 Now, let's say that Twitter was, now it turns out Jack Dossi actually wanted to keep Donald Trump on and his team didn't, and there was long conversations and Jack has written about this, and he was ultimately convinced that this was the right thing for Twitter to do. Let's assume that what happened was that Jack Dossi got a call from the Biden transition team and they said, look, you want to be on our good side, going forward, kick him off. Who would you blame under those circumstances? Would you call it censorship if that was the circumstances? Yes, if it was, if there's really threats involved, and often you'll be on our good side, but if you don't do it, you'll be on our bad side. And it's, if it really means we're going to pass bogus laws against you or we're going to use antitrust against you, if that's really, even if it's not voiced, but it's clear that's the implication. Then yes, I think it's certainly akin to censorship. It's that the government, it's sort of, you can think of it as indirect censorship or censorship by proxy. It's getting Twitter to do something so it nominally looks like this is a private company making a private decision, but it's not. It's the government making that this contents beyond the pale. And so we don't want it, we don't want it this prominent. And that is in the censorship. And part of the part of the whole, when you have a mixed economy like this, and you have that in some context that's thought of, yeah, I mean antitrust is a proper power and it's got to be able to control really big companies. It's, you get this kind of intertwining where from an outside perspective, you don't know what's happening. And I actually think in many cases, inside the company. They don't know why they've made this, they don't know was it because there's threats of the government, like, and how much did that influence our decision would we, and sometimes they'll think. Yeah, I mean there were threats but we would have done this anyways. But is it really true that they would have done it anyway if those threats weren't there and so, and it's very hard to to make that determination and it's easy to fool yourself because you don't like to think that you're operating under threats, like the reason we made this decision is because we were being threatened. So there is such a thing as sort of after the fact of telling yourself, no this was my I'm still in control this was my decision. So when that's not actually true and if government wasn't there, making these kinds of threats, this wouldn't have happened, but they would have themselves. Oh yeah, this is so like what actually went on with Borsi that does he think in the end this was the right decision, or was it sort of partly it's my employees that convinced me, but partly I know there's these threats go on and it and it's some combination of all that that resulted in his decision. So who do you blame there I mean you're going back to because everybody blame dosy and blame Twitter, but who who is. What's the origin of the threat of the of the of the issue. And it's government it's clearly got and it's, it's, I put a lot of blame on the people that when governments doing this in a way they like. And then when it's now the government this kind of government threats is operating in a way like our contents going down not somebody else's content then it's a big deal, and it's oh this is violation of freedom of speech though, but I mean this is a point I ran made. I mean it's a slightly different point but it's it's the same in the same vein that if you take rights, seriously, you have to defend them, even when the, the people who are exercising their rights, you disagree with you find unattractive you think is wrong, even evil. So, I mean she wrote about censorship in the 70s, and the Supreme Court, allowing certain decisions against obscenity and so, and she went out of her way to say, like I'm not a fan of hardcore pornography, but rights are absolutes, so the government will always target people who are sort of marginalized in one way or another so that the majority say like what's the big deal you're stopping hardcore porn. And then when the government expands its powers or uses it in some other way, then they cry bloody murder. And it's you have to when it first happens, it's you have to see it for what it is and you have to be outraged. And when I saw the, these tech people being dragged in front of Congress, it's like if anything, it should be the reverse, it should be Congress dragged in front of the tech people and then they're asking like what the hell are you doing in running this country. But to see it the reverse and that you're not outraged, and it doesn't matter if you think part that you don't like they took down somebody that you liked and de-platform them. And that's so irrelevant when it's now government wielding power over entities like this. And where will all these people when Donald Trump was threatening Jeff Bezos because of the Washington Post or threatening just the media generally and wanting to change the defamation laws and stuff like that, just a threat. None of these people attacked Trump for that they need they defended Trump for that. So if you support government involvement in, in these kind of issues, then you're going to suffer the consequences is that, you know, that often this will be used against your point of view and don't complain when it is. All right, let's see. I, you know, people might not know this, but this issue of kind of censorship by proxy is not new. Do you remember the Hollywood standards that in then from the 1930s on. Yeah, there was a committee and Hollywood that basically would decide what scenes need to be cut and most of it was about sex. But, and, and you know how you need to be dressed and for example in the 50s if you watch movies from the 50s you'll note that married people. There's