We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

So, Mr Dorsey and Mr Zuckerberg, how are your fact checkers getting on with that New York Post story about Hunter Biden?

“When will they be reporting? Surely not after the election?”
“What have they found out so far?” You know you could check on the veracity of the emails by asking other recipients – have you done that?”
“Have you liaised with the FBI regarding the progress of their no doubt rigorous ongoing investigation of the material found on the computers?”
“Why was the dissemination via your platforms of illegally obtained material not a problem for the New York Times when it released a ‘trove’ of Donald Trump’s tax returns at the end of September?”
“Why was the dissemination via your platforms of leaked material not a problem when someone leaked Christine Blasey Ford’s confidential letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein that accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault?”
“Oh, and about that whole Russian collusion story about which we heard so much on Facebook and Twitter but which turned out to be nothing…”

I would so enjoy seeing the Senate Judiciary Committee make the cool, hip founders of Twitter and Facebook squirm with a barrage of questions that laid bare their revolting left-wing billionaire hypocrisy, before swatting away the law they have been hiding behind to censor their political enemies while pretending to be mere providers of a means of communication. The Republicans are as mad as hell and they ain’t gonna take it any more. Yay! Go Republicans! And Go Democrats, too, because Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act too. So now that all sides agree, let’s do this thing!

Or perhaps not. All laws passed to acclaim from both sides of the aisle turn out badly. It is a law of nature, like Boyle’s or Murphy’s. Besides that, as Andy Kessler argues in the Wall Street Journal,

…if we repeal 230, we’ll end up with more censorship. Why? Because if platforms are suddenly liable for everything posted, the knee-jerk reaction will be to take down everything questionable, leaving us with giant receptacles of Baby Shark videos, which would diminish the channels small businesses use to reach customers. Then, say goodbye to competition. There are hundreds of smaller social media competitors that wouldn’t be able to afford the software, let alone the tens of thousands of humans, to take down posts.

There’s no simple way to “fix” Section 230 either. The feds could require nonpartisan, balanced views. But who decides what’s balanced? We’d be back to where we started. Any fix would open a can of worms of special interests, maybe even a new Digital Diction Department staffed by justice warriors deciding which phrases are no longer acceptable, like “master bedroom” or even “preference.” And then the law would get larded with special exceptions. The thinking would be, “Let politicians say what they want, for democracy’s sake, but protesters should also get a pass, depending on their grievances.” It would never end.

37 comments to So, Mr Dorsey and Mr Zuckerberg, how are your fact checkers getting on with that New York Post story about Hunter Biden?

  • bobby b

    Let’s be clear about the issue. Here’s the entire relevant part of Section 230:

    “(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

    (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    (2) Civil liability

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

    (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

    The first part says, you can’t sue Twitter for libel because of someone’s tweet.

    The second part says, even though they already have been shielded from liability for what gets printed, they also get unlimited discretion to decide what to delete.

    If we simply delete the second part (or merely remove that part that gives them discretion to remove anything they find “objectionable” while leaving in the kiddie porn and libel proscriptions), and then condition the first part on their adherence to “common carrier” status rules, I think we’re good.

  • bobby b

    (P.S. Here is where you can find the entire text of 230 of the CDA, or, more exactly,

    U.S. Code Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION Subchapter II. COMMON CARRIERS Part I. Common Carrier Regulation Section 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material :

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

    (Shouldn’t cite to excerpts without the entire text available.)

  • Flubber

    One thing to remember – the media weren’t merely dupes in the Russia bullshit, they were co-conspirators. Between every official in the Obama having pet journalists they would leak to, they were using press stories that they had leaked in the first place as prima facie justification for using those same smears in their FISA applications amongst other things.

    Then add in FusionGPS which is essentially a mercenary smear operation for the powerful with hundreds of journalists on the payroll and the press are more than culpable.

    Fixing 230 wont change that much; DOJ prosecutions on the other hand might.

