say these companies can, or cannot, censor the speech and conduct of their customers and to deny services as one means of enforcement That’s what “private business” means.

    Now, we all know, denial of service by a private business has exceptions. Which exception does VCDL fit into? There’s the baker who owns his bakery and thinks gay marriage is vile, why can’t he refuse to serve that customer? Well, the State of Colorado thnks civil rights is more important; that if you offer a service to the public you have to offer it to all members of the public on the same terms, racial or sex discrimination not allowed. We know the primacy of civil rights law versus private discrimination went to the Supreme Court on the question, among other things, whether the civil rights law’s non-discrimination requirements were forcing the baker to violate his rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    Another exception, however, is a familiar one to BR readers: denial of service by a private business when the public has no alternative way to get that service and the service is deemed “essential.” We call a private business like that a “monopoly.” And in fact we have a bunch of laws about monopolies. One solution is to ensure competition, by penalizing anti-competitive conduct and forbidding or conditioning mergers and acquisitions that would reduce competition. The other solution is to admit, that business is a monopoly, but requiring competition would be too burdensome and duplicatve; so instead let’s just let it be a monopoly, but regulate its rates and its services so that it cannot abuse its monopoly power by “unjustly” discriminating or overcharging. That, folks, is what we call a “public utility”: Dominion Energy, and your local gas and water and sewer supplier. Some think the communications carriers — landline, cable, cell phone, internet-service provider — function the same way and ought to be regulated the same way.

    The question here is: is Facebook or Twitter a monopoly? Is likeAmazon’s subsidiary, AWS, a monopoly? Is Mailchimp? In other words, as a practical matter, does a denial of server service or a shutting down of specific customer accounts amount to a denial of free speech? It all depends on whether the customer has practical alternatives.

    If your measure of “practical alternative” is that it must be an alternative forum with an audience as wide and easy-to-access as the one denied, then what’s we’re seeing done to VCDL is a denial of freedom of speech, and that should concern us all, greatly.

    But if your measure of “practical alternative” is any way to get the word out to others, then VCDL clearly has alternatives. Maybe publishing op-eds and ads in the local newspaper are not as convenient, but if those alternatives exist, arguably that’s enough to meet the legal test. In that case, VCDL is inconvenienced but not denied an essential right — “them’s the breaks.”

    What’s it going to be, here? I’m no fan of VCDL or VanCleve but they are provocateurs and know how to assert their rights, and, in this situation, that may be a very good thing.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Acbar – the problem is that these platforms have common-carrier-like protection (Section 230) from lawsuits based on the premise they, like Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T, cannot control what’s published on their platforms. Yet, unlike Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T, these Internet platforms can and do censor based on internal policies. In that sense, they are just like media companies. The WaPo can and does decide who gets published, even on their “inviting” op-ed policies. Publishers can be sued for what they publish.

      Is there bias? Damn right. See what happens if a site or person would advocate for a religious test against a Muslim, say Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Dimes to donuts, the site would be shut down. Yet, has there been any attempt to censor or remove Maize Hirono or Kamala Harris? No, their religious bigotry is against Catholics, which is still acceptable. And don’t give me any Joe Biden crap. He’s no more a Catholic than the Man in the Moon.

      They went after Trump; yet, Biden is already announcing that he won’t enforce the immigration laws. What nation doesn’t control their borders? I’d say Biden becomes impeachable from the day he takes executive action. Yet, none dare call it treason. He won’t be banned from Twitter.

      These platforms succeeded in large part because of their Section 230 protections. It’s pretty easy to grow a company when you cannot be sued even when you do act as a publisher. The federal government, under both Republicans and Democrats, shut their eyes to the Googles, Amazons and Facebooks.

      Bust up these big companies.

  16. VanCleve is not my favorite person. Parler and 4chan users generally are not my favorite sources of information. But who are we to say these companies can, or cannot, censor the speech and conduct of their customers and to deny services as one means of enforcement That’s what “private business” means.

