Platform Or Publisher

Alex Jones. Alex Jones. Alex Jones. Once more, just to make sure: Alex Jones (Alex Jones). So, let's see if I get banned now. Nah, of course not; I wouldn't want to actively publish on a platform that would be so stupid as to forget what they are and start making editorial choices that effectively transform them into a publisher.

_{source: Wikipedia}

Alex Jones is banned from YouTube and a couple of other major sites that proclaim to act like platforms. They are not liable for opinions expressed on their sites they say, something I agree with, IF they are a platform. But it's clear now that they, much like the mainstream media, make editorial choices by banning or burying in the search-results, all the opinions that are not to their political liking, usually right-wing. This is nonsense; you are either a platform, open to EVERYONE, or you're a publisher, in which case you assume responsibility for the opinions expressed by EVERYONE you don't choose to censor. I can not stress this enough. Freedom of speech is worthless, non existent, if its supporters aren't willing to support the opinions least to their liking. I certainly don't agree with everything coming from the libertarian side of political discourse, but what Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Google are doing now is wrong.

Consumers want standards; freedom of choice is a plain annoyance and highly impractical on many levels and certain monopolies are vital in any functional society. Imagine if we had like 6 water-providers; it's just stupid to lay 6 individually owned pipeline-grids underneath every city or village. Imagine if each electronica-giant made their own CD- and DVD standards, so you couldn't play a Pioneer DVD in a Sony DVD player. And then imagine that both Sony and Pioneer had their own exclusive deals with film- and tv-producers: your house would be awash with multiple devices if you want to maintain a diverse film-collection. Something similar goes for publishing content; it's hard work for any publisher who wants to reach the entire pool of potential customers if they are spread out over multiple social media platforms. With almost one-third of the world's population having a Facebook account, there's much to say for calling Facebook a standard indeed. Sad, I know, but true.

Another reason why Facebook is fast becoming a standard is because of its growing connections with third parties; a lot of other online services require, or rather have you register with them via your Facebook account. That's great for them because they don't have to maintain and secure online login-servers. I refuse to register with Facebook, so some services are out of my reach, simply because I don't have a Facebook account. Mind you: this doesn't have to be a bad thing, I already argued why standards and monopolies aren't necessarily a bad thing, but it all comes down to who owns that standard, platform or monopoly, and in this case it's a two-faced profit-seeking monster.

_{Image by Ken - source: Pexels}

"Yeah, but Facebook is a private company and can decide for themselves who they allow on their platform." This is the argument libertarians should use, but ironically it's those same libertarians who flip out when Facebook and YouTube take that freedom and ban the likes of Alex Jones. But I agree: we all should be angry about this. And the argument doesn't stand either; for many reasons a few of which I already described, they don't really have that freedom, or they shouldn't. If you think this through, if they are really free to choose who gets on the platform, then they can one day decide to, for example, ban all Jews, or all women or, much more likely in this day and age, all Muslims. Or just a few, the most vocal ones with large followings. The argument that they would then suffer the consequences doesn't stand to reason, at least not until we've established they'll first suffer the consequences of their obvious silencing of Alex and many more individuals they claim to be "extremists."

Think of privately owned water suppliers; they should have the right to stop servicing whoever they want, right? Even if the target wants their product, needs their product, is willing and able to pay for that product, right? Wrong. That's murder. I can think of few future scenarios more scary than the one in which daily life is shaped and regulated by privately owned monopolies, and that's exactly what Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter are. As things are going now, they will be the ones providing the data to calculate your "social credit" score, and they will be the ones cutting you from their grid when that score falls below "the norm." You won't be able to participate in society altogether when everything is centralized around your Facebook account, or whatever future equivalent we'll have. That chip in your arm will be so convenient, allowing you to gain instant access to every place where you're supposed to have access, paying the restaurant bill with a wave of the hand, never getting lost because of the massive grid that knows exactly where you are at all times. That is, until the privately owned monopoly behind all that ease of use decides they don't like you anymore and kick you off their grid, effectively banning you from society.

Some things should not be owned, at least not privately, like the air we breathe or the water we drink or the roads we use to move about or the electricity we use to fire up our privately owned TV set. Really, those ought to be owned and regulated by a government by the people for the people; the problem is that even the government is effectively owned by corporations. Some things are too important to leave in the hands of privately owned profit seeking entities. The Public Square, in which we exercise the mother of all freedoms, may be the most important of them all. In the case of Alex Jones' banning, these digital giants have proven to effectively own the online public square by cooperating and banning the man simultaneously, and the same is happening now with his affiliate Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Louis Farrakhan and I could go on. Agree with their opinions or not, I don't really care; we should all be concerned with, if not outraged by this development. There's no left or right here, there's only right or wrong, so let's for once unite behind right.

_{'Political purge': Facebook bans Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos & others for 'promoting hate'}

---

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>	Achieving Happiness
Morality And Markets	Endgame: My Final Thoughts (Spoilers!)
Evolutionary Basis Of Religion	Reptilian Marketing
Avengers: Endgame, A Quick Reaction	Language, Smiles, Power And Empathy

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!

I am a proud helpinaut! @Helpie is looking for new members! Helpie has been growing nicely and we are always on the lookout for new valuable members. We are very supportive and community oriented. If you would like to be scouted for @helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.

Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:

Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO



@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!