  • bobby b

    “Fixing 230 wont change that much”

    One problem at a time. Fixing 230 at least gets some countervailing voices back into the public realm. Part of the reason the press can monopolize with their BS is that they can exclude us deplorables from objecting. 230 as it reads now brings us back to an earlier time, when the “mass media” was the only voice.

    And then we can re-take the DOJ . . .

  • Pat

    I would suggest that social media should be required to register either as publishers or as neutral carriers.
    If they chose the first they are liable for content and free to curate it as they chose.
    If they choose the latter they are only liable to identify those posting (who are liable for what they post) and have no right to curate content.

  • Bobby b has a fair point: with assumption of the arbitrary power to censor may equitably come such responsibility for what you do not censor as the law already inflicts on others. If you are a platform then you can be legally irresponsible for content but if you take such blatant responsibly for content – then you’ve taken responsibility for content.

    Like bobby b, I would prefer the platforms resume their role as platforms and end censoring. However if WikiTwitFace went the other way, they would presumably be like e.g. USAToday who have censored Glenn Reynold’s column on Hunter Biden – for being on Hunter Biden. (I presume USAToday do not have 230 exemption and also presume their refusal – first time ever in my memory – to show Glenn’s regular column will not have legal consequences for them.) But WikiTwitFace would have to spend more on censoring (especially the harder task of censoring their own side’s excesses) and/or cut down membership and/or impose an until-moderated delay in a post’s visibility (as sometimes happens to comments here that the spambot dislikes 🙂 ). So rivals that were still platforms would have more power to compete.

    However the first and best protection is failure. Some four years ago less three weeks, Perry linked to this skit on why people ruled by cancel culture take their revenge in the polling booth. As of now, the PC have learned nothing and forgotten nothing; they are doubling down (trebling down, centupling down) – the cancellings will continue until the eagerness for social justice improves. As we expect Biden success to see things swiftly grow worse, so we may hope a second Trump success may prompt actual thought even in those who prefer only to think PC thoughts.

    One can (in several senses) hope. 🙂

  • Jim

    “if we repeal 230, we’ll end up with more censorship. Why? Because if platforms are suddenly liable for everything posted, the knee-jerk reaction will be to take down everything questionable, leaving us with giant receptacles of Baby Shark videos”

    However they’d also have to censor the Lefts tweets and Facebook posts, or face being sued by those being doxed and threatened with violence. The trouble now is they can play both sides – both censor the Right (but hide behind their Section (c)(2)(A) right to freely remove ‘objectional’ material) while allowing the Left full rein to threaten people (while hiding behind their Section (c)(1) right to be seen as a carrier not a publisher).

    If they have to choose, they’ll have to choose between censoring everyone (Right and Left) or no-one. I’m not sure which way they would go, but either way is an improvement from the Right’s perspective – at the moment the Right are being censored anyway, so why worry if social media is turned a fluffy bunny only sphere? At least both sides of the political debate would be equal then. And if the current big players choose the fluffy bunny route I’m sure that other providers who decide to be carriers only would arise to meet the demand for unfettered political debate.

  • Ian

    Is it possible that with the repeal of s.230 the legal climate would better favour something like an ecosystem of blogs and forums curated by individuals with an interest in the topics discussed, as well as perhaps a kind of peer-to-peer version of Twitter or FB. Entirely speculative of course

  • bobby b

    Ian
    October 20, 2020 at 10:03 am

    “Is it possible that with the repeal of s.230 the legal climate would better favour something like an ecosystem of blogs and forums curated by individuals with an interest in the topics discussed, as well as perhaps a kind of peer-to-peer version of Twitter or FB.”

    I’d guess that, should 230 actually be repealed, the net would entirely revert to small blogs and forums.

    FB/Twitter/etc are huge companies, with all of their assets in one basket each. If they should ever again face normal liability for what appeared on their sites, those assets would be at risk. Having an unlimited basket of dollars means you have unlimited risk. That makes them uninsurable to anywhere near their true values.

