No American, not even the president, has the right to a social media account. Technology companies are free to ban the users they want. They are free to “examine the facts” of anyone and enforce their policies consistently or fickle. They are free to do all these things.
Even if they shouldn’t.
This week, after years of pressure from the left, Twitter labeled two President Trump tweets – in which he warned of fraud related to ballots sent – as “potentially misleading.” It is a mistake for any platform to drop its neutrality. It will damage trust without changing a single thought.
Once Twitter starts tagging some tweets and not others with “what you need to know,” it will lurk partisan positions. Trump’s Tweet that speeds up the first fact check is a good example. It would make far more sense for the social media giant to mark Trump’s ugly and slanderous tweet about Joe Scarborough. Instead, the company formalized its policy by alleging that Trump had dishonestly claimed that incoming ballots would lead to “fraudulent elections.”
Even though this dispute is totally unfounded, it would be just as untrue to say Russia cheated the 2016 election – a claim that politicians like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, along with most of the major media outlets, have made for years. But while the president’s rhetoric about voting is debatable, it is also within the normal parameters of contemporary political discourse.
It is not “unfounded” to say that more incoming ballots “will lead to voter fraud,” as Twitter holds. There are dozens of examples of potential voter fraud that are investigated every year. The Heritage Foundation has cataloged 1,285 cases that have been prosecuted.
That said, arguing that “voter fraud” is a matter that is no more misleading than a conflicting tax cut will harm the poor or that canceled net-neutral rules will destroy the Internet. In practice, “voter fraud” is no more a conspiracy theory than “voter oppression.” Both occur occasionally, but there is no evidence that they have toppled the results of modern elections.
The problem is that only one of these two problems will get the tag “more information” from Twitter, because only one of these two issues offends liberals.
In another tweet, Trump claims that everyone in California will be sent a ballot. This is not true. But so is the tweet pinned by Democratic nominee, Joe Biden: “I don’t believe I have to say this, but please don’t drink bleach.” The president never instructed anyone to drink bleach, but Biden repeated it without stopping, along with many other misleading statements about his GOP notes and policies.
Which brings us to the problem: Who will Twitter make its judge? The fact-checking page redirects users to the disclaimer by CNN, The Washington Post, Vox, HuffPost and other outlets that often deceive their audience with sophistication that is far more sophisticated than the president’s.
These outlets like to invoke the authority of experts, but not experts whose conclusions conflict with them. There is a reason why we debate the issue rather than appointing “truth judges” to pass verdicts: For the most part, politics is a dispute not because of facts but values.
As often happens, Trump immediately leaves high ground by threatening to “severely regulate” or shut down social media platforms. Such threats are not new to this president, who often threatens the media with regulations and legal actions, although one cannot help but see a paradox. Trump usually does not follow through on his destructive threats to hinder speech – but follow through on his promises to cram a trial full of judges who have respect for the First Amendment.
People expect the judges to impose their latest executive order aimed at removing the protection of the responsibilities of social media companies.
Meanwhile, his opponents “saving democracy” routinely pressured technology companies to censor. Sadness over social media is based on the idea that the average American is too dim to wrestle with the chaos of unrestrained speech. Many leftists – those who want to institutionalize the doctrine of justice or cancel Citizens United – admit this openly when they declare that unregulated speech damages “democracy.”
Trump is the first president to take advantage of direct and instant access to millions of Americans. Whether this is useful for its purpose is debatable. Of course, we are blessed that the president’s policies and rhetoric are often interrupted.
Whatever the case, we have an entire industry ready to challenge the veracity of its statements. We don’t need Twitter to join the fact-checking game. Silicon Valley doesn’t have the resources, knowledge, or people to do it right.
Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi
