Should Twitter Be Forced to Serve White Supremacists?

Twitter made a sudden and drastic decision, as it typically does whenever a firestorm of controversy erupts, which has reignited the outcry of ‘free speech’ on the platform once again. Yesterday evening a string of well-known white supremacists (and assorted alt-righters) lost their verification status. A couple were banned completely. As each one announced, anxiety and anger spread over Right-wing Twitter as it always does during these routine purgings.

I call them routine because they happen immediately after Twitter implements some new ‘safety’ standard. In this case it was the direct result of verified celebrities on the Left loudly complaining that Twitter was, by default, endorsing white supremacists by verifying them. Twitter shut down all public verification while it came up with a new plan. The plan was to check each verified account for violations of the new policy on ‘promoting hate’ and take appropriate action.

Now, of course, we all know they did no such thing and simply used it as an opportunity to smack down a group of unpleasant and often absolutely disgusting people they have wanted to for awhile. The notion they would review each verified account and take action objectively is laughable. They wanted to get rid of white supremacists on their platform and they did it.

I am always curious as to why it has taken this long. Jack, the CEO of Twitter, is a very prominent progressive voice who has been extremely transparent in his objection to ‘hate.’ He genuinely believes mean words online are fatally dangerous and has made it his mission to stamp it all out. The question is, why has it taken years and years of ever-growing complexity in sneaky ways of undermining offensive accounts in secret? He could literally make a list and ban everyone on it in an afternoon if he felt like it.

The response, as always, is a mixture of ‘free speech’ and ‘Twitter can do as it pleases.’ But something struck me about this particular purging. It seems we are moving away from the notion of freedom of speech on a public platform towards the right of a business to deny services. Ironically, one of the most important issues to the Left in modern times.

As we know, the Left is highly vocal on its opposition to businesses denying service to customers on moral or religious grounds. In the last few years we have watched them scream in unison over religious freedom laws and small-time bakers and photographers who simply didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding. The standard mantra has been ‘if you are open to the public, you must serve everyone equally!’

Most would not argue this point. As a general rule we all assume if we walk into a store we will be welcomed without question. The issue for those on the Right has been one of coercion. A photographer isn’t simply selling a product; they are actively participating in an event. So is a caterer or an actor or a writer. None of the cases that erupted in outrage featured an actual gay person being denied service for being gay. Despite the headlines and the rhetoric, the store owners declined to participate in an event they morally opposed.

A big part of the argument has also been one of reputation and association. A Christian baker who advocates traditional marriage would appear as a hypocrite for making a wedding cake for a gay wedding. A Photographer who opposes gay marriage would have their company logo on the photos taken and directly associate them with an activity they morally oppose.

All along, the defenders of Christian bakers and photographers have rhetorically asked ‘Would you force a restaurant to host a KKK party or a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake?’ and opponents rolled their eyes. Twitter literally validated that exact scenario with its decision yesterday.

This changes the argument. The issue was never about freedom of speech as Twitter is not taxpayer funded or run by the government. In America no one is prosecuted for spreading ‘hate’ on Twitter. The freedom of speech argument stems more from an ethical point of view as Twitter transparently targets and punishes only those on the Right. Naturally those of us within that group resent having to carefully tailor our tweets to dodge Twitter’s arbitrary rules of conduct while watching liberals break every single rule with smug, aggressive abandon.

But libertarians on the Right have long argued that Twitter has the right to allow anyone on its platform as it chooses. It is under no obligation to be fair and no one has a right to use its service. But an interesting wrinkle appears. It is a service after all. Even though it is free. You can walk into a store and not purchase anything and still expect not to be removed arbitrarily. Twitter offers users a service to express themselves and in return makes money from our engagement with advertisers.

The Right typically views Twitter as a large and open park with platforms as far as the eye can see. Anyone can step onto a platform and speak into the microphone for as long as they please. Equally, everyone else is free to pause, listen, and respond if they choose. The Left has viewed Twitter as a personal diary they allow select others to view as well as a rally in which certain people are handed megaphones to rile up the crowd. They are genuinely offended by the notion people they have not personally invited would barge in and begin challenging them.

In truth Twitter is more like Medium. It allows people to set up shop and gain followers organically, but is still a business with an image and a bottom line.

