Censorship From The State Vs. Censorship From The Website. Which Is Worse?

The answer is rather simple.


Discussions over censorship should include a definitive defintion:

The entire definition of censorship has the three sections of it equally discussed:

-Politically unacceptable material.
-A threat to security.
-And obscence material.


For example, on 04/22/2020, a number of openly (self identified, even) "ancaps" were calling a mutual of mine racist and transphobic insults/remarks, and were reported by several people. Accusations of censorship were brought against me, and several of those who did report the incident, as it did violate the terms of service, which are signed by everyone, before they join. They understood, that some actions they take, may get them banned, and they ultimately did it anyway. In the end, they got banned, or suspended for a week, justifiably, whether or not you like it. If you don't want to get reported/banned for it, don't do it, simple.

(Yes, reporting someone for violating the TOS (terms of service) is censorship, by the definition above, and is indeed justified since it isn't hard to not use slurs against people.)

Many who feel that social media companies unfairly target conservatives for their views have called it censorship, and develop a victim status that rivals some people on the left and argue for stricter regulation of social media companies. There are also those who object to places like Tumblr for removing NSFW (not safe for work) material from their site, and claim an internet bill of rights is needed (despite platform access not being a right). Libertarians and those who do not agree with giving the government (state, local or federal) any more power generally make the following contentions:

-Conservatives aren't the only ones affected by censorship, there are leftists, liberals, and other non conservatives who have been banned despite not violating the terms of service.

-The system does make mistakes, granted. It incumbent upon those claiming that they were *personally* targeted. Speculation doesn't equal evidence.

-Access to a social media platform is not a human right, and the first amendment does not include a right to a social media platform. (Any judge who rules otherwise clearly either failed to read the Constitution or is a Judicial legislator).

-Censorship by a private business is absolutely trivial compared to a government force imposing the censorship.

-If you do not like the terms of service, feel free to leave. If you will not agree to the contract, they are more than justified in not allowing your account to remain up.

The common retort is a law defining publishers vs platforms, which *my* retort is that the law should be repealed and replaced with the following:

"Social media companies are immune from libel suits in relation to material published by individual users."

Another thing that is worthy of pointing out, is that Google gets subsidies. And with Google operating YouTube despite the fact that YouTube makes them no net profit, which allows the anti regulation crowd to argue that simply removing the subsidies would force Google to stop their actions, in terms of how they conduct themselves. (Before you mention a monopoly, here's the issue: like a two party system, it's only defeated if people actually make an effort to do so).

To answer the question: The Government cenorship easily defeats the private company censorship, since the Government actually has power to use violence (and hide behind the law as an excuse) while corporation can't claim to be the law. And, the violation of free speech by the Government violates the U.S Constitution, unlike a corporation censoring you. Keep in mind I used "violate" in reference to the Government, and "censor" by corporations (the word 'censor' applies to both), since the First Amendment does not apply to corporations censoring you.

#1A text:

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't matter how much you try, you cannot read the word "corporation" into the First Amendment. Try all you like. You just can't. Whether you're a strict or loose constructionist, no amount of mental gymnastics could be used to argue that corporations are included in the First Amendment regarding social media/

Governments have killed more people than social media could ever try, and considering that social media has never murdered anyone, they lose the death count 100-0%, and considering the fact that social media companies can't take anymore action against you than just deactiving your account, there is nothing to prove that social media companies control our lives.

Is Being A Moderate A Drag On The Democratic Ticket?

This post was influenced by a tweet from Twitter mutual @Rat_Resistance on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Rat_Resistance/status/1237503740883673088?s=20

There have been six Democratic nominees for President of the United States since 1988:

1988: Governor Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts)
1992 & 1996: Governor (then President) Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
2000: Vice President Al Gore (Tennessee)
2004: Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts)
2008 & 2012: Senator (then President) Barack Obama (Illinois)
2016: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (New York)

Out of these six, just two of them managed to win the Presidency. Let's go over what happened, and in this piece, I investigate the claims of progressives, who allege that centrist candidates cannot win against Republicans.

1988:

With incumbent Republican President Ronald Reagan being Constitutionally limited to two terms (becoming the first President since Dwight D. Eisenhower to serve two terms), he was now awaiting his successor. The Republicans had a competitive primary:

-Incumbent Vice President George H.W. Bush (Texas)
-Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (Kansas)
-Televangelist Marion G. "Pat" Robertson (Virginia)

Despite a terrible showing in Iowa (third place), Bush easily trouncer Leader Dole, and captured the Republican nominee.

The Democratic primary:

Governor Michael S. Dukakis (Massachusetts)
Reverend Jesse L. Jackson (South Carolina)
Senator Albert A. Gore Jr. (Tennessee)

It was a tough battle, but Governor Dukakis managed to comfortably win the nomination, but was pressured to choose runner up Jackson as his running mate. He instead chose Senator Lloyd M. Benson (Texas) as his running mate, while Vice President Bush chose Senator J. Danforth "Dan" Quayle (Indiana) as his running mate.

The contest is remembered for how nasty it was. With attack ads, and various forms of negative campaigning. In the end, Vice President Bush won, with 426 electoral votes, and 53.4% of the popular vote. Dukakis led in the polls for some time before the election, but with his inability to respond to attacks, as well as a picture of him riding in a tank (to prove he understood military matters), a strong economy, and the endorsement (of Bush) by a popular sitting President, proved too much to overcome. Dukakis outperformed then-sitting President Jimmy Carter (1980), and former Vice President Walter Mondale (1984) in both the popular and electoral college.

