All errors should be reported to

Sunday, May 12, 2019

The conservative case for regulating social media

Fascists are dehumanizing real Americans by banning and censoring them on Twitter, Facebook, You Tube and other places. Protests are met with snide contempt from the left. But change the discrimination to Muslims or homosexuals and watch the virtue signals light up the sky.

When Facebook declared the Declaration of Independence hate speech, the company declared war on the values of this nation -- and we should not stand for it.

But I can see why the people at Facebook consider it hateful because the Declaration of Independence is a threat to the power Facebook abuses. The declaration commands that we regulate the social media because the people running it are denying people their inalienable rights, which were granted by God.

As Jefferson wrote, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

And it is censorship. When I cannot post a link on Facebook to a post because some corporate thug branded it hate speech, my freedom is denied. The Terms of Service are not evenly applied -- nor are they reasonable.

The Federal Communications Commission must now secure our rights because Facebook and the rest are denying them.

Belief in limited government does not equate to an embrace of anarchy but rather a demand that the government stick to the basics. When companies conspire to deny civil rights to 62 million people because they dared elect Donald John Trump president, then those same companies lose their privilege to conduct business unfettered.

This is not the same as a single proprietor declining to bake a cake for a wedding that goes against his personal beliefs because this is a corporate decision. The social media is today's public square, and as such must remain open to all people -- or face the consequences of their discrimination.


  1. Hopefully their day onreckoning will be coming.

    1. It just might.

      There are rumblings there is a movement to get rid of Zuck. Fire draws fire, and all.

      They've been hemorrhaging users for a while now and I assume it's eating into the profits.

      We'll see.

    2. He owns 60% of the stock. How can they get rid of him?

    3. It's reported that Youtube's shenanigans has have cost its parent company Alphabet $70 billion.

  2. Easy fix. If they wish to censor they're choosing what to publish. That's the point where they become responsible for what's on their platforms and they then bear some responsibility for any libel or defamation thereon.
    The extent of their censorship should be limited to referring actual threats to law enforcement authorities.

    1. Social media platforms are publishers; they choose what to publish and what to ban. They should be designated as publishers.

      Wired magazine said: "...the 1998 Communications Decency Act. It says that online services like Facebook and Twitter aren’t legally responsible for content posted by their users, even if it’s illegal: If a Facebook user posts something defamatory, the injured person can sue the user, but not Facebook.

      The scholars urging a reexamination of this law argue that unless social media platforms are treated as publishers responsible for the content they distribute, enemies of democracy will increasingly use speech on social media as a weapon to attack or suppress truthful speech."

      That's the problem. The "Masters of the Universe" ban "hate speech," but that's only speech that they don't like, which is often truthful speech. What I consider hate speech isn't banned at all, but promoted! In fact there is objectively no such thing as hate speech, there is only speech, and America used to honor freedom of speech. That includes what some find hateful but others don't.

      Media platforms should only ban what is illegal speech, not just what they don't like, and they should be seen as publishers unless that's what they do.

    2. Agree no exemption. Political censorship is a government act; this is pure discrimination against some freedom of speech since not all speech is equal on Facebook and other social media.

    3. Do not conflate political with government. The former may seem the same as the latter, however, it is not.

      The point of Constituionally unlawful, aka, illegal speech is the issue.

      Anything can be made illegal, yet, not Constitutionally unlawful.

      And anything made unconstitutionally is, by definition, not lawful law.

      Apply our Constitution to everything.

      That is why it was written.

      All other nonsense is political and is toxic to our Constitutional Republic.

  3. The actual conservative solution is to start an alternative forum. I see a bad precedent in government regulation of what Facebook, Twitter and the rest can ban, which plays straight into the objectives of America's fascist Left.

    Where the Government may have a role is in banning the distortion of search engine results, sharing data on individuals and on providing unreported in-kind value to a political party or candidate from the above two.

    1. There is a protected class called "creed". While heavily associated with religion and religious beliefs, religion itself is a seperate protected class.

      So, creed can involve more than just religion.

      When private, but when the owners and emplpyees of vastly used conveyances of thought and ideas suppress certain thoughts and ideas, not only does that go against the grain and spirit of the 1st Amendment, it is also can be seen as violating a protected class's rights.

      There is a vast difference between AM talk radio where the marketplace has determined one sidedness versus a concerted effort across like minded companies to only have one homogeneous thought.

