The Corner

Culture

‘Hold Them Accountable’

Considering Internet-savvy alt-right entrepreneurs in Wired, Emma Grey Ellis writes:

Even with YouTube’s help, any solution that isn’t an eternal game of content moderation whack-a-mole is years away. So it’s time to stop being surprised when the far-right is good at the internet. It’s time to expect to see them trending, and hold platforms accountable when they do.

Ellis defines “far-right YouTube” as a group of commentators “who range in ideology from mainstream libertarian to openly white nationalist.”

In that context, what does her demand to “hold platforms accountable” actually mean? Part of this is just meaningless corporate-speak, a language in which the word “accountable” can mean anything, and often means the opposite of what “accountable” means in English. Politicians are particularly fond of “hold them accountable,” which is a way of saying, “Do something!” without proposing or committing to any particular course of action.

(I sometimes wonder if it really is the case that a few hundred million people in one of the most free and prosperous societies in the history of the world can really be so effortlessly buffaloed — but, unhappily, the evidence does point that way. Read the letters section in the New York Times and then meditate on the fact that these are the ones that were chosen.)

The implicit demand in Ellis’s column, not quite put into these words, is that media companies be used as instruments of suppression when it comes to unpopular political ideas. Or “mainstream libertarian” ones, apparently, which as Ellis informs us are part of the “far right,” another one of those terms so infinitely plastic as to be useless for the communication of actual political thought — which, of course, is not what that phrase is here to do.

We are supposed to conclude that YouTube has done something naughty or wicked if some adherent to a backwards ideology uses that tool of public communication to communicate publicly. The belief that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et al. have a moral duty to act as stand-in censors, that their suppression of unpopular views serves the public interest, and that “the public interest” is another way of saying “what progressives are comfortable with” has somehow become an almost unquestioned assumption without anybody’s having made an intelligent and persuasive case for why this must be so. The opposite case has been made, repeatedly, throughout the history of liberalism, liberalism being the philosophy most despised by the Americans who call themselves “liberals.”

It’s a funny old world.

Postscript: It’s “Whac-a-Mole.”

Most Popular

White House

The Impeachment Clock

Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry is incoherent. Given the impossibility of a senatorial conviction, the only strategy is to taint the president with the brand of impeachment and weaken him in the 2020 election. Yet Schiff seems to have no sense that the worm has already turned. Far from tormenting Trump and ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Clock

Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry is incoherent. Given the impossibility of a senatorial conviction, the only strategy is to taint the president with the brand of impeachment and weaken him in the 2020 election. Yet Schiff seems to have no sense that the worm has already turned. Far from tormenting Trump and ... Read More
Economy & Business

Who Owns FedEx?

You may have seen (or heard on a podcast) that Fred Smith so vehemently objects to the New York Times report contending that FedEx paid nothing in federal taxes that he's challenged New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger to a public debate and pointed out that "the New York Times paid zero federal income tax ... Read More
Economy & Business

Who Owns FedEx?

You may have seen (or heard on a podcast) that Fred Smith so vehemently objects to the New York Times report contending that FedEx paid nothing in federal taxes that he's challenged New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger to a public debate and pointed out that "the New York Times paid zero federal income tax ... Read More
Elections

Warren’s Wealth Tax Is Unethical

Senator Warren would impose a 2 percent annual tax on wealth above $50 million, and a 6 percent annual tax on wealth above $1 billion. These numbers may seem small, but remember that they would be applied every year. With wealth taxes, small numbers have large effects. Applied to an asset yielding a steady ... Read More
Elections

Warren’s Wealth Tax Is Unethical

Senator Warren would impose a 2 percent annual tax on wealth above $50 million, and a 6 percent annual tax on wealth above $1 billion. These numbers may seem small, but remember that they would be applied every year. With wealth taxes, small numbers have large effects. Applied to an asset yielding a steady ... Read More
Immigration

The ‘Welfare Magnet’ for Immigrants

That term refers to a controversial concept -- and a salient one, given the Trump administration's efforts to make it harder for immigrants to use welfare in the U.S. A new study finds that there's something to it: Immigrants were more likely to come to Denmark when they could get more welfare there. From the ... Read More
Immigration

The ‘Welfare Magnet’ for Immigrants

That term refers to a controversial concept -- and a salient one, given the Trump administration's efforts to make it harder for immigrants to use welfare in the U.S. A new study finds that there's something to it: Immigrants were more likely to come to Denmark when they could get more welfare there. From the ... Read More