    Now, we all know, denial of service by a private business has exceptions. Which exception does VCDL fit into? There’s the baker who owns his bakery and thinks gay marriage is vile, why can’t he refuse to serve that customer? Well, the State of Colorado thnks civil rights is more important; that if you offer a service to the public you have to offer it to all members of the public on the same terms, racial or sex discrimination not allowed. We know the primacy of civil rights law versus private discrimination went to the Supreme Court on the question, among other things, whether the civil rights law’s non-discrimination requirements were forcing the baker to violate his rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    Another exception, however, is a familiar one to BR readers: denial of service by a private business when the public has no alternative way to get that service and the service is deemed “essential.” We call a private business like that a “monopoly.” And in fact we have a bunch of laws about monopolies. One solution is to ensure competition, by penalizing anti-competitive conduct and forbidding or conditioning mergers and acquisitions that would reduce competition. The other solution is to admit, that business is a monopoly, but requiring competition would be too burdensome and duplicatve; so instead let’s just let it be a monopoly, but regulate its rates and its services so that it cannot abuse its monopoly power by “unjustly” discriminating or overcharging. That, folks, is what we call a “public utility”: Dominion Energy, and your local gas and water and sewer supplier. Some think the communications carriers — landline, cable, cell phone, internet-service provider — function the same way and ought to be regulated the same way.

    The question here is: is Facebook or Twitter a monopoly? Is likeAmazon’s subsidiary, AWS, a monopoly? Is Mailchimp? In other words, as a practical matter, does a denial of server service or a shutting down of specific customer accounts amount to a denial of free speech? It all depends on whether the customer has practical alternatives.

    If your measure of “practical alternative” is that it must be an alternative forum with an audience as wide and easy-to-access as the one denied, then what’s we’re seeing done to VCDL is a denial of freedom of speech, and that should concern us all, greatly.

    But if your measure of “practical alternative” is any way to get the word out to others, then VCDL clearly has alternatives. Maybe publishing op-eds and ads in the local newspaper are not as convenient, but if those alternatives exist, arguably that’s enough to meet the legal test. In that case, VCDL is inconvenienced but not denied an essential right — “them’s the breaks.”

    What’s it going to be, here? I’m no fan of VCDL or VanCleve but they are provocateurs and know how to assert their rights, and, in this situation, that may be a very good thing.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Acbar – the problem is that these platforms have common-carrier-like protection (Section 230) from lawsuits based on the premise they, like Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T, cannot control what’s published on their platforms. Yet, unlike Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T, these Internet platforms can and do censor based on internal policies. In that sense, they are just like media companies. The WaPo can and does decide who gets published, even on their “inviting” op-ed policies. Publishers can be sued for what they publish.

      Is there bias? Damn right. See what happens if a site or person would advocate for a religious test against a Muslim, say Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Dimes to donuts, the site would be shut down. Yet, has there been any attempt to censor or remove Maize Hirono or Kamala Harris? No, their religious bigotry is against Catholics, which is still acceptable. And don’t give me any Joe Biden crap. He’s no more a Catholic than the Man in the Moon.

      They went after Trump; yet, Biden is already announcing that he won’t enforce the immigration laws. What nation doesn’t control their borders? I’d say Biden becomes impeachable from the day he takes executive action. Yet, none dare call it treason. He won’t be banned from Twitter.

      These platforms succeeded in large part because of their Section 230 protections. It’s pretty easy to grow a company when you cannot be sued even when you do act as a publisher. The federal government, under both Republicans and Democrats, shut their eyes to the Googles, Amazons and Facebooks.

      Bust up these big companies.

  17. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    They don’t have to be monopolies if they act as a cartel. Parler needs to test this in court. What happened there was clearly coordinated. I’ve never been on the site but what is going on is chilling. I’m aware of somebody else having issues and being denied service. This is just the start.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      There is nothing that prevents them from standing up a service.

      There are cloud providers and basic internet infrastructure available.

      They may not be as full-featured but that’s like comparing a stripped down Chevy with a Cadillac. It does not mean you can’t get a car.

      What is Parlar going to claim – that’s they’re not as good as FB or Twitter and FB/Twitter have to show them their proprietary features?

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        A conspiracy by companies against a potential rival violates the antitrust laws. Why do you think the feds forced AT&T and the Bell System into a new consent decree and forced divestitures and limits on lines of business? I’ve heard Democrats rattle on for years about enforcing the antitrust laws. Will the Biden administration act here? I doubt it.

  18. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    They don’t have to be monopolies if they act as a cartel. Parler needs to test this in court. What happened there was clearly coordinated. I’ve never been on the site but what is going on is chilling. I’m aware of somebody else having issues and being denied service. This is just the start.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      There is nothing that prevents them from standing up a service.

