Against Big Tech Viewpoint Discrimination
Excerpt: Well, imagine electric companies stood up for progressive values by cutting off power to homes with pro-Trump yard signs. Even staunch supporters of free markets would likely object to these restrictions on expression by privately owned enterprises. When we examine why power companies shouldn’t be able to make service contingent on not violating political sensibilities, we see that analogous arguments should stop social media giants from exiling political dissidents. If Burger King won’t sell you a hamburger, so what—buy one from McDonald’s. Competition among businesses normally protects you from harm if one refuses you service. Some markets, however, are characterized by “bigger is better” where size bestows advantage. It’s much cheaper on average to hook up electric power lines to homes if the utility also connects nearly everyone else in town. So, if an electric utility decided to just exclude a few customers, it would be extremely costly for a competing power company to sell energy to those people and the former customers would likely go un-powered. An electric utility that refused service to any homeowner who had a pro-Trump sign in her yard would be unreasonably restricting freedom. (I have always considered myself a "free trader" by natural inclination, early thoughts over many years, and decades of practice in the retail marketplace. Over the past few years, though, I have come to think we are treating the big data/media companies incorrectly. Like this author, I believe we should treat them as public utilities and take away their power to limit free speech to what they prefer. They are certainly entitled to say whatever they want in their editorials, but keep the factual news segregated and allow all comers to voice opinions. For many decades, our TV news was pretty much required to stick to the mainstream both by licensing requirements and "fairness doctrines." Yes, they still played fast and loose with the facts now and then, but the majority of news reports were just that--the news, not opinion masquerading as news. That worked well for a long time. Maybe that's what we need: to kick the opinion out of the "news" segments and back to the clearly marked "editorial" or "opinion" segments. The gossip shows can still speculate about Big Foot, UFOs, Ancient Aliens, and Russian Collusion, but mark those shows as "entertainment," not "news." I think restricting the opinions that can be expressed is far more dangerous than that some ISP might offer faster connection speeds for a higher price--which they already do at the consumer level anyway. [Another possibility is to treat them as publishers, and subject them to the same legal standards and liabilities as print publishers who fear false advertising claims and libel suits for any inaccurate/misleading things they publish regardless of who authored the piece(s) in question. We might find that whole industries (Climate Change?) go out of business.] Ron P.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment