But in our model (hell, in every model), there isn't any such thing as government interference, for the same reason privately-maintained monopolies don't matter.

By which I mean, the government is an intrinsic part of the market.

The US government is not really involved in the social media censorship question.

But if it were widely involved, it would make the problem far worse, by applying more ridiculous censorship, in more ham-handed ways.

We know this already. Social media just gets rid of everything with "Nazi" in it; an otherwise reasonable UK government goes a huge step further, and fines a pug owner 800 pounds for making a joke about Nazis. Sends police around to question the nature of tweets. Sometimes arrests joking tweeters and charges them.

I think they know that. They DID try to get involved (Communications Decency Act), but found it to be unenforceable.

Wait. What?

The UK government has never been reasonable. Incidentally, this probably didn't help the man's case:

As opposed to all the other governments we like so well. If we threw a dart at a globe, chances are the government it landed on would be actively limiting what sites people can visit and pawing through their searches, as much as possible.

If that had an effect on the outcome it is just that much more shameful.

The UK has always liked to listen in on phones and the internet.


If you are arguing in court that the Nazi comments were taken out of context, or were a joke, then having Tommy Robinson show up isn't the best thing that could happen to you.

If gov is an intrinsic part of the market (as regulator, for example [which is interference to my mind]) then the market is managed, not free.

And: I didn't say diddly about privately-maintained monopolies. I mentioned, in passing, natural monopolies

Would you like to know about natural monopolies and why they're superior to the artificial monopolies you get with managed markets?

I'll be glad to rant about it (I haven't had a good libertarian rant in a coon's age, so I'm well-primed).

To imagine that the outcome of a public trial would be affected by whom is in favor of the different sides is...



...a pretty solid argument for keeping government out of managing any social media, in any way

The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market.


Sorry, I've heard it before.

I'm not disagreeing.

"The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market."

Yeah, it interferes up and down the line: as regulator, standard-setter, participant; as enforcer, as restrictor, as thief.

And the one thing it should be doin' (contract arbitration) it does poorly cuz it's mixed up in all the other nonsense I list above.

This is like saying a fish interferes with the ocean.

Technically true, but meaningless.

No, it's like sayin' a kid fucks around with an ant farm, instead of just leavin' 'em be.

It's worse though, cuz humans aren't ants to be farmed (but those folks who are supposed to be our employees often treat us, and our interactions, as such).

Has anyone told employers this?

The employers (the private citizens) know the employees (the elected folk) are fuckin' around. Some care, many don't.

Domestication.