      There are cloud providers and basic internet infrastructure available.

      They may not be as full-featured but that’s like comparing a stripped down Chevy with a Cadillac. It does not mean you can’t get a car.

      What is Parlar going to claim – that’s they’re not as good as FB or Twitter and FB/Twitter have to show them their proprietary features?

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        A conspiracy by companies against a potential rival violates the antitrust laws. Why do you think the feds forced AT&T and the Bell System into a new consent decree and forced divestitures and limits on lines of business? I’ve heard Democrats rattle on for years about enforcing the antitrust laws. Will the Biden administration act here? I doubt it.

  19. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    After getting so much criticism for allowing their platforms to be used by the Russians, Facebook, Twitter, et al. have overreacted. This has the unfortunate result of seeming to confirm the charges of conservatives that they are being censored. There is another unfortunate, ironic side effect. Because so much of the plotting was done on Facebook and Twitter and other open platforms, law enforcement was able to monitor what was going on. (The fact that they did not act on the intelligence they had was a real SNAFU, but that is another story.) Banning these groups from Facebook and Twitter has only forced them to use more back channels and private chat groups, thus making the job of law enforcement harder.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” Banning these groups from Facebook and Twitter has only forced them to use more back channels and private chat groups, thus making the job of law enforcement harder.”

      yep – the ones to really fear have gone underground… but the loudmouths continue to do their thing… wherever they can…

    2. djrippert Avatar

      Exactly right. There are ways to plot and plan without being detected. These numbskulls were using platforms that made it easy to track them – before and after the fact.

  20. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    After getting so much criticism for allowing their platforms to be used by the Russians, Facebook, Twitter, et al. have overreacted. This has the unfortunate result of seeming to confirm the charges of conservatives that they are being censored. There is another unfortunate, ironic side effect. Because so much of the plotting was done on Facebook and Twitter and other open platforms, law enforcement was able to monitor what was going on. (The fact that they did not act on the intelligence they had was a real SNAFU, but that is another story.) Banning these groups from Facebook and Twitter has only forced them to use more back channels and private chat groups, thus making the job of law enforcement harder.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” Banning these groups from Facebook and Twitter has only forced them to use more back channels and private chat groups, thus making the job of law enforcement harder.”

      yep – the ones to really fear have gone underground… but the loudmouths continue to do their thing… wherever they can…

    2. djrippert Avatar

      Exactly right. There are ways to plot and plan without being detected. These numbskulls were using platforms that made it easy to track them – before and after the fact.

  21. Matt Hurt Avatar

    I have two questions for everyone.

    #1. Is it not ok to deny someone service based on their sexual preference, but it is OK to deny someone service because they have a different political opinion that you (liberal versus conservative)? Are not both things kind of ingrained in your DNA/personality? Not sure of the answer, just throwing this out there.

    #2. Do you really want the government more into this? If you’re worried about how Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg have deplatformed conservatives, what would Joe Biden do if he could can get his hands on it. Then, when Kamala puts him in the old folks home, she would kick off everyone to the right of AOC. The 10 additional supreme court justices will certainly back their move. On the other hand, when the political tables turn, the next Republican, would simply reverse everything, and the 20 new supreme justices that the new Republican government installed would also back their move.

    This does suck, but so do lots of things in life. We always don’t get what we want. I suspect that Twitter and Facebook may have just cut their own throats, because if they do deplatform 50% of the population, they’ll loose a lot of revenue which just may lead to their demise. Also, those folks won’t stay out in the cold long. Someone will eventually work something out to steal and sell their (conservatives) data just as the current tech giants have been doing.

    This too shall pass. Then folks will have something else to fuss about.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      On number 1 , if the TOS prohibits advocating violence … is that different than sexual preferences?

      Number 2 – I agree with you but not because of Biden..

      Let’s drop back. Can the FAA prohibit vulgar speech, hate speech?

      Do we want their purview to expand to include onine forums – no matter who is POTUS?

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar

        Did Van Cleave advocate violence?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          He has not been in the past, but who knows of those like him or new ones in his group, are or are not trustworthy?

          If they all have guns, which ones are the “good” guys?

          1. Matt Hurt Avatar

            The “good” guys are those who are not exhibiting illegal behavior. I don’t think we ever want to get into the business of attempting to read individual intentions, and then proactively acting to quell potential future trouble.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Matt, do you think the fortress in DC is about being able to predict “illegal” behavior of some while allowing others who are not illegal to come in?