    I think you only get these huge monopolies – these singular baskets of all assets and values – when you have artificial risk immunity such as provided by 230. No one builds huge singular entities and puts all of their eggs into them otherwise. But once you have that government-provided immunized protection, it becomes safe to be hugely valuable.

    Without that protection, you’re just a hugely vulnerable deep pocket.

  • Ferox

    I don’t really care if 230 is repealed or not, frankly. I want one of two things to happen:

    (1) The left-tech companies decide they can’t make any money if they continue being active in shaping the content that is on their platforms (for whatever reason), and therefore decide to stop doing that; or

    (2) The left-tech companies are forced to actively censor both right views and left views more or less equally.

    The Internet being what it is, there will always be platforms for people to express their views. I am just tired of the ubiquitous platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Youtube, etc) being so obviously slanted in one direction politically. It’s hateful that they do that while being given legal exemptions from responsibility for the content they certainly curate and (effectively) produce.

    Either stop being publishers or stop the one-way slant, I don’t care. Either of those would be a great improvement.

    Money and greed being what they are, I suspect it will be the first rather than the second option, though.

  • Paul Marks

    Why does Silicon Valley, which is supposed to stand for freedom, stand for tyranny – for totalitarianism.

    Because of the education system – the education system teaches that only “Progressive” opinions are to be respected, conservative opinions are to be crushed.

    It is as brutally simple as that.

    “But surely they care that Mr Joseph Biden has been a paid agent for the People’s Republic of China for many years?”

    No Silicon Valley and the rest of the “Woke” Corporations do NOT care – as they hold the PRC to be a “Progressive” power (which IT IS), it is “Reactionary” Americans that “Woke” hate.

    After all if one were to allow Freedom of Speech, that would include the right to oppose abortion, or to support the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment).

    The Woke Corporations and the government bureaucracy (made up of much the same “educated” people) hate and despise Freedom of Speech.

    What is left of Freedom of Speech, and what is left of all other basic liberties, will end in 2021 – the 50 Anniversary of the start of Mr Klaus Schwab’s campaign to destroy what little is left of the free market (which he, like Mr George Soros, calls “market fundamentalism”) with the FASICSM that is “Stakeholder Capitalism”.

    Big Business and Big Government joined together.

    In a couple of weeks the forces of evil (for that is what they are) may have destroyed the last defences.

    In 2021 it may well be the end.

  • Jacob

    Facebook and Twitter are private companies and are entitled to publish or censor whatever they want. People who don’t like them can refrain from using their platforms. They are under no obligation to provide anything to anybody.
    USA Today is entitled to censor Glenn’s column.

    The last thing we want is for government to interfere and decide what is true and what “fake news”, what can and what cannot be published. The First Amendment guaranties free speech against Government interference. (Congress shall make no law…). Facebook and Twitter have no obligation to facilitate (or impede) your free speech. They are not Government.

    So … no new legislation… no change of the current state of affairs required.
    By the way: Twitter’s attempt at censoring the Biden story did not produce the desired result, did it?

  • Paul Marks

    Jacob – I take it that these “private companies” have given up their Section 230 privileges then? FACISM (the state backing Corporations in a Corporate State) is NOT the free market.

    You also say they can “publish” whatever they like – but they DENY being publishers, they say they are Neutral Public PLATFORMS. So which is it Jacob – are these entities “Publishers” or “Platforms”?

    And what about GOOGLE – this “private company” systematically rigs political search results – it was responsible for the Democrats taking the House in 2018 (see the work of Dr Robert Epstein, himself a Democrat – but disgusted by what is going on).

    Are you going to say “Google is private – it can do whatever it likes”?

