Reason First: The Cult of Negativity
With the ban of infamous figures from Facebook, the thought of censorship should be clarified.
There is no censorship for privately held companies. By force, only a government body can shut down, silence, or render an “offender” as not part of a specific entity. For Facebook and Instagram to ban the accounts of Alex Jones, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and Milo, among others, demonstrates the sharp judgement of Mark Zuckerberg and Co.
The Glowing Company
Alex Jones went on a tirade exclaiming that the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 was staged. This is an affront to the dozens of lives lost on that December day. His erratic behavior and over-the-top persona are just tidbits to his truly angry and obnoxious (and noxious) rhetoric. Issued from the lips of a white supremacist, this demonstrates where this nation finds itself. It is to the discretion that a private company like Facebook has the authority to ban whomever it wants to off of its platform.
On the Screen
Minister Louis Farrakhan is a black supremacist. His is no different than the many too many voices of bigotry. That he has landed in the same category of these vicious personalities shows that there is a line that must not be crossed. By saying that, “Jews are my enemy,” the Minister exposes himself to be an outright villain to an entire set of people. He is severely disagreeable here. It is only right that private companies, not government, make the decision to put a stop to the vitriol espoused by these figures. Minister Farrakhan’s animosity towards Jews is unfounded and unwarranted. The Jews have been able to subsist and, in certain sectors, thrive—not because of faith, but by each individual’s capacity to think. Minister Farrakhan does not appear to feel that this is so.
It is up to Facebook and other corporations to crack down on the nasty phrasings, illustrations, and videos from this ilk. If they want to voice their opinions, they can create their own internet properties. Rightwing conspiracist Joseph Watson has proclaimed that, “In an authoritarianism society controlled by Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged.” This couldn’t be further from the truth.
The Two Screens
A private entity like so many in one of the most productive places on Earth found his content too flagrant for Facebook.
The Definitive Social Network
Milo has showcased a sly wit and a biting sense of humor, but his far-right ideology proved to be a red flag for Facebook. As a speaker, he shows off a charismatic air, but that is coupled with his ugly speech. For Facebook, the idea of continuing to allow various factions on opposing sides of the ideological framework impedes progress.
Morally, to allow posts of vile comments would be bad for the bottomline. And what is more is that the decision on which the corporation was founded was to provide individuals with the ability to voice their ideas to friends and family on an engaging platform. With all of these figures cast out of the Facebook sphere, it is a sure sign of whatever remnants of the Enlightenment that exist in the world. The power for a juggernaut company to show no tolerance over the speech that they conclude to be of a terrible nature.
This all points to the opportunity for capitalists to show what it means to protect individual rights. Private property like Facebook, although not explicit in its approach to advance and uphold rights, has shown this. Anyone else who chooses to display such ideals as these aforementioned figures are being monitored. This is not by the State, but by a corporate giant that is serious about its business. The fact that hate is an emotion and not a grounds to ban people, Facebook should not claim that these expelled people should be silenced because of it. Their issuances are related to contemptuous language, not hate. By taking language against these figures, Facebook has been able to flex its muscle against a cult of negativity.