    2. Starting an alternative forum might be a solution if the established platforms they'd be competing with and their ideological allies do everything they could to strangle them at birth.

    3. Bad idea. I have many family who are liberal or left leaning. In order to interact with them I would have to either be on two networks, or they would have to be on two networks. Thus one of us would be living in hostile territory so to speak.
      The other problem is a conservative platform would draw trolls who would flame it, then point to it as a harbor of hate speech and if we tried to regulate them, they would then accuse us of the same thing farcepunk is doing.

  4. Replies
    1. Unfortunately haters took it over

    2. That is one of the consequences of truly free speech. Can't have it both ways. At least they are open in their malevolence unlike the leftists.

    3. A hater is what any self-respecting leftist calls you, Don. It is all a matter of frame of reference. You can choose to look only through the Overton window, or decide that it is itself an artifice made by others who don't particularly like you; and see the world with your own eyes, instead of through the eyes of those others.

  5. I think the answer lies not in regulating the companies but in breaking them up into sufficiently smaller units such that they will have to compete for the market components that they now ban.

    The thought here is that with the monopolistic size now enjoyed by them, they have no problem ostracizing a portion of the people who would want to use their services. They lose nothing. If social media were confined to a fraction of the potential market, the margins they would have to seek out to become more profitable than their competitors would be the same margins that they now abjure.

    The result we want could be reached by estimating the size of the conservative market and confining the size of any single social media company to the size of that market and prohibiting mergers for some minimal number of years, say, two thousand.

    1. I'm old enough to remember the government mandated breakup of "Ma Bell". I didn't want to give up my rock solid wall phone, so I bought it (and $80 then was a lot of moola) and I still have it, though we no longer are willing to pay for a landline.
      In any case, there is ample precedent for anti-trust action, and I'm sure lots of opportunity for big bucks in the ensuing lawfare.

  6. The Declaration of Independence has a habit of staggering to its feet, massaging its jaw, and then proceeding to take the bastard S.O.B. apart scientifically.

    1. Yeah,
      But facebook recently censored the declaration of independence....

  7. Were headed for a full banning of the Declaration of Independence because it was written by a slave owning white supremacist. Just give it time.

  8. The bakery is a privately owned business whereas facebook is a publicly traded company having a fiduciary responsibility to its owners among the public who own shares often through their 401k

    1. Ah yes. Good point.

      Fiduciary responsibility > feelings

    2. They're not convinced that telling half of the country off is against their fiduciary interests/duties. Maybe a third-grader could sit down and explain it to them.

    3. There need to be share holder suits for going against their the barratry of Suckerberg and others.

    4. Precisely. Any "regulation" should be done by the owners not some federal agency. Surber is not that much different from progressives. Both think they are morally superior beings whose purpose in life is to enforce their morality inside everyone's home.

    5. If you read the post and read the blog regularly, you would understand how wrong you are. The regulation would allow people to exercise their free speech. You would still be able to block, mute and unfriend. As far as moral superiority, I am as big a sinner as thou.

  9. Again, the answer is to treat them as the publishers they are when they choose what to allow on their platforms. And as publishers hold them responsible for the bad behavior of their authors.
    Their only way out is to stop favoring some writings over others.

  10. Don,

    Practice what you preach.

    If you REALLY believe there are problems with socia media, then you need to stop using

    Gmail there are plenty of other free email services

    Twitter Try Gab or Mastodon


    Google for search try ddg or Bing

    Until you stop enabling these services you are just whining and it does not become you.

    John Henry


  11. Blaming the "algorithm" is faulty because some person, or group of persons, has to create the algorithm. H1B visas and American "liberal" education (plus the fact that people hire others who are similar in background and thought process over those who are not) people write those algorithms. Their prejudice shows in the results of the algorithm.

  12. I have advocated in the past for an internet supreme court. That court should be made up of 51 judges with the qualifications being thus;
    1. the President and each governor appoint one member to the court, said member to serve solely at the pleasure of the appointing party. That judge may be removed by the governor who appointed them or his successor at any time.
    2. Judges of the court may not be associated with any internet holding media or hosting platform nor closely related to any officer of an internet media or hosting platform platform.
    3. Judges shall not be lawyers, judges in an other capacity, nor law enforcement officers, nor employees of the state nor of the campaign of the governor nor of his staff.
    4. Judges shall be divided into panels to hear complaints. each panel shall be comprised of an odd number of judges.
    5. All complaints and answers shall be made in writing. There shall be no oral arguments. When a complaint is received it shall be assigned to a random selection of judges with the case load spread across the fifty one regardless of geographic location.
    6. Appeals would be heard by the full 51.
    7. When a social media platform causes a banning or censorship to happen, the full name and location address of the representative making the decision must be reported to the person affected in the same manner as a Police Officer must sign a sworn affidavit or notice to appear.