    MS13 is a PRIVATE CLUB – does that make its systematic looting and murdering O.K.? Perhaps the club motto “Rape, Kill, Control” gives us all a hint about what “private” entities can do when the get out of control

    What about the East India Company? Have a look what it did to Bengal in the late 1700s – it looted the place without shame and drove it into famine (by making the locals grow opium rather than food – and taking most of the money they made), but it was a “private company” so that is fine?

    In a couple of weeks Jacob you and me may well wake up in a world were the last defences are gone and these “private companies” have put someone in power (although not formally in power till January) who will appoint judges who will make the 1st Amendment utterly meaningless.

    If that happens, if Biden wins and a full Fascist Corporate State is established (“Build Back Better” is straight from the Klaus Schwab and the “Stakeholder” Fascist “World Economic Forum”) you will be as upset as I am – but then it will be too late, there will be no coming back from defeat in a couple of weeks time for dissent will be utterly crushed.

    Mostly by those “private companies” you mention Jacob – although they are joined-at-the-hip with the state bureaucracy and the Credit Bubble banking financial system. As you may know – all the major Corporations are dependent on the drip feed of funny money from the government backed financial system.

    Jacob – sorry to sound bitter, but it is because (as you know very well) what we have is nothing like a free market.

    Fascism, what the “Build Back Better” international elite is creating before our eyes, is NOT the free market.

  • Paul Marks

    I was myself censored today.

    My crime?

    Posting on Facebook links to MEDICAL DOCTORS with long experience (and much success) in treating Covid 19.

    The “independent fact checkers” (i.e. leftist psychopaths) ruled that what the medical doctors were saying was “false”.

    They have been doing that for MONTHS Jacob. Think how many THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE MURDERED.

    They (Facebook, Twitter and the rest of these Silicon Valley totalitarians) have denied the population basic information that would have saved their lives – and they have done it on purpose. They are as guilty as “Dr” Rick Scott (if he swore the oath he has BROKEN that oath) and the other filth.

    They have deliberately worked to maximise deaths – and for political reasons (to bring about a Corporate Stake – “Stakeholder” “Sustainable Development” “The Great Reset”, “Build Back Better”).

    But this is O.K. because they are “private companies”?

    The rabid dogs of ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS are at least consistent – they say they are Publishers not Platforms.

    But Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the rest of these murdering vermin say they are Neutral Public PLATFORMS.

  • Paul Marks

    Before anyone points it out…..

    I know I was not the target of the Social Media companies – they could not give a toss about Paul Marks. Their target was the MEDICAL DOCTORS trying to save lives, it is they they seek to shadow ban and make sure as FEW people as possible see.

    I was just the (rather elderly) messenger boy.

    Facebook and the other filth are interested in stopping the MESSAGE – not really the messenger boy.

  • Jacob

    You also say they can “publish” whatever they like – but they DENY being publishers, they say they are Neutral Public PLATFORMS. So which is it Jacob – are these entities “Publishers” or “Platforms”?

    And what about GOOGLE – this “private company” systematically rigs political search results – it was responsible for the Democrats taking the House in 2018 (see the work of Dr Robert Epstein, himself a Democrat – but disgusted by what is going on).

    Well, the NY Times also endorsed the Democrats and helped them win the election. So what?

    Yes, Google are within their rights.
    Google can endorse Democrat (or whatever) candidates and censor Rep. It is their platform and they can do as they please.

    Anyone should be able to write on the platforms what they wish, that would be ideal, but if Google or Twitter wish to impose other rules (censorship) – it’s their platform – they are entitled to.

    There is a question about libel. What to to if a user posts some libelous content. Is Google responsible (like a newspaper) or the individual poster? I think that Google should identify the poster and the poster be held responsible. If Google cannot identify the poster (an anonymous post) – Google should be held liable – which implies that it should censor unidentified posts.
    It would be a good thing to have less anonymous posts.
    It would also be a good thing to have less libelous posts.

  • Jacob

    Facebook and the other filth are interested in stopping the MESSAGE – not really the messenger boy.