never double bed. They always sleep in separate beds and that's the what they call the censorship it was it was a committee and, and, and it was a private entity that kind of governed Hollywood but it was two things interesting about that one is the excuse they used was if we don't do a good government will, which is, you know, whether that's true or not is questionable because where the Supreme Court would have upheld it, but the second. The second issue that there is is where's antitrust laws in a sense that this is collusion right all the studios working on one, you know so the government wasn't collusion, if only by not applying the antitrust laws to that. I mean that's part of what's non objective about the antitrust laws is that it allows the guy like when stuff's happening that they agree with we're going to let the company's function and do it. For example, yeah. Yeah, so it is, and this is why a government company never knows like is antitrust going to descend on us. It depends if the government's unhappy with what you're doing. Yeah, it's really interesting that movies from the 20s and early 30s, a race here. Well, we're a way racial than movies in the 40s 50s and even beginning of the 60s and then the system breaks down in like the mid 60s. But it's it's really it's really fascinating that history and that that was, that was censorship by proxy. So when you look at all these, when you look at all these tech companies. Twitter not only, you know dropping the platforming Trump but the platforming a lot of people Alex Jones originally and then more recently anybody involved I think with the with the January 6 attack. You've got Facebook, limiting people and there's some evidence so though, the more I read about it to shake you the evidence gets all of these platforms are biased against conservatives that they tend to the platform conservatives more than they put. What's what what needs to be done. What should be the response. So I think one is to look more broadly at the universe. So what would you say about Fox News and who they have on and don't have on and it's, it's the biggest cable news network I don't know for how long it's been the number one rated network but it's, I mean many years now. They put way more whatever conservative as allegedly right, leading people on and they give them a platform and they give them a voice and they amplify that voice. It's like, if you think in comparison MSNBC it's as much less impact and influence and it is, is the issue that government should go in and sort of be egalitarian and try to reduce all this to it's everybody's exactly the same and so it's so there's in some areas of the media landscape. The, the conservatives are in control, and they prioritize their content and it is true that Silicon Valley leans Democrat, however you want to put it, liberal left. And so that that there's going to be when they're thinking about content that we find objectionable beyond the pale that there might be a slant in a certain political direction. Yeah, there might be. And part of the issue is, this is what competition looks like. Yeah I always say if conservatives are so worried about it they should start companies and be more entrepreneurial. The thing is they have in some air like Fox News is number one and it is I don't think Fox News should be break broken up for antitrust and split into four different networks of MSNBC can compete more. And so they know that shouldn't happen it should happen to Facebook it shouldn't happen to Twitter. And people that have no sense of history, I mean, I keep reminding people that in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running for president. There were three networks, all of them on the left politically all of them pro democratic. You can't argue that those networks were unbiased and I ran wrote about this. In terms of their bias that all the major newspapers were tilted democratic. None of them and I don't think any of them maybe we'll see journal in those Ronald Reagan for president. There was no talk radio talk radio had not really been invented at that point. There was no internet. There was no alternative media, all the media was pro democratic. And that Ronald Reagan still won and if you compare to today, we have thousands of media outlets, all I mean the most bizarre right wing nonsense conspiracy to crazy stuff. There was bizarre left wing communist crazy stuff and everything in between. You have much more selection today you have much more available to you today, then you had, you know, 40 years ago. In particular, so you brought up Reagan and you put Trump. I mean there's a real argument that Trump couldn't have been elected without social media. And so to put it that like, oh, there's somehow it having in for Trump and they're looking how they're destroying. I mean, he wouldn't be president, if not for Facebook and Twitter. And even his reelection, that the, if he didn't have Twitter as a platform of the whole time he's president, his reelection would have been the I think he would have got fewer votes than what he got. So the idea that get to look at how these people have screwed Trump I mean. A lot of these platforms have under what's called section 230 of the telecommunications act of 1994 six I always get those mixed up I think it's six, which was a big re regulation of the telecom industry it's a massive bill. Because it deregulates in some areas and increase regulations and others but it's a it's a huge mishmash, generally probably more on the side of freedom than not. Yeah, wildly speaking. But part of that was this section 230 that now is is infamous. Is government through section 230, giving something to internet companies that is not theirs are they giving them some kind of privileges that they should not have. Yeah, I think that's a dangerous way to think about it is now common to say that