Ninos P. Malek is a Lecturer in the Economics department at San Jose State University and a Professor of Economics at De Anza College in Cupertino, California. He earned his Ph.D. at George Mason University. He sent the following to me and gave me permission to run it.
Some conservatives, notably Tucker Carlson and Dennis Prager, complain that big “tech monopolies” are squashing conservative ideas. They claim that Google, Facebook, and Twitter are enemies of free speech because they block or take down conservative opinions.
Do these tech giants deny free speech? No, they do not. In my own home, I have the right to control the speech and behavior of my guests. For example, I might tell them to stop using foul language while they are on my property. This would not violate their free speech. I have a right to create and enforce my own rules on my private property; moreover, my guests were not forced to come to my house or to stay at my house. Similarly, Google, Facebook and Twitter have the right to control what is said on their sites. No one is forced to use those sites. Someone who feels strongly enough about their alleged anti-conservative bias can simply stop using their services.
These giant tech companies (I purposely do not refer to them as “monopolies”) may well filter out conservative websites from their search engine or block posts and “tweets” that have a conservative slant. But conservatives do not have a right to have their organizations displayed on a private company’s search engine. Individuals or organizations do not have a right to post their opinions and material on a private company’s private property—their social media platform. And I write this as someone who generally supports Prager U and other conservative organizations.
Prager argued in a congressional hearing that these major companies are suppressing ideas, thereby threatening the future of the United States. He stated that he had contacted Google to ask why it blocks certain Prager U videos, but Google apparently did not offer him an explanation by the time he testified.
Carlson has pointed out that many media companies depend on Google, giving Google power. In fact, he says he believes that no company in human history has had so much power over information. According to Carlson, “It’s been clear for a very long time that the Big Tech companies have now surpassed the federal government as the chief threat to our liberties.”
The critics of these large technology companies point to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as the source of their power. Section 230 prevents the courts from holding major tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter responsible for what individuals do based on the content of their sites. The argument in favor of Section 230 is that, without it, these companies might not exist out of fear of litigation, so that consumers would be worse off.
I agree that “progressives,” who are diametrically opposed to conservative ideals and moral values, run Google, Twitter and Facebook. This is no shock since these companies are based in the San Francisco Bay Area. The problem is that while conservatives claim they believe in the free market, they actually want the government to intervene in the market. A true supporter of liberty, freedom, and free markets would oppose government intervention.
Now, if the government ordered Google, Facebook, and Twitter to filter out conservative sites or to block out conservative opinions, that would be a violation of free speech. If the government legally prevented an entrepreneur from competing with Google, Facebook, or Twitter then that would anticompetitive. In a truly free market, the only responsibility that the government has with respect to business is to enforce contracts and prosecute violations of property rights—not to make sure everyone gets a “fair shake” on someone else’s private property.
When the administrations at public institutions block conservative speakers or when leftist organizations or students shout down and shut down conservative speech at taxpayer-financed institutions, those are violations of free speech because those institutions are tax-funded. Only government can violate free speech rights.
There is nothing wrong with Dennis Prager asking individuals to voluntarily sign a petition to get Facebook to stop blocking Prager U videos. However, that is different from asking the government to force private companies to give everyone an equal voice. Just as it would not be a violation of free speech or a denial of liberty if a conservative company blocked liberal voices or material from its website, there is no right for conservatives to have their voices heard or their material played on the private property of a private company.
READER COMMENTS
David D Boaz
Sep 6 2020 at 7:17pm
I agree with this. But I’m skeptical about this claim from Prager:
Because 1. Google doesn’t, I think, block any Prager U videos; it just makes a very small percentage of them available to the very small percentage of Google customers who have parental controls on. And 2. I’ve seen that explanation more than once. It’s no secret.
Dylan
Sep 6 2020 at 7:29pm
I’m not that familiar with Prager U., my guess is that I wouldn’t be a fan, still I think this piece misses parts of the picture.
First, it’s a pet peeve of mine when people speak as if free speech is synonymous with the 1st amendment. A person can believe that an organization has the legal right to censor content, while still thinking that they should be pretty judicious about when they exercise that right.
I think that becomes particularly true as an organization scales. If you’re a small group that is focused on some particular topic, sure go ahead and censor anything that’s not on that topic. On the other hand, if you’re stated purpose is to be the catalog for the world’s information…then it’s probably a bad idea to let editorial decisions come into play.