    As I said – it’s their platform and they can publish or prevent publishing any message they want. Facebook and Google are NOT the Government.
    As to legal protections they enjoy – if any – cancel them. Free market means no special legal protections to anyone.

  • bobby b

    “If Google cannot identify the poster (an anonymous post) – Google should be held liable – which implies that it should censor unidentified posts.”

    Good. You’ve just agreed that we need to amend Section 230.

    I agree with all you said about Twit/FB/etc being private companies that can have an ideological bent if they wish – just like the NYT.

    But the NYT must police what it says. It is legally liable for its own CP and libel. If social media wants to take an ideological stance, why shouldn’t it pay the bill when it does wrong?

  • Paul Marks

    Jacob and booby b want to get rid of or amend Section 230 – and I agree. However, there is also (horribly LATE) a major court case (I am in communication with some of the people involved) about the breaking of the legal commitment of the Social Media Companies to be Neutral Public Platforms.

    Sorry Jacob – but you use the words “publisher” and “platform” as if they were the same thing – they are quite different things (at least legally they are). But, who knows, perhaps the courts will declare there is no difference – in which case you were be (legally) in the right and me in the wrong.

    But I can NOT let your flippant comment about Google go – and I am NOT part of the Anti Trust case so I can speak freely.

    “The New York Times endorses the Democrats, so does Google – so what?”

    “so what”.

    Google claims to be a SEARCH ENGINE Jacob – I trust you are aware of what that is supposed to mean.

    When I type in say “used car dealers – Kettering”, I am NOT expecting to be directed to some mate of a senior person at Google. It is supposed to be an UNBISED computer – a SEARCH ENGINE, not some guy typing in his personal friends, and leaving out people he personally does not like (has a personal grudge against).

    You type in the name of a political candidate (say running for the House) and Google will push you in the direction of pro DEMOCRAT sites, and anti Republican sites.

    That is called subverting democracy Jacob – because Google does not say what it is doing.

    It is like the Wizard of Oz – there is a man behind the curtain, it is not an “unbiased Search Engine” the Google Guys and Dolls (the male and female staff) are RIGGING the computer searches. They are programming the computer to give RIGGED results.

    If you do not have a problem with about 90% of the political searches in the United States being RIGGED, then it is hard to know what to say to you.

    “so what” indeed.

  • Jim

    “Yes, Google are within their rights.
    Google can endorse Democrat (or whatever) candidates and censor Rep. It is their platform and they can do as they please.”

    Of course they can, just as the NYT can be as pro democrat as it likes. But the NYT doesn’t allow people to write stuff in the newspaper that is libellous or defamatory, or inciting violence against specific individuals or groups. If they did they’d be liable as the PUBLISHER. Either Google/Facebook/Twitter are publishers (in which case they are liable for all the ‘kill all white people’ posts), or they are common carriers and have no more right to censor anything than the Postal Service can censor what people write in letters. At the moment they have it both ways. They should have to choose.

  • Paul Marks

    Nor is it “just” elections – although to some people subverting democracy (the stock-in-trade of Google) is rather bad.

    It is also individuals they do not like – they hit them to. For example, Tim Poole has never run for office in his life – but his sites are hard to find on Google searches. Because people at Google do not like him – it is not the silicon chips in the computer that do not like him, it is PEOPLE at Google who rig things against him.

    Tony Heller is in a similar situation – Google does not like him. Not the machine – the PEOPLE at Google.

    They are in charge of the machines – not the other way round.

    “Hello Jacob – I do not like you, so I am going to rig searches so whenever people do a search on you they are going to be directed to sites saying you are a PEADOPHILE”.

    Still “so what” Jacob?

    Would you like it if every time someone did a Google search on you they were led to sites that said you rape children?

    If you complain they say “it is not use – it is this computer in the box, it does not like you for some reason” (as they fight to stop themselves giggling – because the “unbiased computer” does what they program it to do).