it's well government gave you this privilege that you are immune from certain kinds of lawsuits. And we could take it away so it's a kind of threat that it's we gave you this and we could take it away if you don't do content moderation in the way we think you should be doing it. And you might think and argue that there's problems with the law but the basic if you step like one step back. And does in our and what it should be doing in these kinds of cases is to think about how liability should work in a context of people's individual rights so should it be. Let's take something sort of smaller and Facebook Twitter the New York Times, they put up stories and op ads and editorials from their, their editorial board, and they have a comment section. And the comment section is open to people, should the New York Times be liable for every comment made, and this is an issue of not like a re granting them some privilege but thinking from the perspective of individual rights. Should they be liable for every comment that someone posts. And I think the answer to that is no, it's you're not like the people, it's not to say nobody's liable. It's to say the person making the con, the comment, if they are they post something as a violation of copyright, or they liable somebody that the poster is. If somebody went after them, you could have a lawsuit against them you can't against the company that's just opened up comments for people and, and they don't know what people are posting and so, and that's not you've granted them some New York Times some privilege and so you're recognizing the scope of their rights, and the scope of other people right like the person who posted is responsible for the content, including if the content is in in some way illegal. So, so in, in, does that change if, if the New York Times decides certain comments are so out of line that they're going to delete them. It's, and it's, I mean this is part of what to section 230, from what I've read about the some of the legislature legislators who originated this and wanted this past and so this was the kind of worry and it was some court and conflicting court decisions were some were kind of implying that if you exercise any editorial content. Sorry, sorry, kind of editorial control over the content, then you're liable for everything but just to I mean take a simple example. The, the New York Times, they have a comment section and someone points out, you know this comment is a violation of copyright they posted a whole story from the LA Times that's copyrighted and so, and if the New York Times takes it down. It doesn't somehow now make them liable for every comment that's been made on the site like why, why would it make them liable. Absolutely it's a, it's a, it's a, it amazes me that people are making these arguments. As if if you take down a comment you become a publisher is if that's, that's, that's, that's a category that is not clearly defined. Yeah, but even when you think about publishers. The issue of liabilities, not obvious so there's a kind of. If you think about how the arguments working. It's sort of the there's this background assumption which is completely wrong but the background assumption that you're liable for everything, unless the government gives you a privilege to say oh no you're not liable for you're not liable for that, but liability is not it's not created by governments or it's a part of thinking about rights and the exercise of rights and what you're responsible for, and therefore liable for if you've in somehow engaged in misconduct in the area of your responsibility. So it's, so even if the New York Times is so you can think of it as a publisher and they exercise editorial control. Are they liable for they have a guest op ed, are they liable for every aspect of what is produced, even though they exercise some editorial control and it's not obvious to me the answer is yes. It could be like for their reporters and so on. There's some degree of, like a higher degree of liability, but if they take an op ed of mine, and it turns out I plagiarized half of it, and they do some editorial control but they can I mean you can't any teacher will tell you can't find every instance of plagiarism, and then someone points out look this was like what they said about Melania Trump that she lifted half her speech from Obama, Obama's wife that it's. I didn't realize that and now we'll take it down when you point out this is like are they liable for it. It's so you have to think, if you really think about individual rights you have to think what are people liable for, and then what should the law be. But it's not some government gives everybody these privileges or you're not liable for that and you're not. It's no you have to think rationally about how liability should work. We're learning how shallow and simplistic people's thinking is about these topics. It's it's it's that's what scares me more than anything else. More than what the government is doing or more than what Twitter and Facebook is doing is how shallow people's thinking is an understanding of these issues and a significant number of people. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that men's life must be guided by reason by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I think at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this and you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and and show your support for all for for the work for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this and and of course, don't forget if you're not a subscriber, even if you even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx. Then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on when they're on. You'll get notified. Right. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support like share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.