Malek also downplays the nature of the type of monopoly that the giant tech companies have over information. I’m constantly amazed at how few people I come across even understand that Google is not the internet. If I ask someone to type in a URL in the address bar of their browser, 9 times out of 10 they type that into Google. You’re hard pressed to find an alternative search engine that doesn’t use either Google or Bing to power their results, and if you do, unfortunately their results aren’t going to be very good or complete. I say this as someone that hasn’t used Google as my default search engine for probably close to 15 years.
Personally, I don’t think there’s really much of a problem at the moment, but the direction things are heading is a worry.
Ninos Malek
Sep 7 2020 at 12:32pm
Thank you for your comments Dylan. My view is that the only real monopoly is the government itself or a business that is given a government-granted privilege. That is why I mentioned that I do not like referring to Google, Facebook, etc. as “tech monopolies.”
Whether or not it’s a good business practice to filter or censor content (e.g., conservative organizations) is something to consider. I just do not want government to get involved.
What would worry me is if the government got involved with censoring. But from my perspective, a private company (just like my home example) should be able to allow or deny as they see fit as long as they are not violating any mutually agreed upon contract.
Again, thank you.
AMT
Sep 7 2020 at 4:18pm
Although I would mostly agree in this particular case, or at least think there is no current concern with any potential monopolization of these companies, saying “[m]y view is that the only real monopoly is the government itself or a business that is given a government-granted privilege” is a very disturbingly narrow view of “monopoly.” Of course you won’t be calling these companies monopolies then…or basically any company…
Ninos Malek
Sep 8 2020 at 12:48pm
“Of course you won’t be calling these companies monopolies then…or basically any company…”
Thank you again for your comment.
As I mentioned, I would call a company a “monopoly” if they were given a special privilege or protection from the government. However, you are correct in assuming I would not use the term “monopoly” for a business that rises to the top due to superior performance and due to customers voluntarily choosing their product or service. I have no problem if they are the “lone survivor.” They deserve to be in that position.
Others are free to try to knock them off and as long as the government does not prevent that, then I don’t believe “monopoly” is an appropriate term.
AMT
Sep 9 2020 at 11:16am
I don’t care what YOU think about the term, because you are plainly incorrect. You choose to define the word differently from everyone else. It’s perfectly fine to argue “monopoly is acceptable or optimal in this situation for reasons x,y,z,” but it’s wrong to just make up your own definition of the word. That is a very poor strategy to advance your views. Monopoly is when there is a single seller in a market, whether due to government decree or otherwise. Maybe you forgot it from econ 101.
BC
Sep 6 2020 at 10:12pm
“the only responsibility that the government has with respect to business is to enforce contracts and prosecute violations of property rights”
I agree that any private entity has a right to pursue whatever political agenda it wants, conservative or liberal. However, what to do about private companies that claim to be, and present themselves to the investing public as, *apolitical* entities but pursue a political agenda surreptitiously? None of Google, Facebook, or Twitter defend their activities as an exercise of their right to promote progressive ideas. Quite the contrary, each claim their platform is open to users of all political persuasions. A private entity also has the right to give lavish gifts to the CEO’s mistress. If the company has a policy on proper use of company resources, however, and the CEO violates that policy by spending company funds on his mistress, then one might argue that shareholders have been deceived about how and where their company’s assets are being spent. Similarly, Google, Facebook, and Twitter have stated on many occasions, that their policy is to discriminate against neither conservative nor liberal views.
The author says, “I agree that ‘progressives,’ who are diametrically opposed to conservative ideals and moral values, run Google, Twitter and Facebook.” If one were to ask an investor in an investing context, however, which of the following describes Facebook: (a) a social media company that advances progressive causes by providing a platform for users to share progressive messages or (b) a social media company that runs a platform for targeted advertising based on user data (no political agenda implied), I think most investors would choose (b) and, importantly, Facebook wouldn’t disagree.
