Right before the election, Twitter locked The New York Post out of its Twitter account, for the crime of publishing a completely true news story. This came on the heels of the site repeatedly placing disclaimers on, or otherwise interfering with, statements of opinion by the President of the United States — for no other reason than that Twitter’s management disagreed with those opinions.
This is, mind you, a site that is supposed to be platform, not a publisher. It exists because it claims to offer public accommodation and therefore is not responsible for the editorial content of the third-party material uploaded there. It enjoys legal indemnity on this basis — and it encourages commercial interests to use its service, build brands, and accumulate value on the grounds of this fraud.
The same is true of Facebook. It enjoys the same indemnity and has encouraged the same use of its “virtual public square” for uses that are both personal and commercial. Yet the same site has arbitrarily deleted from its “platform” pages, groups, and accounts that took real time and effort to build a significant store of value. It has erased this value, has denied public accommodation to legal business interests, has repeatedly censored the expression of legal political opinions… based solely on the fact that its management disagrees with those opinions.
The defense that “this is private property and they can manage it as they choose” does not apply. A publisher like The Daily Wire, The Huffington Post, or MoveOn.org can censor the content on its own website and its own discussion boards as it sees fit. But a platform, a site that supposedly offers public accommodation, presents itself as something open equally to members of the public. If it enforces its terms of service selectively, if it arbitrarily censors opinions as a publisher would, that platform is a fraud. It has encouraged members to join, and commercial interests to advertise, on the basis of that falsehood. It has misled its members. It has defrauded its customers.
All of this is significant because a social media company that has no problem censoring both the president of the United States and major news outlets has absolutely no issue censoring and mistreating any of its individual members. This is why conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans generally have been leaving Facebook and Twitter in disgust.
This is the reason sites like Parler are seeing surging membership. This is the reason Fox News has lost so many viewers that it has hired a PR team to do damage control. This is the reason every social media site broadcasts propaganda “fact checks” twenty-four hours a day, insisting that the election is over and that of course there was no fraud.
Republicans aren’t opting out of biased media because they need a “safe space.” They’re leaving because they’re tired of being treated with prejudice. They’re leaving because they’re tired of being defamed. They’re leaving because they’re tired of watching people stare them in the face and tell them things that aren’t true.
Republicans aren’t unhappy with social media because they can’t argue their opinions; it’s because they’re tired of trying to do it with Jack Dorsey holding his hand over their mouths while Mark Zuckerberg pins their arms. It’s because a conservative can be “doxxed” and have his personal information leaked online, yet expect absolutely no action by Twitter’s biased moderators. It’s because simpering cowards like Neil Cavuto can cut off the President’s Press Secretary in the middle of a new conference because Cavuto disagrees with her opinions. It’s because Facebook places lying “fact checks” over matters of opinion while dishonestly interpreting the subjective opinions it is dismissing.
That fat, effeminate moron Brian Stelter, who cries himself to sleep at night when he sees opinions he dislikes, has made a career out of whining about what’s on Fox News. Now that Fox is onboard with censoring conservatives, Stelter is dismayed that conservatives are leaving leftist-owned venues. Why, it’s a threat to democracy if conservatives are allowed to speak their minds. “They believe Parler is a safer space for them,” he sniffs, careful not to smudge his lipstick while he bemoans the pesky freedom of speech he believes Americans should not have.
It’s not Republicans who need a “safe space.” Republicans and conservatives are happy to argue their opinions. This is why they dominate any space they occupy — as long as the rules are enforced fairly. It’s Democrats like Brian Stelter demanding censorship. It’s Democrats like Neil Cavuto who don’t want you to hear dissent. It’s Democrats like the management of all the major news networks — to include Fox News, now — who want to make the world “safe” for Democrats.
The more they censor, the more they complain, they more they libel, the more they defame, the more obvious their lies become. Democrats want a safe space in which nobody is allowed to disagree with them. They want dissent deleted and the dissenters purged. They want their opinions held up as truth and all disagreement banned as false.
It is Democrats who need a “safe space,” not Republicans. This is because Democrats can’t argue their convictions. It’s because they’re too weak not to be “triggered” by dissent. And it’s because, in their hearts, they are little tin-plated dictators who believe everyone should be forced to agree with them.