Mr. Zuckerberg is making what seems to be a good-faith attempt to support free speech while defending Facebook’s business model, and the company must now deliver on his vision. With even the U.S. Supreme Court under attack from the left, creating a “Facebook Supreme Court” for free speech that commands public confidence will be no easy task.
I think the editorial board has abandoned its usual skepticism of self-serving claims made by powerful CEOs. There is a long list of deplatforming actions by Facebook that is inconsistent with “a good-faith attempt to support free speech.” Why was Illinois Gun Owners Together axed? Why was a pro-Trump page with 3 million fans deleted? And so on. These are not the actions of a CEO making a “good-faith attempt to support free speech.”
Looks like Zuckerberg’s private dinners with conservatives are paying off. Instead of asking pointed questions, the leading conservative newspaper’s editorial page is now defending Facebook instead. Maybe the catering and wine at those dinners were really good.
Facebook has a habit of censoring conservatives. It is true that it is not as bad as Twitter, so we can give Zuck some credit for this. But “not as bad as Twitter” is a pretty low standard.
It’s interesting that the WSJ editorial board never mentions other possible laws to remedy the problem, like this proposal:
The “principle” that we can’t tell a private business who it must do business with is no principle at all. We accept that discrimination can be curbed, leaving only a debate over what kind of discrimination should be curbed…
So, why not bar political discrimination in social media, internet infrastructure (like search engines) and in business in general? We correctly bar racial discrimination because it is unJudeo-Christian and unAmerican to create a caste of second-class citizens by denying some people the ability to equally participate in society. The political discrimination we see today bars citizens from full participation in society and in their own governance. A citizen who cannot express his ideas is crippled; a citizen who loses a bank account or can’t buy a gun to protect his family because some software maker doesn’t like the idea of peasants having pitchforks is no longer a citizen but a serf. Why should conservatives allow themselves to be morphed into second class citizens? Isn’t our liberty enough of an interest to warrant government protection?
If the WSJ editorial board wants to argue forno non-discrimination laws, then their position would be libertarian and free market and consistent. But if the government is to enforce non-discrimination through force of law, which the WSJ agrees is a good idea, when why not apply that principle more broadly and justly? Even if it offends Zuck?
Excerpt from this editorial:
I think the editorial board has abandoned its usual skepticism of self-serving claims made by powerful CEOs. There is a long list of deplatforming actions by Facebook that is inconsistent with “a good-faith attempt to support free speech.” Why was Illinois Gun Owners Together axed? Why was a pro-Trump page with 3 million fans deleted? And so on. These are not the actions of a CEO making a “good-faith attempt to support free speech.”
Looks like Zuckerberg’s private dinners with conservatives are paying off. Instead of asking pointed questions, the leading conservative newspaper’s editorial page is now defending Facebook instead. Maybe the catering and wine at those dinners were really good.
Two more points:
Facebook has a habit of censoring conservatives. It is true that it is not as bad as Twitter, so we can give Zuck some credit for this. But “not as bad as Twitter” is a pretty low standard.
It’s interesting that the WSJ editorial board never mentions other possible laws to remedy the problem, like this proposal:
If the WSJ editorial board wants to argue for no non-discrimination laws, then their position would be libertarian and free market and consistent. But if the government is to enforce non-discrimination through force of law, which the WSJ agrees is a good idea, when why not apply that principle more broadly and justly? Even if it offends Zuck?