A Free-Market Solution To Big-Tech Bias

by | Nov 2, 2020 | Free Speech

A free-market option to counteracting the bias of today’s internet tech companies.

Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others are frequently guilty of leftwing bias in their treatment of comments, internet searches, and publication of content in general, for which behavior they are frequently denounced as guilty of “censorship.”

Actually, while private individuals and companies can do intellectually detestable things, they cannot commit censorship.

Censorship is possible only when a writer or speaker has the agreement of the owner of a publishing venue to present his ideas. If he has that agreement and is stopped from presenting his ideas by the government, or by private individuals acting with the sanction of the government, such as disrupters whom the police refuse to arrest preventing him from being heard, then there is censorship.

To make the same point in different words, if the detestable New York Times refuses to publish me, or even acknowledge my existence, that is not censorship. Censorship exists if they were willing to publish me but were stopped by the government or a government-sanctioned gang.

The way to deal with Twitter et al. is by means of one or more counter websites that are willing to publish what Twitter et al. hide. This would both deprive them of any ability to block content and also seriously tarnish their reputations if they did not change their behavior.

There are many concrete problems that would need to be worked out in launching such a website. But here’s a possible name and a slogan for one such site: “Can’t find what you’re looking for in Google? Try ‘Second Search.’ We feature what Google hides.”

The problems in starting such a website are numerous and large. But they do not include having to compete across the board with the leftist sites. The area of competition is only where the leftist sites are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

And then it is essentially just a matter of showing what they’ve tried to hide.

For books and essays by the author, see https://amzn.to/2NLvVVZ. Originally published at the blog of George Reisman. Copyright 2020 George Reisman. All rights reserved.

Editor’s Note: Alternatives to Google are Duck Duck Go, and to Twitter, there is now Parler.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. See his Amazon.com author's page for additional titles by him. Visit his website capitalism.net and his blog atGeorgeReismansBlog.blogspot.com. Watch his YouTube videos and follow @GGReisman on Twitter.

SHOW PROFILE

What do you think?

We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.

We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 10,000 articles readable online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please do consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Related Articles

What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.

The Greatest Threat to Free Speech is Not Big-Tech Blocking, But Government Censorship

The Greatest Threat to Free Speech is Not Big-Tech Blocking, But Government Censorship

Real censorship is when the state uses its legal power to use force to determine the content of speech we should engage in (either by banning non-rights violating speech or forcing one to say things one would not do so voluntarily). If the state can arbitrarily determine what Twitter must post, it goes from being the protector of freedom of speech to its censor.

Voice of Capitalism

Free email weekly newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest