Let the Apolitical Banning Begin
I’ve been a little disappointed lately at all the criticism of Apple from sources which I considered to be pro-business. If Apple wants to kick Alex Jones off of their platform, it’s their right as the sole owners of their platform. It’s as simple as that.
I own my own website and I bristle at the idea that anyone could tell me what I can or can’t put on the website which I pay for with my own money. It’s really no different for Apple, Google, or Twitter. You don’t even have to be violating any community standards to get banned. Apple News shadow-banned my Perezonomics channel a few months ago for writing negative stories about Elon Musk. I didn’t complain, I just figured “Hey, it’s their business, not mine”.
And I’ll go further and say that what the world needs is MORE policing and not less. By that, I mean that the same treatment needs to be applied to both sides of the political spectrum. There are certain things that everyone agrees which should be banned regardless of what your political stripes are. Like openly calling for genocide against people of a certain race or color. Lefties like Louis Farrakhan and the New York Times Sarah Jeong should be gone too. And the intent of the writer is irrelevant. When a cop arrests you for breaking the law, he doesn’t care whether you meant to break it or not.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but saying that the world needs more banning is not anti-free speech. A platform is like a garden. You have to cultivate it. You fertilize what you desire and pull out the weeds. The government simply ensures that everyone can start their own garden. The public can choose which ones they want to visit.
So why did it take so long to ban an obviously fake news organization like InfoWars? It wasn’t because everyone loved Alex Jones. I think it’s because of what that move would entail with doing to the other side of the political spectrum. These liberal platform owners don’t want to ban liberal channels that are also spewing hate and encouraging violence. If Apple openly states a threshold for banning, conservatives will cry foul if liberal offenders don’t get banned as well. This is really why everyone was reluctant to act on InfoWars. Now, who’s next?
If the media organizations were to simply ban organizations like Antifa which openly call for violence that would be a great place to start. Rather than many organizations disappearing, as some would suggest, I think the opposite would happen. I think organizations would curb their behavior so as not to get banned. If there are clear rules set in place, most people will strive not to break the rules to avoid any penalties. Kind of like how most movie-makers tried not to get an R rating for their movies.
You could make an argument that news could be rated just like movies. As an alternative to outright banning, perhaps an organization gets the equivalent of an R rating? Then people would have to opt-in to receive news from R-rated organizations. Of course, this would introduce a whole new layer of bureaucracy to business which they won’t be keen to accept.
So Kudos to Apple for cultivating their garden. I say that everyone should create their platform with a vision of how they want it to be and let the public decide who they like best.
And I’ll go further and say that what the world needs is MORE policing and not less. By that, I mean that the same treatment needs to be applied to both sides of the political spectrum. There are certain things that everyone agrees which should be banned regardless of what your political stripes are. Like openly calling for genocide against people of a certain race or color. Lefties like Louis Farrakhan and the New York Times Sarah Jeong should be gone too. And the intent of the writer is irrelevant. When a cop arrests you for breaking the law, he doesn’t care whether you meant to break it or not.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but saying that the world needs more banning is not anti-free speech. A platform is like a garden. You have to cultivate it. You fertilize what you desire and pull out the weeds. The government simply ensures that everyone can start their own garden. The public can choose which ones they want to visit.
So why did it take so long to ban an obviously fake news organization like InfoWars? It wasn’t because everyone loved Alex Jones. I think it’s because of what that move would entail with doing to the other side of the political spectrum. These liberal platform owners don’t want to ban liberal channels that are also spewing hate and encouraging violence. If Apple openly states a threshold for banning, conservatives will cry foul if liberal offenders don’t get banned as well. This is really why everyone was reluctant to act on InfoWars. Now, who’s next?
If the media organizations were to simply ban organizations like Antifa which openly call for violence that would be a great place to start. Rather than many organizations disappearing, as some would suggest, I think the opposite would happen. I think organizations would curb their behavior so as not to get banned. If there are clear rules set in place, most people will strive not to break the rules to avoid any penalties. Kind of like how most movie-makers tried not to get an R rating for their movies.
You could make an argument that news could be rated just like movies. As an alternative to outright banning, perhaps an organization gets the equivalent of an R rating? Then people would have to opt-in to receive news from R-rated organizations. Of course, this would introduce a whole new layer of bureaucracy to business which they won’t be keen to accept.
So Kudos to Apple for cultivating their garden. I say that everyone should create their platform with a vision of how they want it to be and let the public decide who they like best.
RSS Feed