Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
from the hypocrisy,-thy-name-is-one-easily-confused-with-a-basketball-icon dept
There's something in the air. Call it TDS. Trump Derangement Syndrome. To acolytes of Trump, this means everyone opposed to Trump will find some reason to blame anything on him. But the derangement affects the acolytes more than it affects his opponents.
Former free speech warriors have started calling for government interference in private companies' handling of third-party speech. Lawyers that used to defend even seemingly indefensible people from bogus defamation lawsuits are now filing bogus defamation lawsuits of their own. Far too many Trump fans are convinced the First Amendment should override moderation decisions by social media companies. Some of these Trump fans are actually in the legislative business, which means they have the power to harm -- perhaps permanently -- the First Amendment and the immunity given to social media companies that extends to moderation decisions.
It's hypocrisy. It's blatant. And it just keeps spreading. Recently, Newsweek allowed Will Chamberlain to publish an op-ed in support of direct government interference in private companies' moderation efforts. That name might not ring a bell, so let's take a look at Will Chamberlain.
Chamberlain now works for the "Internet Accountability Project." It describes itself this way:
Our Mission is to lend a conservative voice to the calls for federal and state governments to rein in Big Tech before it's too late.
The site contains a page called "Google is Evil." It hosts a video with the same title and links to articles about supposed Big Tech "bias" that deals with companies other than Google.
Chamberlain's bio says he formerly worked as an attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The CEI presents itself as a "libertarian think tank." Here's how the CEI describes itself (emphasis added):
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. CEI's mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics. We make the uncompromising case for economic freedom because we believe it is essential for entrepreneurship, innovation, and prosperity to flourish.
So, what does Chamberlain really stand for? Is it this?
advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty
Or is it this?
calls for federal and state governments to rein in Big Tech
Apparently, it's whatever Chamberlain wants it to be, depending on who he's working for and who he supports politically.
Given his cognitive dissonance, it's unsurprising his op-ed is a hot mess full of bogus assertions and incoherent arguments.
First, Chamberlain claims Twitter's blocking of the New York Post's story on supposedly damning Hunter Biden emails is the platform "running interference for the Biden-Harris ticket." That's a stretch. There appears to be very little limiting Trump and his supporters from campaigning for Trump. That they've been forbidden from propping up some unvetted claims from [checks notes] a computer repair service owner isn't really doing much to prevent pro-Trump electioneering. It was a bad decision, but it's not the conspiracy Chamberlain feels it is.
Chamberlain then moves on to deliver a wholly disingenuous reading of Section 230 immunity.
Section 230 "works" only to the extent that it gives tech platforms carte blanche to run their platforms unconstrained by tort law. In the early days of the internet, that was defensible, to create space for innovation, experimentation—and even protection. But social media is now a mature market, and Section 230's liability shield now does more to foster censorship than anything else. The shield also acts as a sword—giving tech giants the power to censor certain speakers using arbitrarily applied and unexplained community standards.
Chamberlain acts as though the "late days" of the internet no longer require this immunity. But that's only if you limit your view to the largest platforms that could survive the removal of this immunity. Smaller startups and competitors would likely be forced to shut down as they'd be unable to absorb the legal costs of defending themselves from the flurry of vexatious litigation that would follow the removal of this immunity. If Chamberlain wants the biggest platforms to consolidate their power, he should definitely work towards repealing these protections.
He moves on to completely misrepresent the arguments of Section 230 defenders.
Critics of Section 230 reform often focus on defending the publisher-versus-platform distinction, arguing for the importance of not treating social media platforms as the "publisher or speaker" of the content posted on their platforms.
Bullshit. Only critics of Section 230 focus on this nonexistent distinction. The law contains nothing about a "publisher-versus-platform" distinction, much less any wording that suggests immunity relies on neutral presentation of third-party content. Chamberlain is wrong about Section 230 and should have been directed to this Mike Masnick post before crafting this misleading and stupid op-ed.
Chamberlain pretends the administration can do better. He touts Bill Barr's recommendations that platforms should be more limited in their moderation efforts, removing only what is "objectively" objectionable content. We can all agree platforms should be more transparent about their moderation efforts, but allowing the government to define (most likely through expensive litigation smaller competitors can't afford) what is "objectionable" enough to be removed would allow presidential administrations to control the narrative via social media outlets.
Then there's the overuse of an incorrect term by Chamberlain -- a use designed to dupe people into believing private companies are violating the Constitution by moderating content.
Section 230 was not designed to provide blanket immunity for companies that use their power to censor political speech.
Private companies are incapable of censorship, at least in terms of the Constitution. No private company is obligated to allow individuals to say whatever they want whenever they want -- no more than private individuals are required to allow people to stand inside their house and say things the homeowners find objectionable.
And I can't even to begin to explain what this batch of word salad is supposed to mean:
Our society has recognized that the right of Americans to participate in society comes before the free association rights of common carriers. That principle undergirds our civil rights laws and our common carrier laws, and should be the basis of our laws regulating censorship on large social media platforms. Society is freer when Americans can speak freely without the Sword of Damocles (meaning a potential Twitter ban) hanging over their heads.
Society says participants have a right to society… or something. I think Chamberlain is trying to say the rights of individuals trumps the rights of corporations. Even if he's correct (which he isn't), he further clouds the issue by dropping in stuff about "common carrier laws," which has nothing to do with moderation efforts and everything to do with, say, phone companies being obligated to hook you up with a landline, if that's your kink. Society is still as free as ever and if certain trolls and dipshits don't like swords hanging over their head, they probably should stop doing stuff that summons the sword-bearer.
This shitshow closes with some more Chamberlain hypocrisy. This guy once advocated (as, you know, an actual legal advocate) for "advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty." Now, with his boy in the White House and his "I'm being censored" fever dreams, he's pounding out ridiculous sentences like this:
Big Tech's unprecedented level of control in modern life allows social media oligarchs to reign over the digital marketplace, filtering the flow of online information and censoring viewpoints—and even news—that disrupt their preferred narrative. Such unfettered discretion in a private group of companies is contrary to the values held by a civil society.
Chamberlain was for "unfettered discretion" before he was against it. Say what you will about a leftist rag like Techdirt and its contributors, but at least we've always been for Section 230 immunity and against government interference in First Amendment activities. That hasn't changed no matter who's occupying the Oval Office. I hope people like Chamberlain remember how much they wanted to strip these protections away when there's someone whose views they disagree with running the nation.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free market, government interference, intermediary liability, section 230, will chamberlain
Companies: iap, internet accountability project