Again, none of Google, Twitter, and Facebook defend their actions as a private right to advance a set of political views. None even claim that advancing a particular set of political views helps them sell more ads. Instead, they represent themselves to the investing public as apolitical, for-profit entities. Part of enforcing contracts and property rights is ensuring that material information is properly and non-deceptively disclosed to investors and other entities that deal with the companies. Acting contrary to such material disclosures is a violation of contracts and property rights.
p.s. I agree that revoking Sec. 230 would be a bad idea. Revoking Sec. 230 would drive the tech companies towards censoring *more* content. With Sec. 230, pressure to censor arises mainly from politically active employees and employees’ peers. Without Sec. 230, *additional* pressure to censor would arise from fear of lawsuits from publishing certain content.
Ike Coffman
Sep 7 2020 at 3:47pm
In all of these discussions I do not an acknowledgement that those companies are basically saying that they do not allow outright lies, falsehoods, and distortions to be propagated on their platforms. My understanding is that most of that type of content is coming from the right, so it only looks like censorship when really they just don’t trust their users to be able to tell the difference between truth and lies.
Ike Coffman
Sep 7 2020 at 3:49pm
see an acknowledgement /edit
Mark Brady
Sep 7 2020 at 1:04am
Ninos writes, “The critics of these large technology companies point to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as the source of their power. Section 230 prevents the courts from holding major tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter responsible for what individuals do based on the content of their sites. The argument in favor of Section 230 is that, without it, these companies might not exist out of fear of litigation, so that consumers would be worse off.”
And the argument against Section 230 is? I was hoping for a further exploration of this issue, but Ninos does not go there. Other media, like print and online publishers and radio and TV broadcasters have no Section 230 to protect them. Yet they continue to publish and broadcast. Of course, social media would be different without Section 230, but I’m not persuaded that social media would not exist. And if we say that “consumers would be worse off” without Section 230, aren’t we really saying that the advantages to some would outweigh the disadvantages to others (measured how?), and thus implicitly conceding that maximizing the social surplus is a valid principle of government intervention. And I dare say that this would not be acceptable to Ninos and many other writers and commenters on this blog.
A more principled approach would be to repeal all laws governing defamation, hate speech, and intellectual property, and thus remove the perceived need for Section 230, but I appreciate that such a policy would raise a host of other concerns.
Phil H
Sep 7 2020 at 2:19am
“social media would be different without Section 230”
Just as an example of how it works differently, I live in China, where the issues are different, but all publicly accessible media must be monitored in real time (by government censors). This means that social media discussions, instead of happening on an open, browsable platform like Twitter, happen in a massively interlocking series of chat groups (on WeChat and QQ, the two dominate social media platforms). These chat groups aren’t open to outsiders, but they’re not like private/family chats, they’re medium-sized (dozens to 100s of members) spaces. But the companies get away with policing them less intensively because they’re in theory not “publishing” their material.
Social media still seems to work pretty well on this model. So I think this example backs up your point that Section 230 may not be quite as necessary as some claim.
Mark Z
Sep 7 2020 at 8:13am
Online publishers and TV broadcasters publish far less content – and have much greater control over content – than social media platforms. Twitter alone probably “publishes” many times (I’d guess at least a few thousand times) as many pages worth of content per day than every newspaper in the country combined. And machine learning tools are not sophisticated enough to automatically weed out libelous sentences. It’s easy to see how such companies would either have to drastically cut volume down to a size amenable to moderation or leave themselves open to a constant flood of lawsuits. I don’t think it’s about maximizing social surplus either, but about who other than the person writing or saying something is legally responsible for it. I’d say there’s a stronger argument that publishers should be held liable for what they publish, only the writer, than that social media platforms should be held liable.
Regarding China: it sounds like from Phil’s description, public social media either doesn’t exist nearly to the extent that it does in the US, and/or companies just have to monitor enough to satisfy the government. This doesn’t seem quite the same as a company ‘publishing’ hundreds of thousands of actionably libelous statements per day. Unlike with Chinese government censors, the US court system presumably cannot just opt to ignore the vast majority of law suits against a company because it’d be too burdensome for said company.
Ninos Malek
Sep 7 2020 at 12:09pm
Hello Mark. Thank you for your comments and I always appreciate your perspective. As for Section 230, would you support the idea that it is unnecessary because individuals should be accountable for their own actions and that blame should not be placed upon the social media company for what users say or do?