            How do we deal with groups of people, all with guns, some of which in that group not contrained by “legal” in the use of their guns?

            Do we really think – they ought to have a checkpoint in Washington and Richmond where they try to figure out on a per individual basis – which ones with guns are okay and which ones are not?

            We just let them all in and then arrest the ones that become a mob – after the fact?

          3. Matt Hurt Avatar

            I thought I just posted something on here, but I don’t see it now. If this is duplicated, please overlook that. Below is a synopsis.

            The foundational principle of the US Constitution is that political ambitions of individuals will provide personal incentives to increase the power of government. The Constitution provides some mitigating strategies to counter this, namely three branches of government that are intended to provide a check on those individual ambitions, as well as the fact that powers of government are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the practice of legislative overreach in some areas, legislative abandonment of other areas to the executive (so the legislators can’t be blamed in the next election cycle), and the activist judiciary have watered down these mitigation strategies over the last 233 years.

            There are generally three teams competing against each other in our country. Team A is made up of citizens who generally lean liberal (for lack of a better term), Team B made up of citizens who generally lean conservative (again for lack of a better term), and Team C, made up of our ruling elites. As the power and scope of our government grows, it increasingly creeps more into the live of Team A and Team B. Therefore, Team C gets a really warm and fuzzy feeling inside when Team A and Team B are at each other’s throats.

            It is quite obvious to me that significant numbers of both Team A and Team B are not happy with things. While the current pandemic has certainly added to these feelings of discontent, the cause goes back quite a while. The ruling class have been doing their thing 233 years in this country, but now folks have more leisure time, and they have access to the Internet, both of which are drawing back the curtain so that more folks understand how they’re just pawns of Team C.

            Instead of addressing the root cause of the issues, Team C will continue taking a more draconian means to maintain hegemony. They want to maintain that power at all cost.

            Therefore, my position is simple. The government has too much power, and instead of complying as they work to take more from citizens, we should resist and work to restore a better balance.

            As it turns out, if a party takes power that alleges to be on my side, I might be tempted to follow along with their overreach if it gives me what I want that also sticks it to the other team. The problem is that no one party will ever maintain hegemony over time. When one party takes things too far, the unwashed masses vote them out, until the other party takes things too far the next time.

            I am concerned more about the government who has the legal power to kill me than I worry about a fellow citizen exhibiting Constitutionally guaranteed behavior. We all have different viewpoints, but I do not believe government force is the answer. I strongly believe that political ambitions tend towards policy that is contrary to the needs and desires of a free citizenry.

            First they came for the Communists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Communist

            Then they came for the Socialists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Socialist

            Then they came for the trade unionists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a trade unionist

            Then they came for the Jews
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Jew

            Then they came for me
            And there was no one left
            To speak out for me

            The first stanza should read as below. I bet money the Germans didn’t anticipate the hell that Hitler brought with him.

            First, they came for the guns
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a gun nut

  22. Matt Hurt Avatar

    I have two questions for everyone.

    #1. Is it not ok to deny someone service based on their sexual preference, but it is OK to deny someone service because they have a different political opinion that you (liberal versus conservative)? Are not both things kind of ingrained in your DNA/personality? Not sure of the answer, just throwing this out there.

    #2. Do you really want the government more into this? If you’re worried about how Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg have deplatformed conservatives, what would Joe Biden do if he could can get his hands on it. Then, when Kamala puts him in the old folks home, she would kick off everyone to the right of AOC. The 10 additional supreme court justices will certainly back their move. On the other hand, when the political tables turn, the next Republican, would simply reverse everything, and the 20 new supreme justices that the new Republican government installed would also back their move.

    This does suck, but so do lots of things in life. We always don’t get what we want. I suspect that Twitter and Facebook may have just cut their own throats, because if they do deplatform 50% of the population, they’ll loose a lot of revenue which just may lead to their demise. Also, those folks won’t stay out in the cold long. Someone will eventually work something out to steal and sell their (conservatives) data just as the current tech giants have been doing.

    This too shall pass. Then folks will have something else to fuss about.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      On number 1 , if the TOS prohibits advocating violence … is that different than sexual preferences?

      Number 2 – I agree with you but not because of Biden..

