Initially I was glad Twitter closed Trump’s account and glad that Parler and other platforms were shutdown, as a precaution against incitements to violence.
However let’s consider. Is shutting down people’s accounts and platforms the best way to stop the rise of fascism or racist, authoritarian, pseudo populism?
Irrespective of its effect on defusing fascism, was it the best way to save lives and otherwise prevent harm in this case?
To what extent could the precedent of shutting down channels of communication sooner or later be applied to the usual targets, historically speaking: the political left, because we are historically the ones seeking to organize the economic and political power of everyday people against the abuses of private concentrated power, which, by the way, the monopolistic tech giants epitomize?
(By the way, Zephyr Teachout explains in her book Break Em Up, how monopoly power pertains to white supremacy.)
Is the argument that the tech giants’ actions aren’t censorship because they are not governments but instead private commercial entities with user agreements dubious?
Consider. The tech behemoths wield so much power that they are a sort of governing force over our lives.
One could easily make the case that they are monopolies that should be broken up and subject to greater public accountability as a type of public utility.
Is that separate issue or does it apply here?
If it applies here, consider this. As with other monopolistic and oligopolistic giant corporations, tech giants have used vast amounts of public resources to amass concentrated private power and wealth.
To what extent are there elements of truth when parts of what we regard as the political right are complaining about big tech censorship?
Do we defuse fascism via censorship or by replacing plutocracy with multiracial democracy, economically and politically ?
Leave a Reply