The other argument in Twitter’s favor is the ‘No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service’ reasoning. Stores have long held standards for their customers in order to protect their public image. They could lose good customers who might be discouraged by undesirable sorts mucking up the store. The only condition since the 1960’s has been the store cannot deny entry or service based on select and legally designated characteristics such as race or religion.

Twitter has rules and by this same reasoning, agreeing to those rules places you under their judgment. The problem, of course, is the rules are intentionally vague and easily manipulated for convenience. The store equivalent would be ‘Inappropriate clothing which may make others uncomfortable or feel unsafe will not be allowed.’

Has Twitter inadvertently established itself as the example of business rights? The Left will not think so, sadly. To their mind all that matters is that justice, by their definition, be served. It doesn’t have to be fair or consistent. And Twitter has set itself up for endless drama as every angry liberal will now demand an offender’s verification and/or account be revoked to which it will be forced to individually review. It is only a matter of time before liberals begin turning on each other once they have purged the rest of us.

But those of us on the Right also face a challenge. We land squarely on the side of Twitter in this argument. Twitter should be able to decide who can and cannot use its service. We would not expect any business to helplessly be associated with terrible people or those spreading messages the business deeply opposes. The challenge here is by our very existence, we are not welcome on this platform. Jack does not see a difference between us and the white supremacists he just purged.

One last argument is the ‘only flower shop in town’ argument. To justify imposing legal requirements to serve everyone equally on all businesses, many on the Left argue ‘what if they don’t have anywhere else to go?’ Conservatives typically respond to demands of ‘discrimination’ with ‘just go somewhere else.’ Liberals like to pretend there is a shortage of bakeries, flower shops and wedding photographers across America. But it makes an argument. In this case it is correct. Twitter is the only game in town.

Twitter has become the go-to source for political speech, breaking news, celebrity access and personal brands for nearly everyone. I can follow any celebrity, political activist or leader, author, world leader or artist and directly interact with them. That is unique and something that hasn’t been replicated. For those of us on the Right it has been the rebirth of our movement, giving voice to average people (like me) who never would have had a platform otherwise.

Ideally Twitter would be neutral and accept that pockets of every possible point of view available would be represented with its own following and simply not interfere. Only in cases of direct threats, doxxing or impersonation would they need to step in. Instead Jack has decided Twitter will solely shape the future of dialogue and content on the internet and he has a very specific plan for what that will look like.

‘Hate’ is impossible to define and by progressive standards merely disagreeing with them qualifies. It simply isn’t an easy task to predict what position, tweet, phrasing or opinion expressed will trigger those on the Left or to what severity. We are essentially at the mercy of the level of outrage and emotional vindictiveness resulting and who at Twitter notices. At what point do we accept that we have built our city of hope in the center of a massive state that believes we should not exist at all?

It is reasonable to argue that I have no right to write for Think Progress. The Federalist has no obligation to publish Sally Kohn. But we can both go visit Disney World. At what point will Twitter cease to be a personal platform service and be recognized as a public attraction? Is it reasonable to recognize that it is the only theme park of its size and access in the world and should be held to different standards?

For those of us who survive the coming Twitter purges, this will define our movement. It is unlikely Twitter or the Left will be satisfied with the removal of just the alt-right. I imagine the definition of ‘hate’ and ‘dangerous’ will continue to expand. Will it once again be limited to the most famous conservative voices or will we be forced to compromise our beliefs on free markets? Is it a monopoly that is exempt from those rules? Is it a utility similar to the electric company, private but the only available option?

The future of social media is important as it is a recording of our collective experiences. Progressives understand that and want to rewrite history to remove all objectionable content. The question is, how will we fight being erased?

Related posts:

Is it just me or is time moving way too damn fast?! I remember my summers being long with the next season being eons away. This last summer felt like a blink. Gretchen Rubin famously wrote, “The days…

One look at the crypto market since January 2017 and you’ll see that we have had one hell of a ride! We ran up to Bitcoin at $20,000 and then just as quickly ran back down to about $6,000 and we have…

Last Sunday afternoon, I blew through the Y’s double doors in my usual frenzy, aware of the clock counting down on my 45-minute lap lane reservation. I made it as far as the front desk, at which…