Social Media Giants, \u201cFree Speech,\u201d and the Control of Information (Part 1 of a 2-Part Series)<\/p>\n
Recently, there has been much talk about \u201cfree speech\u201d in light of Alex Jones\u2019s Infowars being cast out in a seemingly organized campaign of censorship by social media platforms, such as YouTube, Spotify, Pinterest, Facebook, and Apple, which some called \u201cthe great de-platforming of Alex Jones.\u201d Unsurprisingly, Jones has decried it as \u201ccensorship\u201d and abridging his \u201cfree speech.\u201d Those who support such actions of these platforms include liberal Amanda Marcotte of Salon<\/em> who said that it was a \u201csudden bout of atypical decency and common sense\u201d in fighting against \u201cdisinformation\u201d and Mike Snider of USA Today noting that \u201cfree speech is a principle that businesses often choose to follow, but aren\u2019t bound to.\u201d<\/sup><\/p>\n Similarly, Christine Emba blares in the Washington<\/em> (Amazon) Post<\/em> that the social media companies were within their rights and did \u201cnothing wrong,\u201d as they are not obliged to \u201chost your speech on their platforms\u2026[or] promote your content\u201d and The Economist<\/em>, a magazine that represents the interests of the British bourgeoisie, declared that these companies are \u201cnot the state,\u201d meaning they are able to \u201cwrite their terms of service as they wish and police posts as they choose.\u201d Following in suit was Hartford University Professor Adam Chiara, who declared that \u201ctech companies are private\u2026they have the right to decide…<\/p>\n<\/div>\n