,
22 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Because of Trump's Social Media Summit, @washingtonpost @PostOpinions gave @charliekirk11 of Turning Point USA space to argue why Twitter, etc., should be regulated because they are publishers not platforms. I'll #FactCheck his oped and analyze 1/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
First, Kirk is not for free speech, online or otherwise. I lay out his hypocrisy in this thread 2/
The oped: Kirk first opines "most" conservatives think they are censored online. Despite links to other claims, here Kirk has none. But Pew found in 2018 64% of GOP-ers (+ leaners) say tech companies support liberal views over conservatives. 3/ pewinternet.org/2018/06/28/pub…
This is not the same as Kirk's claim. While Pew also found 85% of that same group believes it is likely "social media companies intentionally censor political viewpoints that those companies find objectionable," that is not specific to just conservative tweets. 4/
Kirk then tries to make a logical leap from that unsupported belief to this: "it’s an open fact that Big Tech is run predominantly by those on the ideological left." If the platforms are run by the Left, then they must be biased! A weak logical fallacy. Is it a fact? 5/
Kirk provides links about Zuckerberg & Dorsey. Kirk distorts Zuck's comment to @tedcruz: "Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place." Kirk uses broad "Big Tech" but it is generalization bigger than "Silicon Valley." 6/
Dorsey said something similar: "We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning." Again, Kirk ties to use bias as an emotional bludgeon on the Left. It is demagoguery. 7/ medium.com/@mboedy/debunk…
Then Kirk cites "footage of Google’s leadership consoling one another after President Trump’s victory in 2016." The video shows Google leaders (like many Americans both left and right) horrified at Trump's win and his polices. Kirk wrongly sees opposition as bias against him. 8/
Onto the argument. Kirk aims at easy rebuttal: conservatives don't like govt regulation. He nods to competitors. But the problem to Kirk: "There is now ample reason to believe the market’s normal corrective powers are being blocked by anti-competitive forces." 9/
The key "force" Kirk cites is that "Big Left" are monopolies. Kirk links to "reputable economists and business executives" who have argued this claim. But the link doesn't quite do as Kirk claims. 10/
Kirk links to @FordhamLawNYC journal article that says social media, Apple, Netflix, Amazon "possess other hallmark characteristics of monopolies." A big list that Kirk narrows. But the article gives history of three monopolies and then says: 11/
"Whether or not monopolies are a bad thing is for the consumer and aspiring competitors to decide." Kirk inaccurately makes it seem the article agrees with him that these companies "are unfairly stifling competition." It doesn't say that. 12/
Then Kirk tries to connect Google's search engine moves against competitors to its supposed biased against Trump. Again, another logical fallacy. The Yelp CEO quote is accurate but misleading in this political context. Google goes after competition. Trump is not that. 13/
Kirk cites a link that shows Google handles 90% of internet searches in the US. There is some debate about that. Some argue it is 60s in US, 90s in Europe. 14/ searchenginewatch.com/2016/07/29/goo…
Next is platform/publisher debate. Kirk only uses it simply to return to his unsupported bias claim. Kirk wants to associate “legal” moves against copyright infringement with “legal” moves against bais. But “publishers” here nods to First Amendment which Kirk hides. 15/
Kirk can’t make a legal or regulatory argument so he tries the “cultural” one: “conservatives cannot win the battle of ideas if we’re marginalized or removed from mainstream culture and mainstream platforms.” Victimhood does get create outrage. 16/
Then Kirk tries to twist conservative history to aid his anti-conservative claim about regulation. Hillsdale and Liberty as “Christian” schools were started to get out from “the world,” not “reverse (public) higher education’s half-century-long drift to the left.” 17/
Kirk wants the “fight.” Hillsdale wants to be left alone. Kirk wants outage. Liberty (sans Falwell) wants no part of federal rules for higher ed. Kirk echoes “losing our culture” white nationalists. But market has chosen. So Kirk attacks idea he has consistently praised. 18/
Kirk has always been product of conservative fault lines that cause these incoherent moves. Trump has moved Kirk from “free trade” to “fair trade” for example, bashing the system when ideas didn’t win. 19/ link.medium.com/BeNG3XRReY
Imagine head of an org like Turning Point USA that spreads “free market, free people” like a virus saying we will die “if we reflexively assume the free market will save us.” That is sycophantic desperation. 20/
That desperation reveals Kirk’s erasure of his own religion. He can’t live in a world where he has to “forfeit our cultural influence to another generation in yet another...” Fear, fear, not faith, drives Kirk. Christian nationalism always runs on fear. 21/
Lastly notice not one policy, not one possible legislation, not one proposal to fix the “problem” Kirk sees. It’s fear of losing status, not hope in ideas. It is fear of free markets, not hope in America. It is fear, Trump’s policy. /end
