Diamond and Silk on Social Media Censorship

Prominent conservative voices in social media, such as Diamond and Silk and Dan Bongino, have vociferously voiced outrage that Big Internet has banned them as being unsafe for the social media  community because of their outspoken ideological opinions. This parallels YouTube demonetizing many of Dennis Prager's popular Prager U videos because the conservative views expressed did not sync with the progressive views of their internet overlords. And Twitter is infamous for shadow banning conservatives, even Senator Ted Cruz, without recourse or equal application against outrageous leftist Twits.

Diamond and Silk, who gained fame through their vigorous defense of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, did not silently take this rough trade from Facebook. On Fox and Friends, Diamond and Silk postulated that Mark Zuckerberg needed to "[S]uck it up, buttercup" and accept diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech on its social network, just as the small Indiana pizzeria would be forced to cater a same-sex wedding despite their religious objections to the ceremony.




Alas, Diamond and Silk have a weak case in a court of law.  Without meandering into the details of RFRA and First Amendment religious liberty, same-sex marriage proponents could point to civil rights legislation which the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Harris claim a right to dignity for that class.  What protected class can Diamond and Silk rightfully claim against Facebook?

However, in the court of public opinion, Facebook engaging in ideological viewpoint discrimination could be a compelling case for action.  Does MySpace mean anything to Mark Zuckerberg?  That was a social media precursor to Facebook, but when it stopped being cool, it became ghost of itself and a dark web conduit.  Facebook is much bigger and is receiving congressional scrutiny.  Between viewpoint discrimination and revelations of data mining, shareholders should be concerned if Facebook were to become a fraction of its former self.

Facebook has ceased to be a mainly youth oriented site.  Adults may well chafe at having their lives data sold by the social media company.  But for motivated conservatives, this cyber censorship may well have this active demographic find alternatives to speak freely, like on GAB.

Hitting Home on Net Neutrality?

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced last week that the Commission was rolling back Obama era regulations on Net Neutrality, which sought to expand the reach of the 1934 Federal Communications Act to the Internet towards an end of making the it a regulated media.  Net Neutrality critics, like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), liken it as Obamacare for the Internet which promise to lower price and improve delivery but do the opposite and make Uncle Sam the undisputed middle man.

Proponents of Net Neutrality, which were protesting a repeal in May at FCC Headquarters moved their protests to Chairman Pai's suburban Virginia home and used signs which proclaimed "Dad murdered democracy in cold blood."

Such an in-your-face political protest calls to mind the 2012 stunt in which the SEIU used 14 buses to move 500 protesters on a bank executive's front lawn in suburban Maryland to denounce bank foreclosures.  This tactic seems straight out of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals (1971) playbook.

The Net Neutrality home invasion comes at the same time that Keith Olbermann is stepping down from giving the GQ daily podcasts for "The Resistance".

It is worth contemplating if this mark a divergence in tactics amongst Leftists, or if more entrenched progressives are getting out of activism while the getting is good.

Nonetheless, it is reprehensible to harass public officials living in private residences about policy disputes. Mob mentality following people home discourages civic minded civilians from serving a stint in office and needlessly involves innocent family members.

Net Neutrality may have legitimate public policy merits, but the fascistic manner which these progressive activists pursued their policy wins neither hearts nor minds. 

GAB Faces Big Fat Dilemma Balancing Free Speech and Censorship

Of late, there has been a growing realization that our internet overlords are controlling the public square.  In 2016, Facebook faced some consternation when the social media giant's curation of news in the sidebar consistently slighted conservative news stories.  Twitter took to banning some who defied the politically correct weltenanschauung that our cyber elites favor in their posts.  Milo Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for posting  alt-right opinions while similar sort of liberal content continued unabated.  It is not uncommon for conservative sites to experience shadow-blocking, which covertly thwarts wider dissemination of posts through censoring algorithms. Platforms can summarily block access based on anonymous, spurious complaints, and due to the Star Chamber handling of such charges, it is almost impossible to protest much less redress any alleged issues.

To counter efforts of cyber-censorship, Andrew Torba et ali. created GAB during the summer of 2016.  As a social media platform, GAB exhorted users to #SpeakFreely and vowed not to censor posts unless it advocated violence or child pornography which was against laws.

As a start up, GAB not only faced typical challenges of funding and creating a market, but faced difficulties from a politically correct driven cyber community. GAB encountered tremendous difficulties from Apple to have a i-phone mobile app approved because of the Speak Freely philosophy.  Even after GAB successfully developed and started distributing an Android mobile app, there are concerns that the GAB appl will be removed from the Play Store because users might post objectionable contention on GAB's platform.

