“Conservatives” need to stop whining about Facebook “censorship”

Once I hit 61, I started getting a huge number of ads and posts from pro-Trump groups of various kinds (stop calling them conservative—they aren’t ). And, dang, they whine. I see so many posts in which pro-Trump groups ask that I sign a petition about how they’re being silenced by Facebook.

Think about that for a moment.

Clearly, their supporters don’t take that moment.

But, people often ask me about social media censoring, so the strategic talking point that social media censoring is a major issue for democracy and demagoguery is getting adherents—adherents who don’t realize how strategic and irrational that talking point is.

A lot of people repeat the very muddled talking point that democracy relies on all claims being put forward as equally valid. Since Big Tech censors some claims, they say, it is a danger to democracy.

For the sake of argument, let’s set aside the issue of whether that is what democracy requires (it doesn’t), and just worry about the minor premise. If Big Tech threatens democracy because it doesn’t give all points of view complete freedom, why aren’t we worried about Fox News? If democracy requires that all points of view be put forward as equally valid on Facebook, why shouldn’t that be the case with Fox News? Fox censors relentlessly. It doesn’t give equal time to all points of view. Prager U whines relentlessly about getting censored—does it give equal time to all points of view? No. If Big Tech is a threat to democracy because it censors, then so is Big Media. And Fox is as big as it gets.

If democracy requires that the sources of information on which people rely be open to all points of view, then Fox, Prager U, the Leadership Institute, and every single medium whining about being censored on Facebook are threats to democracy.

The whole “Facebook censors” is not about Facebook censoring being wrong—where were these people when Facebook was censoring photos of breastfeeding?—it’s that propagandistic media and institutions (who don’t treat all points of view as equally valid) aren’t allowed to promote misinformation, incite riots, libel, or engage in other actions that put Facebook in danger of getting sued.

The whiners don’t want to be held to those standards. (And, really, if you can’t make your argument without lying, maybe you have a bad argument.)

How Facebook censors is bad, and automated, and I’ve been Facebook jailed many times for stupid reasons. But I am on Facebook a lot, and Facebook has allowed me to post a lot. On the other hand, I’ve never been invited to be on Fox News. Fox has censored me far more, and far more effectively, than Facebook has.

Fox News is not a platform that allows everyone on who wants a chance to speak. Nor does Prager U, the Liberty Institute, or any of the other places whining about Facebook rules. Biden is not on Fox News as often as Trump was (or is). When Fox has someone who is not towing the party line, it’s usually not the best proponent of that point of view, and that person gets cut off.

So, were the people fomenting outrage about Facebook censoring operating from a place of principle, they would be starting with Fox News. They aren’t. They don’t. When it comes to Fox News, Prager U, or bakeries, then the very same people argue that, as a private enterprise, they have the right to promote or silence whoever they want only discover the principle of free speech when they want to be irresponsible; otherwise, they’re in favor of private enterprises censoring.

In other words, they don’t have a principled position; they have a set of talking points that are intended to deflect attention from their behavior and foment outrage about groups that thwart them.

This is strategic fear-mongering. Strategic fear-mongering is when people pretend to be outraged that an important principle is being violated, when, in fact, they don’t care about that principle at all—they violate it all the time.

Were those people—Fox News, Prager U—actually committed to democracy requiring the unfettered expression of all points of view in all media, then they would demonstrate that commitment by themselves being media that engage in no censorship.

In short, various groups are engaged in strategic moral panic about censorship on Facebook–groups that themselves censor far more than Facebook. And GOP-supporters are falling for that demagoguery without noticing how incoherent the whole argument is. Really, that Trump supporters feel sorry for themselves that people make fun of them for being being stupid, and then they fall for this kind of demagoguery, and never make the connection….