LogFAQs > #906090215

Answering common objections to the allegation of fraud on the part of social media companies:

When Ive made these arguments in the past, I have received two common objections which I will deal with here.

Objection #1: To accuse these companies of committing fraud, you must adequately prove that they are, in fact, discriminating against certain viewpoints. What evidence do you have to make such an accusation?

Response: I do not claim to possess sufficient evidence to file a criminal or civil complaint against any particular social network, but that is irrelevant to my greater argument. I am responding specifically to the notion that these companies have the right to discriminate. Given that they have made public claims of non-discrimination, this is no longer true. By making such claims, they have waived that right. We can argue over whether they actually are or are not discriminating, but that is a separate argument entirely. Making the case that the companies are not discriminating is an entirely different argument from suggesting that they are entitled, under libertarian philosophy, to discriminate. That would only be true if they did not make any public statements promising a discrimination-free service.

Objection #2: Mainstream social networks, even with discrimination, are highly successful. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from offering a free-speech social network and competing with them. To the extent that such networks have already been tried, they have largely failed. The market has spoken.

Response: A market-based test requires competition within the bounds of the non-aggression principle. Fraud is an act of aggression. It may be that free-speech based social networks have failed largely because mainstream social networks fraudulently proclaim themselves to be tolerant of free speech, and thus, the public does not recognize the need for a niche alternative. It is difficult for a legitimate product to compete with a fraudulent one. Much like how Volkswagen received an unfair advantage by cheating on emissions tests, mainstream social networks achieve an unfair advantage by committing fraud as it regards their censorship policies. If the public understood the true nature of the services being offered, they might very well turn to alternatives in greater number, and the incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in creating such networks would dramatically increase. Given the fraudulent nature of existing products, it is not correct to conclude that a fair market test has already been conducted.

https://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/2018/08/01/no-libertarians-are-not-compelled-to-support-social-media-censorship/
---

SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - https://imgur.com/W66HUUy
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/