JFA
Sep 7 2020 at 8:36am
While some website blocking your video is not a violation of the first amendment, it does seem to go against a norm (I say norm because it is not a right (if it were a “right” then the identity of the violator (government vs. private) would not matter)) of free speech. The benefit of free speech is that all ideas can be tossed into the marketplace and hopefully truth will come out on the other side. I think pointing out that one thing or another is not a violation of the first amendment is a bit pedantic. Everyone should be concerned if large platforms where most people get their information systematically suppress some ideas. Does this mean the government should come in and fine/regulate the companies? No, but we shouldn’t forget that the concept of free speech is a broader set of issues than just first amendment protections. The post might have been more accurately titled “Ninos Malek on the Ins and Outs of the First Amendment”.
Ninos Malek
Sep 7 2020 at 12:02pm
Hello JFA. Thank you for the comments. I agree with you that open discussion is a good thing.
However, the way I see it is that a private company should have the right to deny access. They do not owe anybody a platform.
As far as free speech, perhaps I was not clear in my writing so thank you for bringing up an important point. My argument is that only the government can violate our free speech rights not a private company or some other private entity. For example, I have no problem with a private institution filtering which speakers can come to campus and what professors can and cannot teach. That would not violate anyone’s free speech rights. However, I would oppose this if we were discussing a public institution.
Toby
Sep 7 2020 at 9:07am
I don’t know what the relevant legal provisions are, but blocking content can be seen as customer foreclosure or denying access to an essential facility. What Google etc. are doing is taking part of their profits in the form of censoring speech and can thereby impede competition between organisations such as Prager U.
Ninos Malek
Sep 7 2020 at 11:50am
Thank you for the comment Toby. My point is that it is perfectly legitimate for a private company to deny access to another company or individual as long as they are not violating any mutually agreed upon agreement. For example, most would say that if a private mall owner wants a Starbucks in their mall but Starbucks (the individuals who make this decision) tell the mall owner that they will open a new store in the mall only if the mall prevents Peet’s from opening a store also. Now, I am not a lawyer but this would probably be considered “anticompetitive.” In fact, even many who claim to believe in “free market capitalism” would say the same thing. I would not. Peet’s would argue that Starbucks is using their “power” to stifle competition. My view is that trying to “kill off your competition” is competition. Moreover, Peet’s never had a right to open a store in that private mall; the mall owner did not owe Peet’s a new location.
andrew weintraub
Sep 7 2020 at 9:22am
What puzzles me about all this is why, in a free market, there’s been no attempt on the part of entrepreneurs in the libertarian/conservative sector of the tech industry to develop a search engine that “plays fair” with all points of view.
Ninos Malek
Sep 7 2020 at 11:54am
Thank you Andrew for taking the time to read and post. Great point.
What would be “anticompetitive” or inappropriate government intervention in my opinion is if the GOVERNMENT prevented this. But I have no problem with a private company (without government involvement) using their “power” to eliminate their competition.
BC
Sep 7 2020 at 3:34pm
Because Google has already been claiming to “play fair” since their founding. This goes back to my point above that Google has never presented itself as a “left wing” search engine. They accepted capital from investors, hired and benefited from the work of software developers with a wide range of political views, and recruited users (which provide a “network effect” benefit) all with the understanding that Google was an apolitical search engine organizing information on the internet, no political mission implied. Only *after* Google built up a ton of goodwill and intellectual and social capital from these sources under apolitical pretenses have a faction of politically active Google employees appropriated that goodwill and capital for their own purposes. There is no way for libertarian/conservative investors, employees, and users of Google to “take back” their past contributions and reallocate it to a new search engine venture.
I agree that this isn’t a First Amendment legal issue. As others have pointed out, there is a free speech culture issue, to be remediated through the court of public opinion, not through government. In addition, though, there is an issue of “full disclosure of material information”, which arguably is something for government to address, e.g., with respect to securities fraud regulations. One can’t tell investors that they are investing in one thing and turn around and do something else.
Mark Z
Sep 8 2020 at 12:33am
Thinking about the question of why there aren’t more competitors to Google that don’t restrict content in the same ways, does Google in fact enjoy a de facto state-enforced monopoly through intellectual property law? If Google’s quality depends on trademarked software that it’s illegal for competitors to imitate, then it kind of is a state-sanctioned monopoly (though it may still be argued that it’s worth it to tolerate because eliminating IP protection would deter innovation).
Comments are closed.