    Or if you PROVE Google is out to get you – they then play their Joker.

    “You can not touch us – we have Section 230 to protect us, we can direct people to any site about you”.

  • Paul Marks

    The top managers of Google actually had a conference where they denounced the election of President Trump and the Republicans and pledged to use their Search Engine to prevent that ever happening again.

    This conference was filmed – the film was smuggled out. Still “So What” Jacob? That is subverting the Constitution of the United States – it is making elections the toys of a few Silicon Valley totalitarians.

    But sometimes it is not so obvious.

    Mr Dorsey of Twitter and Mr Z of Facebook are not on film chanting “Death To America!” or anything like that. The problem is the staff.

    Where do the Social Media companies recruit their staff from? The universities, and most of the universities are controlled by the Marxists and other scum.

    So even if Google is broken up – you may just end up with several Googles, all rigging searches and with staff pledged to exterminate the evil “racist” “Imperialist” United States of America.

    The basic problem is the EDUCATION SYSTEM – the schools and the universities, all the problems can be traced back to them.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “But the NYT must police what it says. It is legally liable for its own CP and libel. If social media wants to take an ideological stance, why shouldn’t it pay the bill when it does wrong?”

    One way to think about it is to consider Twitter and Facebook to be privately owned forums in the same way Samizdata is. What rules would we want/expect Samizdata to have to follow? Can Perry decide what gets posted here, and be able to remove comments if he doesn’t like the commenter’s politics? Should Perry therefore get sued for libel if one of us says something libellous and Perry fails to censor it? Should Perry be constrained by law from censoring anybody who wants to say anything at all on his forum, if he chooses not to act as the government’s proxy censor? Is that what we mean by free speech?

    If billions of people suddenly decided Samizdata was the best place in the world for political talk, and came here to comment, does that thereby give everyone a right to participate equally, or does Perry still have the right to pick and choose who he lets in? Or what comments he lets stand? And should anyone for any reason at all ever be denied their Free Speech right to libel, doxx, defraud, issue death threats, sell drugs, organise Mafia hits and Jihadi bombings, share child porn, or advertise … ummm … let’s call them ‘anatomical extensions’ on Perry’s site?

    Just asking. 🙂

  • Ferox

    My phone service provider is a privately held company too. Can they decide which conversations will be allowed over their airwaves and wires?

    Not if they want to continue to enjoy legal immunity from being responsible for the things that are done over their airwaves and wires. If they are capable and willing to censor unwoke thought, they should be capable and willing to censor illegal activity of all types, and libelous statements too. Or else face the consequences.

    Alternately, they can just decide to be a neutral platform (as they currently are) and not worry about the wokeness of things being said on their airwaves and wires.

    That is what I would like to see Facebook and the Woke Tech brigade do as well.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “My phone service provider is a privately held company too. Can they decide which conversations will be allowed over their airwaves and wires?”

    Yes?

  • Roué le Jour

    With the caveat that I think arguing with NiV is a waste of time, I would point out that Samizdata’s political stance is right up there on the banner. If Youtube etc. put “Proud supporter of the Democrat Party” on their banner then I would be fine with their current behavior. It’s the claiming to be impartial that is the offence.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    @Roue,

    It’s the claiming to be impartial that is the offence.

    But is it an offence that demands punishment by the state?

    I think not. People and companies are free to make false claims all the time, the only thing is whether the customers continue buying what they sell.

    Trump had his chance to destroy twitter by simply taking his tweets to another platform (and doing so gradually, like once a week, then twice a week, and so on until a whole horde of people who either love or loathe him followed him), but he didn’t.

  • Flubber

    Mr Dorsey of Twitter and Mr Z of Facebook are not on film chanting “Death To America!” or anything like that.

    No, but they run interference for those that do.

  • Paul Marks

    If Google openly said “we support the left – use our search engine and you will be directed to what the left want you to see” it would be one thing – but they DO NOT.

