Why Silicon Valley is Killing Free Speech

FrontPageMag ^ | August 17, 2018 | Daniel Greenfield

[Louis Foxwell]

Front Page mag - A Project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Daniel Greenfield Ping List Notification of new articles.

I am posting Greenfield's articles from FrontPage and the Sultan Knish blog. FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Greenfield ping list.

The Point is a collection of short articles posted on FrontPageMag by Greenfield on current topics. I recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.

FrontPage is a basic resource for conservative thought.

Lou

[Louis Foxwell]

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

About Daniel Greenfield

To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post or notify me by Freepmail.

Louis Foxwell

[gattaca]

Great article. Here’s a similar one...

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/how-the-left-is-outsourcing-censorship-of-the-internet.php

[aspasia]

Sounds like he read George Gilder’s latest. I might have to read it too.

[bboop]

Terrific article. Whoa!

[Louis Foxwell]

Breaking up the monoliths online will be a legislative challenge. Creating genuine opportunity for competition may be a better solution, or at least a companion rider.

[neverevergiveup]

If they back socialism so much, then let's try it out in Silicon Valley and the poorer surrounding counties and cities first. Using their support for socialized medicine as a framework, I propose the following (in keeping with their professed views).

1. Access to computers, the internet, social networks, and smart phones is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Everyone has that RIGHT. To ensure this RIGHT, we need 'IT Reform'!

2. Thus, we must socialize Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Cisco, etc., with the government setting prices and acting as a single payer to tech employees. Given their training and education, IT 'providers' should make a good salary, but not the type of salary they're making now. It's just not fair, and threatens each American's RIGHT to equal access to IT.

3. Everyone in Silicon Valley (and the poorer surrounding counties and cities) will be required by law to purchase an 'IT coverage' plan - the details of which will be determined by the government. This plan will 'level the playing field' and provide near-equal IT quality to all (e.g. high-speed internet, a MacBook Pro or equivalent, and an iPhone X or equivalent - to all). Those who can't afford to purchase an 'IT coverage' plan will be subsidized by the government (i.e. their coverage will be paid for by those who do purchase coverage). If those who are able to afford 'IT coverage' (as determined by the government) don't, they will be fined by the IRS.

This is just the start of what I imagine will be an ~2700 page document/bill (sound familiar?).

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Bkmrk.

[bigdaddy45]

These are private companies. If they want to limit speech, that is absolutely their right. And as conservatives, we should support that right. That being said, we are also free to develop competitors.

[marktwain]

That being said, we are also free to develop competitors.

I am not so sure. There are far more barriers to conservatives developing competitors than to leftsts doing so. I hope you are correct.

[bigdaddy45]

What barriers are there? Look at free republic. That is a competitor.

[rockinqsranch]

“....The only way to protect freedom of speech is to break up the centralized power of Big Tech.”

IF it was possible to get the Right a spine the Left would only change everything once they take back power. So what does one do?

I see a vicious conflict in our future.

[KrisKrinkle]

“1. Access to computers, the internet, social networks, and smart phones is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Everyone has that RIGHT. To ensure this RIGHT, we need ‘IT Reform’!”

Some...repeat “some”... of that might...repeat “might”...become true. As more and more business and social transactions come to be accomplished electronically, and come to be required to be accomplished electronically, will people have a right of some sort to the means to accomplish those transactions? Can one part of society legitimately cut off another part of society from accomplishing those transactions because the latter doesn’t have the means?

Maybe some sort of dual access is indicated.

I dunno.

[marktwain]

What barriers are there? Look at free republic. That is a competitor.

Freerepublic was formed at the beginning of a freewheeling Internet. Those times are past. Freerepublic uses software developed by its founder, Jim Robinson. It is a barrier to develop independent original software. Freerepublic does not depend on ads. It depends on donations. It barely survives. The number of people donating are tiny. As I recall, less than 1% of Freerepublic members. The software and banking institutions used to fund donations are being weaponized against conservatives. They are tightly centralized and controlled by leftists. The amount of money required to start and develop a social media has become very large. It has become a barrier. The use of Social Justice Warriors (SJW) to destroy platforms that disagree with conservative platforms, is a barrier. Anyone who is willing to place an ad with a conservative platform will be attacked on the existing platforms. The barriers to entry are there, because it is much harder to build a competing railroad when there are several railroads already operating. I am not saying a platform cannot be developed, but it will be difficult. I would love to see it happen.

[marktwain]

What barriers are there? Look at free republic. That is a competitor.

Freerepublic was formed at the beginning of a freewheeling Internet. Those times are past.

Freerepublic uses software developed by its founder, Jim Robinson. It is a barrier to develop independent original software.

Freerepublic does not depend on ads. It depends on donations. It barely survives. The number of people donating are tiny. As I recall, less than 1% of Freerepublic members.

The software and banking institutions used to fund donations are being weaponized against conservatives. They are tightly centralized and controlled by leftists.

The amount of money required to start and develop a social media has become very large. It has become a barrier.

The use of Social Justice Warriors (SJW) to destroy platforms that disagree with conservative platforms, is a barrier. Anyone who is willing to place an ad with a conservative platform will be attacked on the existing platforms.

The barriers to entry are there, because it is much harder to build a competing railroad when there are several railroads already operating.

I am not saying a platform cannot be developed, but it will be difficult.

I would love to see it happen.

[Vaduz]

Tech entrepreneurs know very little about the real world Utopia world will never will be real.

[Drew68]

These are private companies. If they want to limit speech, that is absolutely their right. And as conservatives, we should support that right. That being said, we are also free to develop competitors.

Waiting for the "We'll just make our own internet, wires and everything, from scratch!" idiocy to show up.

[100American]

Agree, I have his book and it really opens your eyes to the underpinnings of what has been going on, and how it is already in retreat and there is no going back. I am connected to him on LinkedIn, great guy and I am beginning to work with him on my own entrance into the market which is diametrically opposed to the methods and end game which the big boys have been playing. Security is top priority as is the preservation and protection of personal information.

Glad to find a fellow seeker here, I am looking at his other books as well as some others that providentially appeared in my suggested reading list.

Great post, ThanQs

[cymbeline]

“These are private companies. If they want to limit speech, that is absolutely their right ...”

I agree totally. Furthermore I’d say half of the problem is the gullible audience.

[100American]

Working on exactly that, an the train as we say is well down the tracks. It gets very deep into the very premise of all the data collection they are really about, trying to figure out who we are and will buy or use and then using so called analytics predict our behaviors. But they have some fatal flaws in their premise, like over 7 billion people who may all be human but we still have quirks that cannot be codified or stuffed into a box forever

Aye the games afoot indeed, and I am not going back nor giving ground, I hate paying for the same ground twice...

Sic Semper Tyrranis!

PS - The foundational code for what I am building already exists, it is how it is implemented, supplemented and secured that makes a difference. And in 42 + years in high tech I have people I trust who get it and share the vision. In short a monolithic non focused social media model will never work..

That is all I will say about that

Carry on