When I play Sid Meier’s Civilization, as I have thousands of times, I have an eccentric strategy.
When other civilizations demand tribute – or just attack me with without provocation – I give them what they want.
I sue for peace.
And then, I propose an alliance.
The AI almost always accepts the offer – and the subsequent alliance is almost always fruitful. It’s almost as if the programmers never imagined that anyone would try my self-abasing approach. Sure, humans will grovel in the face of superior firepower. But extend the hand of friendship? Have you no pride at all?
Civilization is admittedly only a game. Yet I can’t help but think that I’m on to something. Contrary to what you’ve heard, appeasement works. And under the right circumstances, actively befriending your current enemies might work even better. Especially if these enemies are short on friends. If you’re used to being hated, a surprising hand of friendship is hard to refuse.
The rising witch-hunt against social media companies provides a nice test case. Even though social media companies clearly lean left, left-wing activists and politicians are still gunning for top social media companies.* And so far, jarringly, left-wing critics have been joined by non-left activists and politicians looking for payback.
If my Civilization strategy has merit, this is a grave mistake for the non-left. Now is precisely the time to make new friends. To say, “Though we’ve had our differences in the past, these demagogues are treating you awfully. While you vote for the same party, left-wing activists and politicians are clearly not your friends. So guess what? We’ve decided to stand up for you. I understand if you don’t believe us, but just watch.”
This is admittedly less emotionally appealing than Ted Cruz’s break-up letter with the whole of corporate America:
For too long, woke CEOs have been fair-weather friends to the Republican Party: They like us until the left’s digital pitchforks come out. Then they run away. Or they mouth off on legislation they don’t understand—and hurt the reputations of patriotic leaders protecting our elections and expanding the right to vote.
Enough is enough. Corporations that flagrantly misrepresent efforts to protect our elections need to be called out, singled out and cut off. In my nine years in the Senate, I’ve received $2.6 million in contributions from corporate political-action committees. Starting today, I no longer accept money from any corporate PAC. I urge my GOP colleagues at all levels to do the same.
But other than keeping corporate media in an unhappy alliance with the left, what is this break-up letter even supposed to accomplish? You can insist, “They made their bed; let them lie in it,” but that’s awfully unconstructive. Say instead, “The abused friend of my enemy is my friend.”
Naive? It is height of sophistication compared to joining forces with the left to demand stricter social media regulation. Which Ted Cruz also seems to favor:
In order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be “neutral public forums.” On the flip side, they should be considered to be a “publisher or speaker” of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.
As I expressed to Mark Zuckerberg, as a private business Facebook has a clear First Amendment right to publish whatever it wants on its website within the bounds of the law. The company can support political causes and oppose ones it disagrees with, just like a private citizen can speak his or her mind or agitate against opposing views.
But if Facebook is busy censoring legal, protected speech for political reasons, the company should be held accountable for the posts it lets through. And it should not enjoy any special congressional immunity from liability for its actions.
Social media companies are already changing their behavior to forestall regulation. They’ve added content warnings. They added “fact-checking.” And virtually all of these forestalling efforts have ended up nudging users in a left-wing direction. (Yes, making a big deal out of Covid is decidedly left-wing). A few suggestive polls:
What fraction of social media content warnings and fact-checking you experience try to nudge you in a right-wing direction?
— Bryan Caplan (@bryan_caplan) October 11, 2021
Social media was better before providers started “moderating content.”
— Bryan Caplan (@bryan_caplan) October 7, 2021
While I too have found social media companies annoying on occasion, activism makes them more annoying – and successful activism will be worse yet.
In any case, any regulation that happens will almost certainty be administered by normal left-wing bureaucrats. Right-wing administrations may restrain them; left-wing administrations will unleash them. Either way, the least-bad outcome for the non-left is not only to avoid regulation, but kill the threat of regulation.
What’s the alternative? Unring the bell. Instead of telling social media companies, “You made your bed; now lie in it,” show up with a sincere smile and say, “You look like you could use a friend.” Then take a principled stand not only against new regulation, but in favor of removing whatever regulations are already on the books.
* Just as my Simplistic Theory of Left and Right predicts, by the way. If you make your fortune on the free market, the left will resent you regardless of your politics.
READER COMMENTS
Art Carden
Oct 21 2021 at 9:40am
I hope one of your forthcoming blog books compiled your posts on how to live. Implementing principles you’ve described over the years has never let me down.
Quite Likely
Oct 21 2021 at 9:45am
What do “left-wing” and “right-wing” even mean to you at this point? Multi-billion dollar social media companies and being concerned about the pandemic are both left-wing? Feels like you’re just describing anything you like as right-wing and anything you dislike as left-wing rather than having any kind of coherent framework.