It was nowhere near enough to win, but it showed discontent with the Reagan Administration during the agricultural crisis of the 1980's, with Governor Dukakis receiving over 40% of the vote in various plains states, as well as certain parts of the Midwest that he lost, while failing to dent Bush's support in the South. The word "liberal" was made into a dirty word during the 1980's, where President Reagan breathed new life into the Republican Party. Even if Dukakis had been more effective in responding to attacks, his opinions during that time were rather unpopular, and it is unlikely he would have defeated Bush.

He opposed capital punishment, the foreign policy of the Reagan Administration, is pro choice, among other positions that the American electorate opposed. Even if he were a more progressive type, he would have still lost the election, and his views were still that of a New Deal Democrat. Him being a moderate is a stretch.

In 1992, Governor Bill Clinton defeated President Bush, and independent candidate Ross Perot, in a landslide. In 1996, President Clinton defeated former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, and Ross Perot, in another landslide. In 2000, the torch was passed to incumbent Vice President Al Gore, who was trying to succeed the popular Bill Clinton. Clinton was impeached in 1998 by the Republican controlled House of Representatives, and acquitted by the Republican controlled Senate, over obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Despite this, Clinton's popularity was strong, and with a strong economy, Vice President Gore easily trounced former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley.

Gore won the popular primary vote by a 3 to 1 ratio, so the party was largely united behind Gore. In the Republican primary, Arizona Senator John McCain lost the primary to Texas Governor George W. Bush, with Bush defeating all of his opponents (with their votes combined) by a 3 to 2 ratio, with McCain endorsing Bush, the GOP was largely united behind Bush. The issues were mainly domestic policy, with some foreign policy questions involved.  And Governor Bush, was more popular than vice president Gore, and as a result, he led throughout the polls and the general election.  Vice President Gore would occasionally lead the polls, but is it got closer to election day, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore were in a dead heat.  In the end, Vice President Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes, but lost the electoral college by 271 electoral votes, to 266.  With one electoral votes going and no candidate, due to an abstention by an elector from the District of Columbia.  By losing the state of Florida to buy 537 votes out of six million cast, Vice President Gore had lost the election of Bush.

Gore was a Conservative Democrat for his tenure in Congress (1977-1993), but had shifted to the center for his Vice Presidency. He distanced himself (rather unnecessarily) from Bill Clinton, and had likability problems compared to Bush. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was blamed for Gore losing Florida to Bush, despite hundreds of thousands of Florida Democrats voting for Bush, as well as Latino backlash in the state from the immigration policy of the Clinton Administration. Gore's centrist/center left politics was not what cost him the election, but it was the lack of a winning message, and the inability to connect with others, that cost him the election.

Four years later, after the Bush tax cuts, 9/11, the beginning of the War on Terror, corporate scandals, and the decreasing popularity of the Bush Administration, Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry was nominated for President, choosing North Carolina Senator Johnny R. Edwards, as his running mate. Senator Kerry ran a bizzarely weak campaign against President Bush, with Bush using Kerry's vote for the Iraq war against him when Kerry criticized Bush's handling of the war. Kerry and Bush both served their country during the Vietnam war, but both were attacked as to how they served. In the end, President Bush defeated Senator Kerry by three million votes, and 286-252 electoral votes. Kerry's voting record in the Senate had him as a very left leaning Democrat, with his voting record generally going to the left of most members of Congress.

After 2008, with Senator Barack Obama defeating Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the primaries, and John McCain in the general election, and defeating former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012, the now former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton, defeated Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and the Republicans chose billionaire businessman Donald J. Trump, with the issues of the campaign being trade, jobs, economic security, foreign policy, among others.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were deeply unpopular with the American people. Third party candidates included Libertarian former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and Green Party nominee, Doctor Jill Stein.

The campaign saw the record of Hillary Clinton on the ballot, up for a referendum, as well as the overall Clinton and Obama legacies. Clinton's Senate record of voting for the Iraq War, as well as being a part of the Clinton Administration's financial deregulation, and the Obama Administration's early foreign policy days, allowed her to face a strong challenge from the left, and a stronger than expected challenge from the right. She faced questions over an email server, her past treatment of alleged sexual assualt survivors of Bill Clinton, her public policy positions, versus her private ones, and the revelation that the Democratic National Committee (DNC), had rigged the primary to put it in her favor, all weighed heavily on the ticket. Her long time in the public eye, as well as her inability to attract support amongst younger, more progressive voters, saw the biggest upset since 1948:

Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by a 306-232, despite losing the popular vote by 2.9 million votes out of 137 million votes cast. Her loss was due to her ties to the establishment, her effectively being the third terms for Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, flip flopping on issues like same sex marraige, and the Iraq War. Being the "moderate" candidate was the least of her problems, considering the fact that scandal followed her wherever she went.

In conclusion, the losing candidates had either flip flopped on issues, had unpopular views, or faced stronger than expected opponents, and being a progressive doesn't necessarily mean that you will have a better chance at being elected to a national position. It all depends on the issues of the day, your record, and ability to get votes. The Country is a deeply divided one, with each part of the political spectrum representing under 25% of the American population. So it does remain important to build coalitions, as no faction is powerful enough to win on their own.

In the case of presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, his baggage isn't his place as a moderate, but taking (back then) what are now seen as Republican stances on entitlements, and his (past) views on busing, and working with segregationists in the United States Senate. His treatment of Anita Hill was also not helpful for him, and his sexual misconduct allegations are definitely not helpful.