Social Media Censorship and the Free Market – Opinion

Guest op-eds do not always reflect the opinions of the author. RedState.com.)

James Taylor, President of The Heartland Institute offers compelling arguments for social media censorship. This term is normally reserved for the government.  Individuals and companies can infringe on our freedom and rights. Communications can have political consequences. Communication among citizens is necessary to protect fundamental rights.  Political consequences can result from the suppression of content by social media giants.

Many economists who believe in free markets have discredited the argument against social media regulation.  Every major social media platform is competitive; no one company can be a pure monopolist. Technological barriers to entry are minimal. Social media does involve network effects – being on Twitter is valuable only because others are as well — yet entrants have often overcome network effects. Taylor rightly identifies the argument against social mediacensorship as being political rather than economic. Although the problem is likely to have serious consequences, I am confident that market forces will be able to solve it without any legislative intervention.

Politicians and bureaucrats are willing to overstep the boundaries of government, as was demonstrated by the pandemic. They must enforce these limits, which means more than voting.  Although litigation is one tool, business closures and stay-at home orders have all been challenged. Taking to the streets also plays a role, as Canada’s Freedom Convoy illustrated. All forms of civil disobedience may be necessary to limit government.

A citizen cannot bring about change on their own; coordination is key to effective protest.  While we can imagine citizens being reluctant to allow government excesses to continue, effective protest demands coordination.  Communication is dependent on physical capital. Social media “censorship” denies access to this physical infrastructure, impairing the protection of rights.

Let’s take an example from history.  Samuel Prescott, William Dawes and Paul Revere warned the British that they were approaching on the evening of April 18, 1775. On the morning of April 18, 1775, the Minutemen arrived at Lexington Green and began the American Revolution. Mr. Revere et al. To communicate their message, they rode horses on roads. How would it be if Facebook controlled those roads, and prohibited the Sons of Liberty from riding down them?

Economic forecasts predict that conservatives will move to or create new social media sites in reaction to Facebook’s blocking of Twitter, Google, and Twitter. Donald Trump just revealed his. However, this takes time. In the meantime, serious harm could occur.

Two reasons short-term harm might not be fixed are: The first is that unprecedented government infringing on freedom offers a central point for citizen protest. It is an economic public service to enforce limits on government. All citizens benefit from government following the Constitution regardless of how they help enforce it. To offset the free riding, citizens will seek out natural benefits. Thomas Schelling, economist, proved that the presence of focal points helps to organize spontaneous cooperation. People can be devoid of natural focal points when communication is disrupted for short periods.

The second is that a Leviathan government could not accept dissent. If the government does not allow dissident media, conservatives won’t be able to create new social media platforms.

While the economic argument seems compelling, it fails to address the political aspect. The political threat is what I believe fuels much of the conservative anger towards social media.

A free-market economist like myself, I have strong reservations about government regulation. Regulatory capture offers the most likely way for today’s social media big players to entrench themselves.  Communication should not be harmed by any intervention.

The threat must be identified before intervention can be targeted. Disrupted expectations can lead to problems. Americans expected that they would be able use Twitter and Facebook in an emergency. Unexpected denials of service meant that there was no recourse immediately. This must not happen again.

Randy Barnett from Georgetown suggests that public accommodation doctrine may be a viable solution. This law requires motels and gas stations to service civil rights leaders. Race-based denials of service would have prevented opposition to Jim Crow slavery. Beyond this, “open to the public” has a specific legal meaning even under the common law. Making a platform “public” may offer sufficient protection, but I will refrain from legal speculation.

Alternately, Section 230 under the Communications Decency Act could be used to induce. As a result of social media bias, conservatives propose to repeal Section 230 which protects platforms against liability for content posted by users. Section 230 could only be granted to platforms that commit not to ban users based upon the content of their posts. It is not necessary to extend censors a politically-granted exemption.

The economics suggest that, in spite of the danger to the country’s political stability, the risk may be extinguished. Individual responses could render intervention in policy unnecessary.

Unexpectedly being denied access to social media can have a significant political impact. The expectation of continued access was implied, and not dependent on an explicit contractual guarantee.  Conservatives should now insist on more explicit protection; indeed, such an assurance is implicit in the idea of a “conservative” Twitter or Facebook.

Costs of writing and enforcement can lead to incomplete contracts. It is expensive to hire lawyers for the purpose of drafting remedies in every possible circumstance. There are new circumstances that can cause confusion as to which contract provision is applicable. Finally, not all circumstances can be identified.

Austrian economics emphasizes social innovation in its approach to economics. Discovery means that all we need to know needs first to be discovered. Knowledge can only shape how we think, behave, and contract until it is discovered.  Discovery allows us to understand why some contracts are incomplete, and how we can avoid certain issues from recurring. Phones have been used by people for many decades. Calls could not easily be blocked due to content or a caller’s identity and pay phones and disposable cell phones allowed anonymous communication. Social media communication can be selectively blocked. This is what we just found. Conservatives want assurances that they will continue access social media networks.

Negotiations will lead to mechanisms that ensure a credible commitment. Because money might not be sufficient to compensate for freedom lost, it may not make sense to allow damages to be recovered.  In order to avoid investor pressure, media funding and ownership may be subject to change. To prevent that from happening conservatives might demand subscription funding or cooperative ownership. Perhaps something simpler is enough: a notice giving 90 days to suspend an account might be sufficient to permit migration to another platform.

Given the importance of social media in communication, it is a potential political risk that government intervention can be justified by an unexpected refusal to provide service. Yet, consider the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Conservatives will now demand credible assurances of access to communication during crises. The danger of social media censorship may be resolved by the markets without intervention from government.

Dan Sutter ([email protected]) He is an Affiliated Senior Scholar of the Mercatus Center as well as Professor Economics at Troy University’s Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy.