Pamela Geller: Big Tech censorship and the Election

 

At American Thinker, Pamela Geller comments on Allum Bokhari’s new book on Big Tech censorship.  It’s worse than we thought.  Ms. Geller begins:

Allum Bokhari, the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News, has performed an extraordinarily valuable service by giving us his new book #Deleted: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election. 

. . .

In #Deleted, Allum Bokhari tells the whole shocking story. For those who don’t realize the implications of what is going on, he includes a Prologue entitled “The Typewriter That Talked Back” that is as amusing as it is disturbing, and that makes abundantly clear even to the most technically challenged among us what is really happening to our foremost and most important freedom, right under our noses. Bokhari paints a vivid picture of a 1968 in which a typewriter refuses to type, typing instead its own message: “We regret to inform you that your last letter violated our terms of service (Rule 32: Abusive & Offensive Content). We have suspended access to your typewriter for 24 hours.” Newsstands remove from sale magazines that third-party “fact-checkers” have deemed to be “fake news.” The Post Office returns your mail because you told a joke in a letter that a censor found offensive.

It’s all funny until you realize that all this is exactly what email providers and big tech censors are doing to Americans today, every day on the Internet. In the pre-Internet world of 1968, it would have been preposterous. Americans would not have accepted it. But it has all happened gradually, as we gave away our freedom by clicking our agreement to dense and unreadable Terms of Service that turned over our right to say what we believe to shadowy, anonymous guardians of acceptable opinion. Most Americans today are only dimly aware, at best, that it is happening at all, and those that are approach it with grim resignation. After all, what are you going to do? Start your own Facebook?

Having been one of the early targets of social media censorship on Facebook, YouTube et al, I have for many years advocated for anti-trust action against these bullying behemoths. Bokhari makes an airtight case in #Deleted for why such action is necessary.

Read the full column here.  And it’s scary to think that even if millions of Facebook users cancelled their accounts, nothing would change.

# # #

 

Twitter: a virus of the mind?

Glenn Reynolds, a/k/a Mr. Instapundit, has a think-piece on the Spectator; his subject is about one of the Big Tech giants, in this case Twitter. Here’s a sample:

Twitter . . . is tightly coupled. The ‘retweet’, ‘comment’, and ‘like’ buttons are immediate. A retweet sends a posting, no matter how angry or misinformed, to all the retweeter’s followers, who can then do the same to their followers, and so on, in a runaway chain reaction. Unlike blogs, little to no thought is required, and in practice very few people even follow the link (if there is one) to ‘read the whole thing’. According to a study by computer scientists at Columbia University and the French National Institute, 59 percent of people who share a link on social media don’t read the underlying story. . . .

. . .

You can reject Twitter’s toxicity by leaving the platform, as I did in the fall of 2018. But . . . this doesn’t really solve the problem: ‘Absent large-scale collective action by the political/media class to reject the platform, simply logging off Twitter is merely a personal defensive mechanism — a sometimes necessary mental-health break that all too often correlates with diminished influence in the national political debate.’ With Twitter, you can participate and be driven crazy – or you can stay sane, and lose influence. That’s a bad trade-off.

. . .

Rather than focusing on the content of what individuals post on social media, regulators might better focus on breaking up these behemoths, policing anticompetitive collusion among them, and in general ensuring that their powers are not abused. This approach, rooted in antitrust law, would raise no First Amendment or free speech problems, and would address many of the most significant complaints about social media.

As Mr. Instapundit is wont to say, read the whole thing – here.

# # #

Election Day November 3, 2015 issues

art credit: montgomerynews.com

Election Day November 3, 2015

For a look at the ballot initiatives that residents of Cuyahoga County will vote on next Tuesday, see a sample ballot in PDF format at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website here.  (You’ll need to enter your ward number and precinct letter; you will have those details on the voter registration card you received in the mail from the BoE.)

Some of the issues on the ballot fall under the Tea Party Patriot platform of fiscal responsibility and free markets.

If you are already confused because ballot Issues #2 (anti-monopoly) and #3 (legalize marijuana in Ohio) seem to be in conflict with each other, below are remarks by Ohio Senator Larry Obhof (R-Ohio Senate District 22) on what voters need to know about Issues 2 and 3 (h/t Ohio Christian Alliance Click here for OCA Voter Guide):

Issue 2 is specifically limited to initiatives that would purport to grant a private interest or group of private interests a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”  It would not affect citizen-led initiatives, unless they are designed to give someone a monopoly or a special tax rate not available to similarly situated persons.
 

Issue 2 will protect the Ohio Constitution from special interests buying their way into the state’s foundational document.  Frankly, this is long overdue and should have been proposed after the casino amendment a few years ago.  Carve-outs for specific investors, protections from competition, the addresses of particular businesses … these things do not belong in the Ohio Constitution.  
 

Regardless of one’s position on the Issue, [some of the information being promoted concerning these issues is misleading or incorrect, as per below]:

1.   Statement: “There is no judicial review over the ballot board decision.”

This is simply wrong and is contradicted by the plain text of Issue. Section C clearly provides for judicial review and states that “The supreme court of Ohio shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section.”

2. Statement: “This restriction could extend to issues such as ballot initiatives for workplace freedom, protection of life, etc.”  

Issue 2 would not affect a "workplace freedom amendment."  A workplace freedom amendment would not grant a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” and it would not specify a tax rate or commercial right or license that is not available to similarly situated persons.  And keep in mind that even under Issue 2, one could specify a tax rate or provide commercial rights or licenses.  Issue 2 only affects such initiatives if they would carve out a special tax rate for a small group of people that is not available to other, similarly situated persons.

[Senator Obhof] cannot think of any logical basis for saying that Issue 2 would affect an initiative related to “protection of life.”  It is hard to conceive of a pro-life ballot initiative that would also grant someone a monopoly, or a special tax carve-out or commercial license not available to similarly situated persons.     

3. Statement: “Consider this scenario:  If Issue 2 had been in the Constitution prior to now, the effort that many concerned citizens launched to limit strip clubs’ hours of operation and activities, should it have needed to be placed on the ballot, would be subject to Issue 2’s provisions, as it would be deemed to limit the commercial activity of a state license holder (alcohol establishments).”  

Issue 2 would not apply to this scenario.  Issue 2 only applies to attempts to “grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”  It would not affect an initiative to limit clubs’ hours or activities.  It would not even affect a ban on such clubs, unless the ban carved out specific clubs for special treatment (i.e., closing all clubs except for 10 of them, or closing all clubs except those owned by a specific operator or group of operators).   

4. Statement:  “If a citizen’s initiative goes before the Ballot Board there is no judicial recourse for the citizens to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court.”  

First, this contradicts the earlier statement that there is no judicial review over the ballot board’s decision.  Obviously, review by the Ohio Supreme Court is “judicial review.”   

Second, the scope of review is not more or less under Issue 2 than it is for any other party in Ohio’s court system.  What does it mean to say “there is no judicial recourse … to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court”?  When does anyone challenge a ruling by the Supreme Court?  On questions of state law, the Ohio Supreme Court is the court of last resort.  That is not any different under Issue 2 than it would be if you and I sued each other under state law.   

Thanks to Sen. Obhof for setting the record straight.

# # #