      Let’s drop back. Can the FAA prohibit vulgar speech, hate speech?

      Do we want their purview to expand to include onine forums – no matter who is POTUS?

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar

        Did Van Cleave advocate violence?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          He has not been in the past, but who knows of those like him or new ones in his group, are or are not trustworthy?

          If they all have guns, which ones are the “good” guys?

          1. Matt Hurt Avatar

            The “good” guys are those who are not exhibiting illegal behavior. I don’t think we ever want to get into the business of attempting to read individual intentions, and then proactively acting to quell potential future trouble.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Matt, do you think the fortress in DC is about being able to predict “illegal” behavior of some while allowing others who are not illegal to come in?

            How do we deal with groups of people, all with guns, some of which in that group not contrained by “legal” in the use of their guns?

            Do we really think – they ought to have a checkpoint in Washington and Richmond where they try to figure out on a per individual basis – which ones with guns are okay and which ones are not?

            We just let them all in and then arrest the ones that become a mob – after the fact?

          3. Matt Hurt Avatar

            I thought I just posted something on here, but I don’t see it now. If this is duplicated, please overlook that. Below is a synopsis.

            The foundational principle of the US Constitution is that political ambitions of individuals will provide personal incentives to increase the power of government. The Constitution provides some mitigating strategies to counter this, namely three branches of government that are intended to provide a check on those individual ambitions, as well as the fact that powers of government are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the practice of legislative overreach in some areas, legislative abandonment of other areas to the executive (so the legislators can’t be blamed in the next election cycle), and the activist judiciary have watered down these mitigation strategies over the last 233 years.

            There are generally three teams competing against each other in our country. Team A is made up of citizens who generally lean liberal (for lack of a better term), Team B made up of citizens who generally lean conservative (again for lack of a better term), and Team C, made up of our ruling elites. As the power and scope of our government grows, it increasingly creeps more into the live of Team A and Team B. Therefore, Team C gets a really warm and fuzzy feeling inside when Team A and Team B are at each other’s throats.

            It is quite obvious to me that significant numbers of both Team A and Team B are not happy with things. While the current pandemic has certainly added to these feelings of discontent, the cause goes back quite a while. The ruling class have been doing their thing 233 years in this country, but now folks have more leisure time, and they have access to the Internet, both of which are drawing back the curtain so that more folks understand how they’re just pawns of Team C.

            Instead of addressing the root cause of the issues, Team C will continue taking a more draconian means to maintain hegemony. They want to maintain that power at all cost.

            Therefore, my position is simple. The government has too much power, and instead of complying as they work to take more from citizens, we should resist and work to restore a better balance.

            As it turns out, if a party takes power that alleges to be on my side, I might be tempted to follow along with their overreach if it gives me what I want that also sticks it to the other team. The problem is that no one party will ever maintain hegemony over time. When one party takes things too far, the unwashed masses vote them out, until the other party takes things too far the next time.

            I am concerned more about the government who has the legal power to kill me than I worry about a fellow citizen exhibiting Constitutionally guaranteed behavior. We all have different viewpoints, but I do not believe government force is the answer. I strongly believe that political ambitions tend towards policy that is contrary to the needs and desires of a free citizenry.

            First they came for the Communists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Communist

            Then they came for the Socialists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Socialist

            Then they came for the trade unionists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a trade unionist

            Then they came for the Jews
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Jew

            Then they came for me
            And there was no one left
            To speak out for me

            The first stanza should read as below. I bet money the Germans didn’t anticipate the hell that Hitler brought with him.

            First, they came for the guns
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a gun nut

  23. Matt Hurt Avatar

    So, anytime someone has a gun, and could possibly advocate for violence, strike them down! I got it.

    1. This is a reply to your thoughtful longer post:

      I could understand your thoughts and sentiments if I hadn’t worked at an international investment bank. I still have plenty of contacts in what you term as “Team C”…i-bankers, commercial bankers, C-suiters.

      I’d actually argue that the fed’l gov’t has much less power today than it has in decades. I honestly don’t know a single person in Team C that gives the fed’l gov’t a second thought except for the few remaining extractive industries. Manufacturing cares about OSHA to some degree, but it’s not nearly the problem that many make it out to be.