    1. 1. The issue is not about complaints being resolved via government.

      2. The issue is also not about speech of any and every form being justifiably silenced by the offense of being offended.

      3. The issue is about the fundemental concept of defining the cause of an effect defined as criminal.

      4. Thus, the issue is as simple as: does a given act of speech, in whatever form, violate the common law definition of being the cause of the effect of inducing criminal actions.

      5. The issue is not political, it is the lawful, by not being unlawful, exercise of freedom to speech, in any and every form, and nothing more, or less, vital to our nation.

      6. Research the nature of speech known and held to be the cause of the effect of criminal acts.

      7. Come back with something relevant to that, not this brain fart of government definings of the assessing of speech by fucking political government bullshit.

  13. Wow and I thought this was a genuine conservative site. Regulation is the essence of fascism! FDR started this fascism he was a huge fan of Mussolini.

    Using government power to control business interests is fascism. If you claim you've been damaged then sue them in court.

    But no run to daddy government in your vain efforts to control people. If Facebook does something you don't like then don't patronize them!!!!!

    Voting with our wallets is the best remedy not regulation. Boycott them don't resort to fascist methods.

    1. You funny guy.

      You think court not part of government?

      You think business is immune to law?

      You think propaganda is business?

      You think big is immune to law?

      You think damage is not included in propaganda?

      You think you slick, dick?

      You think court only place to go?

      You think big propaganda business is same as food, shelter, clothing, things that are honestly needed to live?

      You funny guy.

      You live long time.

      You live so long, you wish you not live.

      You go now, see if any gruel left for you.

    2. You love to put words into the mouths of people you disagree with don't you.

      Regulating (controlling) the private property of individuals is the essence of fascism which is a government business alliance.

      You idiots think regulation is fair. Big business writes the regulations to impede competition from small business.

      Its precisely how FB, Amazon, Google have all become behemoths. They're above the law since they make it.

    3. Out of one side of your mouth you speak as a freedom MAGA.

      Out of the other side of your mouth you do not speak of the political uniparty cabal being the source of your vexation, the cause of this government fascistic control you oppose.

      Then you tout the feeble let the consumers decide, while the very consumers you present as capable to restore Constitutional freedoms are being muted by those you profess to oppose.

      The issue is not who gets to speak and what the who gets to say.

      The issue is what speech is inciteful to actual criminal acts.




      To impede, suppress, deny the common means, mute and promote false/fake/fabricated deceptions, as those well known, by being proven by their own actions, have been, and are, doing, is the toxin to Constitutional Republic.

      It is not to declare what is permitted by law, it is to define what is not permitted by Constitution.

      Try again to post a comment that speaks to that.

  14. The mere fact that bill bar was at 1 time a member of Verizon's board of directors cheers my heart immensely. We are seeing some major long overdue comeuppance with the technology community and the United States of America, and I am HL, not a moment too soon. May God be with a G bar as he fights the powers that try to rule over us.

  15. The mere fact that bill bar was at 1 time a member of Verizon's board of directors cheers my heart immensely. We are seeing some major long overdue comeuppance with the technology community and the United States of America, and I am HL, not a moment too soon. May God be with a G bar as he fights the powers that try to rule over us.

  16. "Belief in limited government does not equate to an embrace of anarchy but rather a demand that the government stick to the basics"

    Wow just wow. Anarchy? Such is the cry of any neo-con who is itching to use the power of regulation on his political enemies.

    Basics? Regulation was NEVER basic to civil government until the Progressive Era.

    Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to regulate commerce found.

    1. Nowhere? Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, would like a word with you: "Congress shall have power to ... regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

  17. It may be time to de-platform the anonymouses here. At *least* they could sign their missives.

    1. It may be time for danny to try not to post a comment more fitting for a democrat stooge blog.

      See not a name?

      Choose to not read?

      So lazy that scrolling past comment you choose not to read you post comment blathering about "de-platforming"?

      Gee, danny, you snowflake now?

    2. It gets a bit silly trying to detangle all the different anonymouses here. Whatever. Stay undiscernable.

      I'll remain glad to put my name to my contributions to world knowledge.