Anonymous
Oct 22 2021 at 1:31pm
Left-wing = Democrat
Right-wing = Republican
Christophe Biocca
Oct 21 2021 at 11:33am
The flaw with this approach is that you can remove the current levers of control, but you cannot stop a future congress from putting them back in. And so the social media companies pretty much will not change their behavior if they’re rational actors, because they know they will still be punished the next time the laissez-faire people lose power.
You have to make it so the threats lose power, and that’s very tricky, because the current leverage is almost all anti-trust threats and other not-remotely-speech-related regulatory action. Which is not going away with the current electorate.
I think the best hope is probably non-US-based companies (Rumble being the prime example), because there is very little punishment that can be threatened without either breaking the internet or running afoul of the first amendment.
Andrew_FL
Oct 21 2021 at 11:36am
1. Appeasement absolutely does not work, unless you like being the crocodile’s last meal
2. To be frank, the objective of the right in seeking to regulate social media is not to force them to stop moderating or censoring, it is to destroy them. The endgame isn’t “Facebook/Twitter et al as it used to be” it’s those platforms no longer existing.
Matthias
Oct 22 2021 at 7:31pm
How do you know that endgame?
Peter Gerdes
Oct 21 2021 at 11:48am
The problem is that it’s not in the interests of social media giants to stand up to this regulation. They want to oppose public outcry and anger but actively desire regulation as a means to shield them from that anger and, more importantly, raise the barriers to entry to their buisness.
What is needed to create a vibrant, censorship resistant system is a competitive market with underlying open standards so that, e.g., you could choose to get the feeds from Facebook users on some competitors app sorted differently. In other words, as some have advocated, seperate the publishing and display roles in this market. Unfortunately, that’s the last thing Facebook wants (Twitter might be more open).
BC
Oct 21 2021 at 6:44pm
I’m not sure why Caplan brings up appeasement as it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the main point of the post, “The abused friend of my enemy is my friend,” which does have merit. (An abused friend of an enemy is not that different from an enemy of an enemy.)
It’s worth noting that the Woke captured universities (and some corporations, including Big Tech) precisely because these institutions adopted Caplan’s appease-and-ally approach. Universities have been among the most open and welcoming of institutions anywhere in the world — and Big Tech among the most race and gender neutrally meritocratic — but that didn’t stop the Woke from illegitimately attacking them: “Your decades of non-discrimination policies have not produced equal outcomes. You are bastions of white supremacy.” Universities responded with appeasement: “We profusely apologize. We will establish whatever DEI Offices, implement whatever mandatory Woke training you demand.” Then, universities offered an alliance — the Woke literally use the term “allies” — “Please, tell us, which of our insufficiently compliant colleagues should we help you cancel?” universities offered. No surprise. Caplan’s appeasement sensibility is quite common in academia. That’s why so many of them were apologists for the Soviet Union during the Cold War and are apologists for China and/or Middle Eastern terrorists now. And, it’s not just because universities tend to be left wing. In the 1950s, universities (and Hollywood) appeased-and-allied with McCarthy. Illegitimately attacked for being Communist conspirators, universities and Hollywood first tried appeasement by giving up their academic and artistic freedom. Then, they allied with McCarthy in turning over and blacklisting their fellow colleagues. Appease-and-ally doesn’t seem to have a very good record, at least not when it actually matters.
Knut P. Heen
Oct 22 2021 at 8:09am
If you know how to befriend Montezuma, Shaka, or Genghis Khan at the higher levels of Civ4, I am impressed. They will attack you sooner or later no matter how friendly you are towards them. Adopt slavery and use the whip to produce a large amount of catapults is the only strategy that works with these guys. Later in the tech-tree, adopting nationalism and drafting a large amount of riflemen or infantry is the solution.
In Civ4, slavery, nationalism, police state, state property, etc. generally work well. Free speech, free markets, free religion, only work if your neighbor is peaceful (like Gandhi). Moreover, if you befriend Gandhi with open borders, trading technologies etc., the aggressive guys will hate you because you traded with their worst enemy. It is a game in which you must choose a side and be brutal towards the enemy. It came out in 2005 and it has a clear “axis of evil” flavor. I thought George W. Bush was the programmer.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Oct 22 2021 at 11:43am
No, making a big deal is NOT left wing unless everything that s not pure Public Choice Libertarianism is “left wing.”
Alex Tabarrok is not a left winger.
Civilization is not a good model as it is too zero sum.
nobody.really
Oct 22 2021 at 4:26pm
Caplan quotes Cruz thus:
Cruz seems to make a conventional “common carrier” distinction: Either you act as a common carrier (conveying things without personal judgment and therefore being relieved of liability), or you don’t (and you aren’t).
Does Caplan find fault with this distinction–or merely observe that it does not ingratiate Cruz into the good graces of Big Tech?
Comments are closed.