Alas, it is not only technology giants who are exerting their power as internet overlords.  The latest controversy involves a fat meme posted from a neo nazi (who has been banned from other sites and platforms).  Torba politely responded to the post that it was a violation of the Terms of Service and asked that it be taken down.  This uncharacteristic action roiled users who wrapped themselves around the mantra of #SpeakFreely.



Torba later clarified that Asia Registry, demanded that the post be banned or else GAB's registry would be revoked. The GAB leadership is currently scrambling to address the issue.

It is ironic that a fat joke would be used as the linchpin to destroy GAB, however that is the cause celebre which is being exploited by small time internet player Asia Registry, but they have the power.  Yet is mirrors the other tech giants efforts to obstruct alternatives to their virtual monopolies by using politically correct Trojan Horses.

In an age in which alleged micro-agressions, such as a Hobby Lobby customer is triggered by the "racist" notion of using cotton flowers in a vase, that the left countenances bilious blurtations when it tracks the progressive agenda of the moment. Such in loco parentis progressive sensibilities prompted a Zerohedge pundit to wonder if Internet behemoths are acting as colonial powers.

UPDATE: September 19, 2017

GAB was successful in finding other registrar for the domain which would not play games with them.

Ex FEC Chair Ann Ravel on Regulating the Internet

On Obama's ICANN Internet Giveaway

John Thune on the Obamanet

"Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress"

 
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler refused to testify before Congress before promulgating and voting on his 332 (now 317) page  regulation of the internet.  The Federal Communication Commission is a creation of Congress so it is curious that the Commission will not share its secret plan to apply most aspects of Title II to internet service providers under the guise of net neutrality. So legislators whose rightful responsibility includes governing the people neither get a heads up on a monumental shift in the internet much less explore the unintended consequences of the FCC move.

 But the FCC is supposed to be an independent regulatory agency.  Yet after President Barack Obama issued his "modest proposal" on net neutrality in November, FCC Chairman Wheeler changed his tune to craft his policy.  No doubt, the Democrat majority on the Committee will vote for a proposal which will mirror President Obama's dictat.

Michael Powell on FCC Overreach

On Free Speech in a Globalized World

 Flemming Rose is the editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, who created  controversy in 2005 by publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed which caused unrest worldwide amongst some offended Islamists.


 


Rose wrote a book recounting some of his concerns for free speech in Tyranny of Silence (2014) and summarized his thoughts about free speech in a globalized world during the 2014 Oslo Freedom Forum   Pamela Geller, the publisher of Atlas Shrugged blog, is revisiting this subject by sponsoring a "Draw the Prophet"  contest with a $10,000 prize to be awarded in Garland, Texas on May 3rd, 2015.

Flemming Rose's fear of the tyranny of silence may be heightened in America by the FCC's usurpation of the internet through Title II regulations said to address net neutrality issues, but may end up with a politically correct and highly regulated product which could be called "Obamanet".    

Obamacare for the Internet?

President Barack Obama strongly weighed in on the net neutrality issue, petitioning the F.C.C. to consider the internet like a public utility for Americans.




While net neutrality is understood as internet companies adjusting internet speeds for certain users.  Mr. Obama's statement declares:

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online."

However, the ramifications of the Obama Administration's modest proposal goes beyond "internet fast lanes".  By applying the net neutrality to cellular companies, who offered tiers of service based on payments and who will govern a small number of bandwidth hogs.  Enforcing net neutrality could either raise rates for everyone or cause congestion reducing access for many mobile data users.

Of course, treating the internet like a public utility means lots of government bureaucrats and functionaries to apply and monitor these rules.  The problem is that instead of applying the principle of subsidiarity, where governing happens on a local or state level, inevitably this would be centralized in the District of Calamity (sic).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered some quick and incisive reaction on Twitter to Mr. Obama's play on net neutrality.

Do we really want to cede control of the internet to the government, which spent $2 Billion on Healthcare.gov  and could not build an efficient and secure webpage?

Mr. Obama rightly notes that the F.C.C. is an independent agency so which unelected bureaucrats will govern us with little chance of redress?

Let us not forget about mission creep.  Currently, the F.C.C. is taking comments on the alleged offensiveness of the term "Redskins" to force owner Dan Snyder to change the name of the sports franchise from "The Washington Redskins".  This is being pursued by trying to pull the licenses of a couple of Red Zebra am sports radio stations that the Redskins owner controls.  This would set a precedent of government censoring content based on shifting political correctness, not well established community standards like George Carlin's "The Seven Words" that you can't say when broadcasting.

Furthermore, how much will the government stifle innovation on the internet as government bureaucrats figure things out and assess what is fair and neutral.

There has been wrangling for years over net neutrality. But it would be prudent to give a death panel to the notion of making the Internet into Obamacare via public utility regulation by the federal government.

Robert Wilensky on the Internet

Will Ferrell on Life