Hjem Ideologi Liberalisme Kan liberalister og konservative støtte statlig regulering av Facebook og Twitter?

Kan liberalister og konservative støtte statlig regulering av Facebook og Twitter?

118

Meningsdannere på ikke-sosialistisk side synes delt mellom kompromissløs prinsipiell motstand av offentlig innblanding i privateide selskaper – og at realitetene fra å la være bør veie tyngre enn prinsippet.

Allie Beth Stuckey, selv-erklært «Conservative Millennial», er en av dem som har frontet førstnevnte ståsted:

 

..og advokaten Will Chamberlain responderer med sin argumentasjon for sistnevnte:

[Stuckey’s uttalelse er] a problematic way of looking at the problem with big tech and free speech and it’s also indicative of underlying problems in the way that conservative education happens..

Referansen til konservativ utdanning gjelder ganske spesifikt for USA vel og merke, ettersom Konservative universiteter, tenketanker, andre typer opplæringsgivende organisasjoner ELLER partier av merkbar betydning – ikke finnes i Norge. Underrepresentasjonen er kraftig også i andre «vestlige» land, selv de litt bedrestilte som Danmark og Storbritannia.

Chamberlain fortsetter:

She’s proposing an idea that is ultimately deeply self-defeating and it’s worth talking about like why conservatives have adopted a self-defeating ideology..

Listen to that! Think about that! Social media censorship is happening in the status quo! She concedes [that] but she’s like; government involvement will hurt conservative voices more than help..

 

Why?? is there an explanation is there a reason because that’s just an assertion!

She thinks it’s an argument, it’s not!

It’s not an argument because there’s a warrant missing.
[mangler kvalifisering/rettferdiggjørelse/berettigelse]

 

If you have a warrant for saying that conservative involvement will make it worse; why? Nothing!
[ingen begrunnelse fra Stuckey].

 

What does this indicate? Remember this is a problem with conservative education:

The default mode is to assume that government is always bad and that further government involvement makes things worse. Why? It’s an article of faith!
It’s an article of faith she’s putting it forward as though it is self-evident that government involvement will obviously make things worse.

Not so!

 

First, two reasons:

 

En

If you’re conceding that censorship is going on in the status quo, you have a difficult argument to make. You are reading what we would call in debate a non-unique disadvantage.

 

You have conceded that things are very bad now, but somehow if we did something about it, it might make it worse in some unspecified way.

 

That’s a default mode of saying like;
«huh.. this problem where we’re going to get owned by liberals over and over again, it’s happening right now but if we did anything about it, well somehow it would be worse!»

 

Why?
«..I don’t know! .. [it] just would.. for sure!..»

«..we know..government involvement always bad..»

I feel like she [Allie Stuckey] represents a consistent strain of a particular like libertarian conservative ideology that is deeply skeptical of government power, for good reason!

For good reason; government – especially in the hands of liberals – often does things we don’t like! But that doesn’t mean it’s always wrong.

Let’s think about the reasons why that wouldn’t be the case why wouldn’t government involvement in preserving an open public square hurt conservatives more.

Well first; any government action is constrained by the First Amendment. This is actually the substance of the Supreme Court case:

 

The government North Carolina..passed a law that said sex offenders shouldn’t be allowed on social media.
The Supreme Court said no no no no no.. that’s access to the public square. The government is not allowed to restrict access to the public square.

 

Få, om noen land har så sterk grunnlovsfestet ytringsfrihet som USA gjennom sin «First Amendment» eller definisjon av «det offentlige rom» (public square). Men da er det fornuftige argument for andre land i tilfelle, å kopiere USA på disse punkt. Eventuelt ta mål av seg til å gi ytringsfrihet og det offentlige rom, om mulig enda sterkere vern.

The reason Facebook and Twitter and all these people [andre tech-giganter som YouTube/Google, Apple, Microsoft, Patreon, MasterCard etc.] are allowed to censor us is because they’re private companies, but insofar as government action relates to Facebook and Twitter and controls access to the public square, any government action is going to be heavily constrained by this Packingham decision [nevnte Supreme Court case] and any other First Amendment case law, that that constrains government action in relation to speech.

 

So this is one of the reasons I actually am seriously thinking that the nationalisation is the right answer for Facebook and Twitter!

 

Because as long as these institutions are within the government they cannot violate First Amendment law and the only real risk there is somehow that the First Amendment gets weakened going forward.

 

Full nasjonalisering av Facebook og Twitter (da ville det samme antakelig måtte gjelde tilsvarende på andre platformer, for eksempel YouTube), altså omgjøring til statlige etater (som jo finnes i USA, i hvert fall er romfartsorganisasjonen NASA et eksempel) er dog et drastisk tiltak.

Mellomløsninger, for eksempel basert på

  • Monopol-lovgivning («anti-trust)
  • Klargjøring – om nødvendig utvidelse – av lovpålagt ytringsfrihet også inn i (visse typer?) private selskaper
  • Skjerping av krav til konkrete og objektive-
    (ikke abstrakte og høyst subjektive som «hat..ditt-og-datt» eller «un-safe» og lignende konstruksjoner)
    ..samt forhåndsuttalte definisjoner
  • Likt håndhevet reglement for alle brukere
    (for slik er det slett ikke nå)

burde gi mulige alternativer.

 

To

..Think about all the money that’s been invested in think tanks here in DC places like Leadership Institute Charles Koch foundation I’m sure Ally went through some of those..

 

All these institutions have failed conservatives.. because they are going doing exactly what [Saul] Alinsky would have wanted them to do. What was Alinsky’s point?

«Make people hold their principles right and hang them up [hoist] by their own petards
That’s what liberals are doing on this question.

 

Like all the liberal SJW’s who are running the health and safety teams of Twitter and Facebook are looking at us like:
«Oh yes, you need to adhere to your principles! You dare not regulate! You dare not regulate private enterprise! Because private enterprise is always good and regulation is always bad!»

 

That’s what they want you to do.. they want you to.. adhere to your principles so long as they’re self-defeating! So don’t! ..Don’t fall for that trap!

 

Revurder dine prinsipper

If you end up being a situation where your principles lead you saying:
«Well we just need a much more libertarian society and that starts with not regulating Facebook and Twitter at all and letting them do what they will..»

 

Then what you’ll end up with is Facebook and Twitter silencing conservatives AND socialism, and [as consequence] the end of your principles.

Your principles are self-defeating in this context which means your principles suck. They suck!

Dette burde egentlig være klart for alle som i dag anser seg konservative, ettersom konservative tenkere forlengst har formulert som ett av Konservatismens pillarer – eller prinsipper – nettopp at man ikke skal «ri» prinsipper!

For intet er perfekt. Ingen regel uten unntak.

 

Russel Kirk’s formulering

Som tidligere omtalt fra Ten Conservative Principles av Russel Kirk (1918–1994):

2 bøker av Russel Kirk:

The Conservative Mind

Omtale: Conservative BookClub
-Selges hos: Adlibris, Amazon

Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered
Omtale
-Selges hos: Adlibris, Amazon

 

  • Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
    Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

 

Thomas Sowell’s formulering

«Det konservative premiss» (i videoen beskriver han også «det sosialistiske premiss»):

«There are no [final/perfect] solutions, there are only trade-offs. You try to get the best trade-off you can get, and that’s all you can hope for».

 

 

Final point:

Big tech IS big government!
You already have a situation where progressives are controlling the public square! The question is; do you want to be regulated by Jack Dorsey [sosialistisk sjef i Twitter] ..or Trump?
Up to you!

 

Se hele Chamberlain’s video:

***

ektenyheter