Of Facebook and Twitter

We’re going to play hypothetical in response to a bad faith argument the Republicans are circulating.

You are a young conservative activist and with a group of like-minded friends, you start a small website for sharing news about politics and religion.

As your site grows, you add in a message forum for your regular readers to discuss the topics you curate on the front page.

Your forums become very popular and you develop an app that directs to the forums.

Your site gets some media attention and with some savvy marketing, you grow it into a large site on the Internet.

You update your app and allow users to share pertinent articles and forum threads with each other.

Eventually, this morphs into a stream of updates.

While anyone can participate on your site/app, you are still focused on discussing topics of interest to conservatives and Christians.

You eventually write an algorithm that highlights discussions and articles that are focused on these areas.

Quiz time!

Has your site broken any laws?
Has your site broken any ethical norms?
Has your site, by targeting these specific topics, done anything that warrants a Congressional hearing?


You may post whatever content you’d like on your site. You may encourage others to post any content you’d like on your site. You may restrict others from posting any content you’d like on your site. It’s your site and if you want it to contain only posts about Christianity, that’s perfectly fine and no one would say a peep.

Republicans are up in arms, as they have been for some time, about Facebook and Twitter’s editorial decisions. (This is despite the fact that conservative pages DOMINATE Facebook’s engagement metrics). According to them, Twitter and Facebook must provide some sort of partisan balance acceptable to Republicans else they have done something unethical, perhaps illegal.

This is ridiculous horseshit.

Like our hypothetical above, Facebook and Twitter may promote any content they want. They can restrict any content they want. People are free to disagree with those decisions and to express that disagreement. But ultimately, the decisions of what content these companies choose to promote or not promote is SOLELY up to them and requires not one pen stroke of government intervention.

But that isn’t good enough for the “party of limited government” so right now, in the middle of a pandemic which has killed over 215,000 Americans, they are clamoring for legal action taken and hearings held regarding what people Tweet.

Don’t fall for it.

Daily Summaries

Trump Daily 5/28/2020

I’m reluctant to publish tonight given what’s happening in Minnesota, but I have a backlog of news items. For now, I’ll direct you to Don Lemon’s remarks about hearing from the president in regard to the protests. https://twitter.com/brooklynmutt/status/1266173717140385793

  • The White House justified firing Inspector General Steve Linick by saying they suspected him of leaking stories to the press. They lied. Linick had already been investigated and cleared of the leaks earlier in the year.
  • Outgoing Acting DNI Richard Grenell has been touting his declassifications of the calls between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Except he did not declassify the calls. He declassified a summary of the calls. This echoes Trump constantly saying he released a transcript of his calls with Ukrainian president Zelensky when he had only released a summary of the transcripts.