On June 6, National Review published an article by David French titled “Social-Media Censorship Is the Product of Culture and Commerce” in which he argues that corporate censorship is a market outcome that should not and probably cannot be corrected by legislative means. In this rebuttal, I will show that his argument is thoroughly flawed and representative of a deeper failing of conservatism that can only be resolved by shifting rightward from conservatism to reaction.
French begins with the June 5 demonetization of conservative comedian Steven Crowder's Youtube channel for using homophobic language against Vox journalist (and perpetual whiner) Carlos Maza. He notes the lopsided nature of such actions:
“A right-wing speaker says something outrageous and faces consequences, while multiple left-wing speakers seem to spew venom with impunity, including at people (like, say, conservative Christians) who are also ostensibly protected by various social-media anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies.
The regularity of the controversies — combined with the persistence of the overt viewpoint discrimination — is resulting in a demand that government 'do something' to solve the problem.”French attempts to explain the causes of and offer solutions to this problem later, but claims that “the problem is far too complex and deep-seated for the government to solve. And if the government tries to step in with too heavy a hand, it's going to violate the law.” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as I have argued on multiple occasions, there is a simple legislative solution to corporate censorship that a sufficiently knowledgeable and strong rightist political movement should be able to implement.
Before moving on, let us note that a law-violating government is a contradiction of terms, as it is government that creates and enforces the law. The most that one could say is that the law in practice would be inconsistent with the law on paper. To be fair, this inconsistency is a serious problem, but the American system of government is ultimately designed to produce such inconsistencies whenever it is faced with opponents that move faster than it is designed to move, as is the case against Big Tech.
Echo Chambers and Boycotts
French describes the origin of the disproportionate censorship of rightists by the technology giants rather well, if shallowly:
“The American tech industry — especially in Silicon Valley — exists in a largely common ideological culture. While there of course exists some degree of overt discrimination against conservatives, the reasons for the monoculture reach well beyond overt discrimination. At elite levels tech is young, coastal, and disproportionately drawn from elite academies. In other words, it's located in the most blue parts of America, is comprised of the most blue age demographic, and draws its workers from the most blue educational institutions.”In other words, the technology giants are filled with Cathedral operatives, bred and trained. But French's next paragraph demonstrates a lack of understanding of how social media works:
“Even then, however, the market in theory can rather easily correct the problem. Social-media companies have national (and global) ambitions. They became (and remain) economic titans in part by serving tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and will happily vote for him in 2020. If Trump supporters en masse chose to punish even one social-media platform, it would suffer a colossal economic setback.”They also became (and remain) economic titans in part by serving hundreds of millions of people in other countries which, for good or ill, take a decidedly un-American approach to freedom of speech. They value compliance with those foreign governments more highly than liberty because they do not wish to lose the customer bases of those countries, so they ban people for wrongthink at the behest of said governments. If Trump supporters were sufficiently passionate and coordinated to boycott a particular platform, this would only create pro-Trump and anti-Trump echo chambers as they flock to an alternative site while doing little more than a pinprick's worth of damage to the social media giant being boycotted. While an accelerationist seeking to further the political divide could give this practice a bootlegger's support, it would not cause a company the size of Facebook or Twitter to reconsider its practices. Social media functions by being social, and this creates a network effect; people join a site because there are many people there already. In fact, a version of French's boycott has already been tried with the creation of Gab and people exiled from establishment platforms moving there. The established platforms have used their dominant market positions to suppress Gab's growth and portray it as an exclusively alt-right platform that is only used by purveyors of hateful content.
Apathy and Markets
Though French is wrong about the efficacy of a boycott, he knows that one will not occur and understands why:
“Here's the blunt truth, however — most red Americans either don't know or don't care about social-media censorship. They certainly don't care enough to delete their apps.”A recent Pew Research study found that only 22 percent of Americans use Twitter, and only 2.2 percent of Americans are responsible for 90 percent of Tweets posted by American users. At least for Twitter, this is true. But Pew also found that 69 percent of Americans use Facebook and 73 percent use Youtube, so the problem may not be a lack of awareness so much as a lack of alternatives.
French continues,
“This isn't a market failure; it's a market verdict. Apathy rules, and this apathy is sustained in part because social-media companies have chosen their targets carefully. There are few normal Americans who want to jump off their favorite app because YouTube censored someone who uses phrases like 'lispy queer' or because Facebook ditched Alex Jones, a man who claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.
Those who do truly care about censorship are a rounding error in the market. They're part of the tiny slice of American citizens who are not only engaged in online conservative politics, they're motivated enough to do something about censorship. This small group has no meaningful market impact, but it does punch above its weight in one key area — access to government power. They know senators. Senators know them.”French is correct to say that this is not a market failure; indeed, there is no such thing. But many conservatives and libertarians fail to understand is that the market is not a god who must be obeyed; it is just a collection of processes that turn inputs into outputs through economic calculation. Like any other algorithm, garbage in means garbage out, and there is power to be gained by ruining an opponent's calculations via inputting garbage. If this verdict indicts anyone, it is the establishment platforms that use their power to suppress competition. Contrary to French's intention, he has just made a strong case for government intervention to offset the error introduced by apathy and distorted incentives. In the next section, I will strengthen the case by arguing that the state should clean up its own mess, and can do so by restoring rights and liberties rather than committing the usual further violations.
Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com
References
- Greenspan, Alan (1962). Antitrust. Nathaniel Branden Institute, New York.
- Rand, Ayn (1967). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ch. 3. New American Library. Signet.