Say the wrong things and you might get kicked off of your favorite social media platform.

Tech titans Apple, Facebook, and YouTube have wiped out talk-show host Alex Jones’s social media presence on the Internet. But the social media crusades weren’t over.

Facebook recently took down popular pages like Liberty Memes and hundreds of other prominent libertarian-leaning pages . In the wake of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, social media network Gab was on the receiving end of suspensions from payment processors like PayPal and Stripe and cloud hosting company Joyent. Although these companies did not provide clear explanations for their dissociation with Gab, the media had a field day when they learned that the synagogue shooter, Robert Bowers, had an account with the social media network.

Should libertarians fear social media de-platforming? Or is this a case of private actors exercising their legitimate property rights by excluding those they wish to no longer do business with?

The Blurring Lines of the Public & Private Sector

Since the question of de-platforming has popped up, some conservatives have proposed state-based solutions to solve this problem. In a role reversal, conservative commentator Ann Coulter suggested that the government pass anti-discrimination laws to prevent social media platforms from de-platforming conservatives. Ideological consistency is a lot to ask for from seasoned veterans of Conservative Inc these days.

Nevertheless, Coulter expanded on why the 1st Amendment protections must be extended to social media:



Although private entities are within their rights to decide with whom they do business, libertarians should not completely dismiss concerns about social media censorship. The first question we must ask: How separate from the State are these social media giants in the first place?

This is the 21st century after all; a point where the United States has embraced over a century’s worth of government encroachments. Every nook and cranny of society— from the food we eat to the sporting events we watch,—has seen State interference.

When we look closely, Americans nominally own their private property, but this comes with a gigantic asterisk. Governments at all levels can regulate, micro-manage, and in extreme cases, expropriate property if the right political winds are blowing.

In an article from a few months ago, Justin Raimondo added some nuance to the de-platforming discussion. Even with the purge of Alex Jones, control freak politicians were still not satisfied. Raimondo explains the deeper implications of social media purges:



Raimondo also points out how the knee-jerk response to label all company actions as “private” overlooks some damning details:



Although no laws emerged from Senator Chris Murphy’s threats, the very act of social media giants kowtowing to political demands, tell us one thing: We’re living in an extortion-based political economy. You can keep your property, provided that you cave in to our political demands. If you fail to comply, hate speech laws will be shoved down your throat.

The rabbit hole of government-private sector collusion goes even deeper. Facebook has been working with the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by the U.S. government and other foreign governments, to fight “foreign interference” during the 2018 election season. Despite Silicon Valley’s libertarian leanings during its rise to prominence, it has frequently partnered with government institutions like the military-industrial complex.

In sum, Silicon Valley is allured by the prospect of state privilege and has worked to cultivate it like every other crony entity in the U.S.

Bad Culture Precedes Bad Politics

Unfortunately, Silicon Valley’s obsession of PC thought policing is a symptom of our present-day culture. Once a country that championed free expression at all levels of society, the U.S. is seeing its culture of free expression slowly wither away. Author Nassim Taleb explains in his book Skin in the Game how free speech threats need not always originate from the State:

A shocking New York Times exposé published on Friday about how a few Facebook executives apparently decide what can or cannot be said on the world’s largest social media platform shines a disturbing light on Silicon Valley’s “handling” of freedom of speech — if it can be called that.

“Every other Tuesday morning, several dozen Facebook employees gather over breakfast to come up with the rules, hashing out what the site’s two billion users should be allowed to say. The guidelines that emerge from these meetings are sent out to 7,500-plus moderators around the world,” The Times piece noted bluntly.

“The closely held rules are extensive, and they make the company a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself,” The Times piece also said.

The moderators face an impossibly complicated and endlessly subjective task of regulating the billions of daily posts in more than 100 languages on Facebook.

The goal is to delete all messages that might spark extremist political violence or that express “hateful” views.

Despite repeated professions of neutrality by Facebook executives, including by co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, The Times article referenced how a cadre of censors often “allowed extremist language to flourish in some countries, while censoring mainstream speech in others.”

Facebook censors “banned the Proud Boys, a far-right pro-Trump group,” The Times article reported.

“The company also blocked an inflammatory ad, about a caravan of Central American migrants, that was produced by President Trump’s political team.”

Yet Silicon Valley’s growing suppression of free speech is not limited to Facebook.

Two other Silicon Valley giants, Google and Apple, also seem to have their eye on First Amendment rights.

In the most recent example, Apple removed an app created by Living Hope Ministries from the iTunes store....

Evangelist Franklin Graham on Sunday accused Facebook of personally attacking him after the company banned him from the platform for 24 hours over a post he published in 2016.

"Why are they going back to 2016," Graham, the president of the evangelism organization Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said on Fox News after discussing how the social media platform moderates content on a day-to-day basis.

"I think it was just really a personal attack toward me."

His comments came a day after a Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Charlotte Observer that Graham had been banned from the site for 24 hours last week over the contents of a 2016 post.

The spokesperson said that Graham was mistakenly banned from the site after the post in question was flagged by its content review team for violating a company policy banning “dehumanizing language” and excluding people based on factors like sexual orientation and race.

The post had targeted Bruce Springsteen for canceling a North Carolina concert at the time due to the state's House Bill 2, or "bathroom bill."

“He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards,’” Graham said in reference to the singer in the post. “Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands.”

Graham's page has since been reinstated.

"The problem with Facebook, if you disagree with their position on sexual orientation then you could be classified as hate speech, or that you’re a racist. This is a problem," Graham said Sunday of the social media company.

"The Bible is truth and I would hope [Facebook] would look to the Bible and get some instruction from God’s word."

Facebook plans on apologizing to the administrator of Graham’s Facebook page, according to a spokesperson from the company. Graham said on Fox that he would accept the apology.

In addition to his comments on Sunday, Graham claimed that Facebook was trying to "define truth" in a post on the website.

"Truth is truth," he wrote. "God made the rules and His Word is truth. Actually, Facebook is censoring free speech. The free exchange of ideas is part of our country’s DNA.”

Hemp is booming in Kentucky and elsewhere but still struggling on social media.

On Dec. 20, President Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill to legalize hemp, but Facebook apparently didn’t get the memo.

Overnight on Dec. 24 Facebook took down the Kentucky Hemp Works page for promoting the sale of “prescription pharmaceuticals.”

Owner Katie Moyer said that she immediately appealed the action but Facebook sent her a response saying that it had reviewed the page and “confirmed that it still violates the Facebook Page Polices.”

Lexington attorney Jonathan Miller, who is general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, said this has happened over the last six years to several hemp-related businesses on Facebook. And there probably isn’t anything that can be done.

“Where we have seen a consistent issue is on the advertising side, where companies have tried to sell products and been rejected. I’m told marijuana companies have had fewer problems,” Miller said. “We’ve been hoping the passage of the Farm Bill would change that, because now it takes away the underlying argument that it violates the Controlled Substances Act.”

Often, Miller said, Instagram and Twitter will follow Facebook’s lead and cut off companies, too, often with little explanation other than an implication that “they are doing something illegal.”

No company is supposed to tout specific medical or veterinary benefits from hemp products, which are supplements and not regulated by the FDA.

Moyer, who processes hemp on a farm in Christian County and sells cannabidiol drops, hemp root salve, hemp protein powder, hemp seed oil and more, said she’s always very careful not to make medical claims....