      In fact, the Bush-Obama-Trump admins have been almost completely “hands off” as tech becomes a larger and larger component of the economy. Virtually no regulation of any consequence. Hard to think of a time in the country’s history when the biggest, most powerful industry has gone decades without serious regulation.

      People may point to Dodd-Frank as an example of overregulation, but anyone in the industry will tell you that it wasn’t anything more than what the rational actors in the finance world already knew was needed: serious resolution authority and a better handle on systemic risk. And, guess what? There isn’t a serious financial thinker on the left or right or in the industry that will tell you that banks aren’t in a much more profitable and better situation today than they would have been without Dodd-Frank and Basel III. Team A and B actually benefitted from this in terms of everyday life. It’s a hell of a lot easier to live in a world where you don’t have to worry about enormous commercial banks (WaMu and IndyMac) going out of business while you have your money deposited there.

      What is it that you think a smaller fed’l gov’t with less power would achieve that would better the lives of either Team A or B? I honestly can’t think of anything. A smaller fed’l gov’t simply empowers and enriches Team C even more.

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar

        Team C includes individuals who are elected to government, as well as many nonelected bureaucrats. Big business needs the legislation and regulation that benefit them, and the politicians need the political donations to fund their campaigns. Mind you, I don’t subscribe to any tin foil hat conspiracies that all of this is planned out in smoky back rooms somewhere, but the incentive structures are naturally in place that cause individuals to behave in this manner.

  24. Matt Hurt Avatar

    So, anytime someone has a gun, and could possibly advocate for violence, strike them down! I got it.

    1. This is a reply to your thoughtful longer post:

      I could understand your thoughts and sentiments if I hadn’t worked at an international investment bank. I still have plenty of contacts in what you term as “Team C”…i-bankers, commercial bankers, C-suiters.

      I’d actually argue that the fed’l gov’t has much less power today than it has in decades. I honestly don’t know a single person in Team C that gives the fed’l gov’t a second thought except for the few remaining extractive industries. Manufacturing cares about OSHA to some degree, but it’s not nearly the problem that many make it out to be.

      In fact, the Bush-Obama-Trump admins have been almost completely “hands off” as tech becomes a larger and larger component of the economy. Virtually no regulation of any consequence. Hard to think of a time in the country’s history when the biggest, most powerful industry has gone decades without serious regulation.

      People may point to Dodd-Frank as an example of overregulation, but anyone in the industry will tell you that it wasn’t anything more than what the rational actors in the finance world already knew was needed: serious resolution authority and a better handle on systemic risk. And, guess what? There isn’t a serious financial thinker on the left or right or in the industry that will tell you that banks aren’t in a much more profitable and better situation today than they would have been without Dodd-Frank and Basel III. Team A and B actually benefitted from this in terms of everyday life. It’s a hell of a lot easier to live in a world where you don’t have to worry about enormous commercial banks (WaMu and IndyMac) going out of business while you have your money deposited there.

      What is it that you think a smaller fed’l gov’t with less power would achieve that would better the lives of either Team A or B? I honestly can’t think of anything. A smaller fed’l gov’t simply empowers and enriches Team C even more.

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar

        Team C includes individuals who are elected to government, as well as many nonelected bureaucrats. Big business needs the legislation and regulation that benefit them, and the politicians need the political donations to fund their campaigns. Mind you, I don’t subscribe to any tin foil hat conspiracies that all of this is planned out in smoky back rooms somewhere, but the incentive structures are naturally in place that cause individuals to behave in this manner.

  25. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    What about the media and the platforms celebrating one of the most open religious bigots in American history – Kamala Harris? If she had tried to impose a religious test on a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu judicial nominee, all hell would have broken out. But since Buescher was just a friggin Catholic, it was OK. And still is.

    Remember that the only colony willing to give Catholics any freedom was Maryland. Somethings never change.

  26. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    What about the media and the platforms celebrating one of the most open religious bigots in American history – Kamala Harris? If she had tried to impose a religious test on a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu judicial nominee, all hell would have broken out. But since Buescher was just a friggin Catholic, it was OK. And still is.

    Remember that the only colony willing to give Catholics any freedom was Maryland. Somethings never change.

  27. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    I’d have more sympathy if conservatives hadn’t spent decades fighting the reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine and haughtily opining that the NFL – an actual monopoly by the way – had every right to refuse via their teams Colin Kaepernick a job because free market.

