Censorship Debate Overshadows News of The Storming of The Capital
What the tech community is saying
Acknowledgement: I don’t want to disregard the sadness many feel — as do I — on how the, mostly white men, breaking into the Capital Building compares to the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. If last week’s events were a Black Lives Matter protest, I highly doubt they would have gotten into the building. Racism is a very important matter. But today, I am discussing free speech, not racism.
Hi Y’all,
I’ve been writing a few drafts on New Year’s Resolutions, Goals, and Bitcoin. But then the “13th month of 2020” happened — and here we are, at another “first.” So I’ve put those drafts aside, and will show you what I’ve been chewing on this week. It’s a lot. And very complicated. I’ve spent over forty hours reading, writing, listening, talking with others, and thinking on this topic in the last week and a half.
It’s heavy, complex and nuanced. But alas, worthwhile. So I’m going to present some thoughts on: Free Speech in America today.
The goal of this post is to give you resources to dig into, and figure out what you think about the topic. My role is simply to present different perspectives to you.
There’s no shortcut to an answer on a complicated issue like this one. Of all the resources I consumed this week, these are the two I’d recommend the most: this All-In Podcast episode (90 minutes long) and this tweet thread by Jack Dorsey (13 tweets). I’ll reference both further down in this post.
I believe this past week showed one of the biggest turning points in the overlap of “Big Tech” and Government, in the last 10 years.
A quick recap:
President Trump Tweeted, and “incited” violence.
Hundreds broke into the capital. 200 cases have been opened, 100 arrests have been made. Five people died.
Facebook banned President Trump. Then Twitter permanently suspended him.
Trump impeached (again) for inciting insurrection.
All the while… the pandemic rages on, we print more money, aliens are claimed to be found, and BTC hits an all-time high.
Let’s dive into some of the resources I found the most helpful.
> Disclaimer: just because I am posting something here, does not mean that I am endorsing it. My thinking is evolving quickly on these matters. I encourage anyone reading this, to have an open mind.
Phase 1: Setting the Stage
So the argument goes…
[Person 1]: Trump can no longer tweet!
[Person 2]: But he can still post to his website.
[Person 1]: Luckily his website isn’t on AWS, or else Amazon may have pulled the plug by now. By the way, his email provider is blocking him, and so is his payment collectors (Stripe and Paypal). And even if he does post on his website, so few will see it. “If I tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise?”
[Person 2]: Well, is this blocking free speech? Or should social media (“discovery” and “distribution”) be protected American rights? Like energy is today. You wouldn’t cut off energy to a home even if you knew a terrorist lived there (not claiming Trump to be a terrorist).
[Me]: Okay, this is confusing and curious. I want to explore.
Where to begin
The first thing I read that started to shape my opinion was Ben Thompson’s piece: Internet 3.0 and the Beginning of (Tech) History. You should read the whole thing, but here’s a snippet.
Last week, in response to the violence at the Capitol and the fact it was incited by Trump, first Facebook and then Twitter de-platformed the President; a day later Apple, Google, and Amazon kicked Parler, another social network where Trump supporters congregated and in-part planned Wednesday’s action, out of their App Stores and hosting service, respectively, effectively killing the service.
Twitter blew up. The futurists and folks who built, funded and shaped many of these platforms had a lot to say. On both sides. Right away, one thing was clear: the decisions “Big Tech” had to make were difficult, and not fun.
This concept was challenged last week when a number of foundational internet tool providers also decided not to host what they found dangerous. I do not believe this was coordinated. More likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were emboldened by the actions of others.
Below is a more polarized and provocative take. Showing two totally different sides. And the extreme differences of what each side is “seeing” depending on which “lens” they’re looking at it through:
Tech Bottlenecks
I’ve written about bottlenecks before, as it relates to The Panama Canal. There are tons of opportunities to find bottlenecks in commerce.
For instance, in 1904, the US saw an opportunity to not just capitalize on an already existing bottleneck, but to actually create a bottleneck, and tax anyone who passes through it. They bought a chunk of Panama, and then literally cut a whole through it, to build The Panama Canal. The US then had full control of what does or doesn’t pass through, and also taxed everyone who passed through.
