Narendra Modi is prime minister of India. He believes that Hindu myth-warriors not only existed, but they built airplanes, performed plastic surgery, and invented genetic engineering. He was governor when fellow believers in his province went mad and killed 59 people.
He appears to be okay with that happening again in Kashmir — which, given Pakistan’s crimes there, has the potential to go nuclear. Journalists who are critical of Modi have a weird habit of getting killed.
So when former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg got all moist over Modi during the premier’s rock ‘n’ roll tour of the United States last week, I saw a chance to extract a small measure of childish revenge. Modi, I tweeted, “is a fascist swine.” I added my fervent hope that Bloomberg would “fall into a Big Gulp and drown.” The stupid tweet got a few stupid chuckles from some of my stupid Twitter friends and I went on with my stupid evening.
I then awoke to discover that Twitter had actually suspended my account, on the grounds that I had engaged in “targeted harassment” of the premier of the world’s largest democratic republic and a billionaire news baron. The suspect list doesn’t have to be long. Bloomberg is of course a world-historic weenie, so it could have been him. But I doubt it because unlike Modi, Bloomberg doesn’t have a private army of trolls and bots dedicated to protecting the tender feelings of their delicate swami.
I’ve been banging on about corporate censorship for a while, but this seems as good a time as any to come back to that old drum kit. Left or Right, we should talk about it.
American conservatives have taught us all to revere private property. But they’ve also been clear that markets don’t work properly when there’s arbitrage. And they’re increasingly realizing that the principle holds true on the marketplace of ideas. When the president complains about “shadow banning” for instance, that’s where the conflict lies.
Given their ubiquity and necessity, are social media companies more like public utilities? Is it better to ban Nazis from public view or to keep them in plain sight? What happens when tyrants use private social media accounts as Fifth Columnists? Do companies have an obligation to protect their users from digital mobs? Do powerful (or public) people, deserve the same level of protection as small, private ones? How do we tell, and who decides? Mantras about “private property” don’t line up with the historic reality that social media is already woven into billions of private lives.
As you weigh these questions, bear in mind that we — all of us — have already agreed to some regulations of the barriers between free citizens and private businesses. I’m not even thinking about the obvious public accommodation cases from the Civil Rights movement. As a citizen, I have an absolute right to bad-mouth a given company. But if I assemble, say, a bot army to help me trash the company on modern media, I can reasonably guess that I’ll get a visit from the SEC. Even the “private” action that might ensue — a libel suit, say — is underwritten, ultimately, by the power of the state to enforce civil actions.
I can’t pretend to have the answer to these questions. As I hope I’ve already demonstrated above, I’m an idiot. But I know we should start asking these questions and listening to each other’s answers.
In the meanwhile, conservatives should consider picking up a copy of K.S. Komireddi’s fierce (and fine) polemic, “Malevolent Republic,” which has the goods on Modi and India’s long, sad decline into tyranny. Next, you might call your Congress-creatures to ask if they’re okay with the U.S. bankrolling Modi’s twisted Hindutva fantasies.
Finally — and just in case — maybe send Mike Bloomberg a Big Gulp.
Bill Myers lives and works in Washington, DC. He tweets from @billcaphill. Email him at [email protected].