    You reap what you sow. You all thought your philosophy would be king of the capitalist mountain forever and you could speak and act without consequence. Oops.

  28. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    I’d have more sympathy if conservatives hadn’t spent decades fighting the reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine and haughtily opining that the NFL – an actual monopoly by the way – had every right to refuse via their teams Colin Kaepernick a job because free market.

    You reap what you sow. You all thought your philosophy would be king of the capitalist mountain forever and you could speak and act without consequence. Oops.

  29. UATW, I agree with you — the Fairness Doctrine is a good illustration of the kind of approach we are likely to have to take with the social media companies to get them off this “Anger => Profits” addiction of theirs, as enshrined in their advertising algorithms. IMHO government has to have a role there; this is not something the market will self-correct. So is Dodd-Frank; as Creguy points out, knowledgeable people in the industry aren’t the ones against it. We need these market constraints, just as we need them not to go too far. In fact the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which led to some of the excesses Dodd-Frank sought to curb, shows the long term harm that can come from the wrong kind of regulation. Cf. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/repeal-glass-steagall-act-myth-reality

    Steve H, you are correct of course, a cartel is as bad as a monopoly, for the same anti-competitive reasons, and it is the government’s job to break them up.

    Matt H, your A – B – C division has a lot of appeal these days since A versus B politicization is what dominates our lives currently. Personally I don’t see “the elites” in the same negative terms you do. If Teams A and B are the combatants on the field, Team C, it seems to me, consists mainly of the rules-writers who shape the constraints, the outer bounds of the playing field if you will, within which the game is played, and the regulators, the referees who enforce those constraints. The problem with Team C is, the power to regulate is the power to micro-manage, and businesses have found that lobbyists are very effective at obtaining legislation and regulation that puts a thumb on the scales in their favor. In the game of competition, this is tantamount to fixing the rules in your favor and then bribing the referee to make double-sure you win! But let’s not throw out the ‘baby with the bath-water,’ that is, let’s not eliminate government constraints entirely when in fact the game must be played with rules and with referees or it’s no game at all.

    BTW, Matt H, your Question 1 illustrates how a constitutional law analysis can get very confusing when there are competing social goals and all we want is a common sense, “gut feeling,” answer. Short answer, it IS ok to deny someone service because they have a different political opinion than you, IF (a) you’re a private business not a government entity (the government has a due-process obligation to treat you fairly, a private business doesn’t), and (b) the denial does not constitute a prohibited kind of discrimination (that is, prohibited under the federal Civil Rights acts and/or State law in many States, including discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion. nat’l origin), and (c) the denial does not infringe on a constitutionally protected right (including free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, etc.).

    There is another set of constraints which some private companies have imposed on themselves — these are the “terms and conditions of service” posted by these companies, which constitute a kind of contract with the customer. In these, many of them (usually the bigger, national chains) voluntarily have made a broad ‘commitment to non-discrimination’ and so forth, but all too often it’s for p.r. and the fine print leaves them lots of wiggle-room to argue over just what that commitment means in a particular instance.

    Now we lawyers can get all tied into knots over this, especially when the answer under (b) conflicts with the answer under (c), but basically this is the framework for answering your Question 1. And yes, the government is already deeply into this, so really your Question 2 goes to, would I like the government to do a better job, not, NO job. When it comes to de-platforming by Dorsey and Zuckerberg — as bad a job as the government might make of it, I’d rather Congress try to set the rules than leave it to Dorsey and Zuckerberg themselves to pick winners and losers from among their customers based on the customers’ politics and whatever else they like or dislike. Which is worse, Congress, or Zuckerberg’s whim?

    1. Matt Hurt Avatar

      I was trying to state that Team C is made up of the rule writers as well as those with the wealth or position to influence the writing of the rules. Teams A and B are common folks.

      There is a symbiotic relationship between our politicians, big business (at least those companies with sufficient wealth or political acumen), major media outlets, etc- AKA Team C. The basis of this symbiotic relationship are all of the incentive structures that provides politicians with campaign funds (and somehow or another personal wealth), business with favorable regulation that either directly benefits them or makes business too costly for competitors, and the media with more clicks and views than they can count. All of these factors hasten the effects of the Pareto principle. The more this is allowed to continue unfettered, the most unrest will occur among Teams A and B.