    On the contrary Google say (over and over again) “our search engine is unbiased – it is objective and scientific”.

    The basic business of Google is based on a LIE – and that makes it FRAUD, at least as a “reasonable man” would understand that term.

    If the law gives no remedy for this – then the law is an ass.

    The same is true of Youtube (owned by Google) and Twitter and Facebook – no where do they say “we are leftist publishers – we use mathematical methods to direct people away from conservative content and towards leftist content”.

    No – the Social Media companies say, in legal documents (as Senator Cruz has so often pointed out – legal documents) that they are Neutral Public Platforms – that they have no political agenda.

    So no – it is not like the New York Times endorsing the Democrats.

  • bobby b

    “But is it an offence that demands punishment by the state?”

    Not at all, but that’s not the important question.

    “Does the company still deserve a complete immunity from liability for various crimes and torts that everyone else must take into account or face, which was granted to it in exchange for promises of common-carrier neutrality, when the company has decided to drop the neutrality?”

    (Okay, yours was shorter and more pithy. But, on top of everything else, it’s not going to end up being a punishment doled out by the state – it will be a financial decision made by a corporation in the face of huge increases in insurance and risk management.)

  • Roué le Jour

    The Wobbly Guy,

    I think you will find that companies do not “make false claims all the time”, they make very carefully worded claims that customers interpret one way and the company’s legal department another. i.e. “New and improved”, the new formulation is 1% better at removing stains. Fifty miles per gallon (under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. Your milage may vary). And so on.

  • Jacob

    Google claims it is “unbiased Search Engine” – so what?
    BB Shoe Polish claims it is the best shoe polish on the market. So what?
    There is no such thing as an “unbiased Search Engine” —- EVERY piece of software is human written – therefore prone to bias.
    You don’t like Google’s search engine or some other behavior, claim or policy of Google? Don’t use it.

  • Is anyone besides me finding it hard to reach https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/ from certain browsers? I can reach it easily from Brave but that is not the case from every other browser. It may be an utterly trivial hiccough, but I’d be interested to know if others have no problem reaching the shade of the olive tree from their web browser – or if they have.

  • bobby b

    Just reached it quickly on Firefox and Chrome.

  • Paul Marks

    Libertarians are against “force and fraud” – Google is based upon fraud, as it claims to be an neutral (unbiased) search engine – which is exactly what it is NOT, and has not been for years (see the work of Dr Robert Epstein, a life long Democrat, on the extreme rigging of searches done by Google).

    Facebook and Twitter make the same claim – they also claim to be neutral public platforms, when that is exactly what they are NOT (and have not been for years). They ban and shadow ban (manipulate how many people see something) on political grounds – which is precisely what they, in legal document after legal document, DENY doing.

    Both Mr Dorsey and Mr Zuckerberg have LIED-ON-OATH about this – so their companies are not only guilty of fraud, they are personally guilty of perjury.

    How any self styled libertarian can defend fraud and perjury is beyond me.

    And this is no small matter – for it may well lead to a “President Biden” and a Democrat controlled Senate.

    That would mean judges and Supreme Court Justices who would “interpret” the 1st and 2nd Amendments of the United States Constitution to DEATH.

    Do not libertarians care about the Bill of Rights?

    How about the culture?

    Most young (and not so young) people get their knowledge of history and much else from Google searches – and those searches lead them AWAY from the truth and towards LIES (even on simple things such as who invented automatic lift doors) and this is done on POLITICAL grounds, Google pushes LIES for a “higher good” (for example to pretend that such and such a black person did something good that they did not do).

    Does it not matter to libertarians if a generation of people are being brought up on LIES?

    Ronald Reagan used to say that liberty was never more than one generation away from being lost.

    And it is being lost – and truth is also being lost.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “How any self styled libertarian can defend fraud and perjury is beyond me.”

    Free speech?

    “Does it not matter to libertarians if a generation of people are being brought up on LIES?”

    Free speech.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>