Tune in live this Sunday, from 8–9am PACIFIC and call in (424) BOB-SHOW . Then, catch “the After Show” with me, Bill, and my producer on YouTube Live.

Social Media Censorship

Bill Ottman returns to discuss the latest in the battle for online free speech

Bob Zadek
Bob Zadek
Apr 25 · 3 min read

Earlier this week, President Trump sat down in the Oval Office with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to talk about, among other things, Twitter’s censorship policies, and his own follower count. Trump asked if Twitter had discriminated against him — his 45 million followers pale in comparison to Barack Obama’s 105 million, not to mention Katy Perry’s 108 million.

Perhaps Trump’s ego is interfering with his ability to see clearly on this issue, but social media censorship is still a vital topic of concern for all Americans who value free speech.

When tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter dominate so much of the online landscape, their speech codes, suspensions, and “deplatforming” campaigns can make or break a person’s business or reputation. Prominent libertarians and conservatives have already been flagged or removed from social media for so-called hate speech.

If you believe, as I do, that neither the government nor powerful tech companies should be the arbiters of what counts as unacceptable speech, you should consider moving to Minds.com. Minds is the social network for free exchange— where sunshine is the only remedy for bad ideas, and censorship is the only viewpoint that isn’t tolerated.

Minds CEO and co-founder Bill Ottman joined me last year to talk about the need to diversify away from Big Tech’s monopoly on free speech.

Since then, I published an entire book on the dangers of free speech bubbles — particularly on college campuses — that insulate people from allegedly offensive ideas. Both universities and social networks share a superficially private quality, but are the equivalent of today’s public square. If the First Amendment doesn’t defend free speech here, it’s useless.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1946 [Marsh v. Alabama] that a company town couldn’t prevent one of its residents from distributing religious literature, since the company management was essentially acting as if it were the government. The majority argued that “[w]hile the town is owned by a private company, it is open for use by the public and thus becomes limited by the constitutional rights of the people there, who are entitled to the freedoms of speech and religion.”

I chafe against the idea of any social media network acting as a quasi-government agency, so I think libertarians are better off moving to freer platforms like Minds.com. Until they kick me off, however, I will continue to use Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and the like to spread the word about what’s happening.

Tune in live for my interview with Bill Ottman this Sunday, from 8–9am PACIFIC on the usual stations and live streaming online. Then, catch “The After Show” with me, Bill, and my producer on YouTube Live, where we’ll take continue to take your questions and discuss the slippery problem of free speech in the digital era. Afterwards I’ll post the whole video on Minds for my followers who are boycotting Google products like YouTube.

Related Shows:

Links:

Bob Zadek

Written by

Bob Zadek

http://bobzadek.com • host of The Bob Zadek Show on 860AM – The Answer.