The analogy here, if not already obvious, are the tech platforms. For example: Apple with their “30% App Store Tax.” Or AWS servers. Or Twitter/Facebook with their distribution and ad networks to get messages out.
Do you *have* to pass through The Panama Canal? No, you could go all the way around. But come on, now that it exists, it would be hugely dis-advantageous to go around all of Central and South America for your trade route. Similarly, could someone post on their own website instead of using Twitter/Facebook? Sure, technically they can, but it would be very hard to get distribution.
One problem here is that President Trump incited violence which is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Can private companies legally choose to censor him? Yes. Should they? That’s where it gets gray. More on this to come.
Phase 2: Understanding the Implications
Said even more bluntly by David Sacks (who, notably, admits to flipping on his view of censorship in the All-In Podcast Episode I link in the next section):
And what might happen if this plays out? Below is a thought-provoking thread by Balaji, worth reading:
Phase 3: Looking for Nuance
“No shoes, no shirt, no service.”
The reason this saying exists is because the 1st Amendment only applies to the government, and not to private companies. As a private business owner, you are legally allowed to refuse service to anyone you want for any reason. But is it morally okay to refuse selling wedding cakes to someone because you don’t agree with their sexual orientation? That became a gray issue very quickly a couple years ago. So at the crux of it, we don’t agree on morals, where laws do not directly apply.
Jack Dorsey has always said that he believes the best form of healthy conversations is not censorship, but instead, enabling more conversations (free speech) so that people can decide what they believe, not the private company.
There is so much nuance in this situation.
This is why I strongly believe long-form content (written or audio) is so important. The podcast below is over an hour and a half, but worth the listen, all the way to the end. It has wide-ranging perspectives, clearly capitalistic views, and a strong love for America. It’s a blunt but helpful perspective. It was one of the best resources I found this week.
Here is a powerful sound bite I pulled out from around thirty minutes into the podcast:
Chamath Palihapitiya: They are now talking about free speech rather than what a scumbag [Trump] is. How did that happen?
David Sacks: Big tech blundered into it again. I mean, we had unanimity across the political spectrum that what happened at the Capital was wrong and Donald Trump was responsible for it. And the topic has now changed to censorship by Big Tech. Which is a real issue. Our freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution, in the 1st amendment of the bill of rights. It’s the first f***ing one. It’s the one the creators of the constitution cared about the most. Because free speech is not just necessary and important for democracy — it’s the reason why we have our freedom, so that we can speak and think and worship as we please. And that is legitimately under threat.
Phase 4: What are Potential Solutions?
This is the moment for decentralization. Here are a couple of the most forward thinking minds on the subject:
These will put the “algorithm” and “flagging control” into the hands of users. No *one* person (or company) in charge. For example… you want to see more politics/outrage on your timeline? Turn these dials. Want less explicit content? Try these. Want no algorithm at all? Here you go.
Control is held by the people. Decentralized. Not a single entity.
Phase 5: The Solutions Will — and Should — Evolve
I’ll close with Jack Dorsey’s statements on the matter. He posted this Wednesday, January 13th, just a few days after Twitter issued a life-time suspension. And just after Trump was officially impeached. Read these 13 tweets.
Here is why I think this thread is so powerful.
He states the decision was not “fun” or done to spite President Trump.
It admits Twitter is not perfect. But is trying hard to get better.
It poses a new potential direction, and way of doing things in the future.
Was this “too little, too late?” Or, is Twitter (and other existing social media players) not technically built in a way to support healthy conversation, ever. I don’t know the answer. But we will find out, one way or another.
Closing Thoughts
I hope these resources help better educate you and direct your thinking. This is a messy problem. But one worth solving.
Again, I intentionally tried my best not to give my opinion. And to the best of my ability, I did not impose my bias. Not out of fear (h/t free speech!). But, frankly, because I don’t fully know my opinion yet. And I think that is okay! Now, more than ever, we need to escape our silly tribes and solve things together.
I’ll leave you with a paraphrased quote that I think about often in a work-setting, but I can’t think of a better time for everyone in America to rally behind it:
It is better to find truth, than to be right.
-Ray Dalio
I’ll see y’all next week. Hopefully (!) for some lighter topics.
Cheers,
Brendan J Short