      I don’t know what the solution to this is, but I think a good start is if we would stop re-electing folks, either via term limits or collectively voting the b*st*rds out of office. Not allowing politicians to acclimate to the current rot may very well mitigate some of the current incentives that significantly propagate many of the negative results of government for the citizens of our country.

  30. UATW, I agree with you — the Fairness Doctrine is a good illustration of the kind of approach we are likely to have to take with the social media companies to get them off this “Anger => Profits” addiction of theirs, as enshrined in their advertising algorithms. IMHO government has to have a role there; this is not something the market will self-correct. So is Dodd-Frank; as Creguy points out, knowledgeable people in the industry aren’t the ones against it. We need these market constraints, just as we need them not to go too far. In fact the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which led to some of the excesses Dodd-Frank sought to curb, shows the long term harm that can come from the wrong kind of regulation. Cf. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/repeal-glass-steagall-act-myth-reality

    Steve H, you are correct of course, a cartel is as bad as a monopoly, for the same anti-competitive reasons, and it is the government’s job to break them up.

    Matt H, your A – B – C division has a lot of appeal these days since A versus B politicization is what dominates our lives currently. Personally I don’t see “the elites” in the same negative terms you do. If Teams A and B are the combatants on the field, Team C, it seems to me, consists mainly of the rules-writers who shape the constraints, the outer bounds of the playing field if you will, within which the game is played, and the regulators, the referees who enforce those constraints. The problem with Team C is, the power to regulate is the power to micro-manage, and businesses have found that lobbyists are very effective at obtaining legislation and regulation that puts a thumb on the scales in their favor. In the game of competition, this is tantamount to fixing the rules in your favor and then bribing the referee to make double-sure you win! But let’s not throw out the ‘baby with the bath-water,’ that is, let’s not eliminate government constraints entirely when in fact the game must be played with rules and with referees or it’s no game at all.

    BTW, Matt H, your Question 1 illustrates how a constitutional law analysis can get very confusing when there are competing social goals and all we want is a common sense, “gut feeling,” answer. Short answer, it IS ok to deny someone service because they have a different political opinion than you, IF (a) you’re a private business not a government entity (the government has a due-process obligation to treat you fairly, a private business doesn’t), and (b) the denial does not constitute a prohibited kind of discrimination (that is, prohibited under the federal Civil Rights acts and/or State law in many States, including discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion. nat’l origin), and (c) the denial does not infringe on a constitutionally protected right (including free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, etc.).

    There is another set of constraints which some private companies have imposed on themselves — these are the “terms and conditions of service” posted by these companies, which constitute a kind of contract with the customer. In these, many of them (usually the bigger, national chains) voluntarily have made a broad ‘commitment to non-discrimination’ and so forth, but all too often it’s for p.r. and the fine print leaves them lots of wiggle-room to argue over just what that commitment means in a particular instance.

    Now we lawyers can get all tied into knots over this, especially when the answer under (b) conflicts with the answer under (c), but basically this is the framework for answering your Question 1. And yes, the government is already deeply into this, so really your Question 2 goes to, would I like the government to do a better job, not, NO job. When it comes to de-platforming by Dorsey and Zuckerberg — as bad a job as the government might make of it, I’d rather Congress try to set the rules than leave it to Dorsey and Zuckerberg themselves to pick winners and losers from among their customers based on the customers’ politics and whatever else they like or dislike. Which is worse, Congress, or Zuckerberg’s whim?

    1. Matt Hurt Avatar

      I was trying to state that Team C is made up of the rule writers as well as those with the wealth or position to influence the writing of the rules. Teams A and B are common folks.

      There is a symbiotic relationship between our politicians, big business (at least those companies with sufficient wealth or political acumen), major media outlets, etc- AKA Team C. The basis of this symbiotic relationship are all of the incentive structures that provides politicians with campaign funds (and somehow or another personal wealth), business with favorable regulation that either directly benefits them or makes business too costly for competitors, and the media with more clicks and views than they can count. All of these factors hasten the effects of the Pareto principle. The more this is allowed to continue unfettered, the most unrest will occur among Teams A and B.

      I don’t know what the solution to this is, but I think a good start is if we would stop re-electing folks, either via term limits or collectively voting the b*st*rds out of office. Not allowing politicians to acclimate to the current rot may very well mitigate some of the current incentives that significantly propagate many of the negative results of government for the citizens of our country.

Leave a Reply