ExclusiveIs the Tech Censorship a New Form of Authoritarianism?

Hello, welcome to Focus Talk. My name is Jenny. Today is Monday, January 11th. After Twitter permanently suspended President Trump's account, Google, Apple and Amazon have all taken action against Parler, an alternative app to Twitter. The collective actions by these tech giants are sufficient to shut down the firm and to drive it out of business. If that happens, conservative voices will have effectively lost a platform to share their thoughts and ideas. The reason cited by these firms for banning Parler is that violence and potential illegal actions are being discussed on the platform. But who is setting the standard on whether these discussions constitute threats that must be stopped by banning freedom of speech? Are these firms really concerned about these discussions, or are they simply using the opportunity to destroy Twitter's main competitor and silent those views they disagree with? If one platform can unilaterally take away the President's freedom of speech, what does it say about the power of the platform? If a few tech companies can come together and destroy their competitors or individuals at a whim, is this not a new form of authoritarianism? If this can happen in the U.S., do these international companies represent a threat to worldwide freedom at large? We will be discussing these issues with our two guests. Our format is a little different tonight. We will first speak to political commentator Mr. Cheng-Pu Kong, who is joining us via Skype. Then we will talk to Epoch Times commentator Mr. Tang Jing-Tuan. Welcome to the show. Thanks for joining us. I'm happy to be here. Things have moved extremely fast after the initial outrage over Twitter's suspension of President Trump and thousands of conservative accounts. Many people moved to Parler. Almost immediately, we see these coordinated actions by the biggest tech firms in this country to shut down Parler. First, Google and Apple decided to remove the app from their online stores. Next, Amazon announced that it will shut down Parler's servers this Sunday. Without the servers, the company will effectively be out of business. Again, the companies are citing that they are calling widespread discussion of violence. Are they justified in their assessment? And should they even have the power to make this type of decision that is directly impacting people's freedom of speech? I'd like to establish one fundamental point. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, whether it's done by a dictator, a party, or a company. Suppression of freedom of speech is authoritarian, whether it's done by the government or a tech company. There are at least three issues. Economically, their coordinated actions may have violated antitrust laws. Of course, their blatant violations of people's freedom of speech. And finally, their completely biased and one-sided ban of certain viewpoints represents an attempt to force their own values on the public at large. We've already seen backlash from world leaders who weren't particularly pro-Trump. The political leaders of Germany, France, Australia, and Mexico have all spoken out against the ban, calling it anti-democratic. The companies said that President Trump's posts on Parler may potentially lead to violence. This is not sufficient reason to ban a person's freedom of speech. The lawful standard most cited is imminent danger. Things like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Everything they've cited as reasons are based on conjecture. Conjecture of someone's intent by picking up and playing on certain words cannot be the basis for taking away someone's fundamental human right. Freedom of speech is too precious to be left to conjecture and inference. What is shocking to me is that the tech companies must be aware that what they're doing is extreme, possibly illegal, and may lead to uncertainty that may affect their business model or stock valuation. Why do you think they did it? Senator Marco Rubio said something that I completely agree with. He questioned how a handful of companies, unelected and not accountable to the public, is able to unilaterally take away people's freedom at will. Why are they able to do this? Why don't they care about the consequences? Because they have monopoly power. They don't believe anyone can really do anything to them. They may not have political power in the traditional sense, but they have economic power and they control the communication channels. We saw this during the election cycle, when they censored one side while wholeheartedly supported the other side. Now we have even more blatant actions of censorship. This is connected to their general leftist leanings, their anti-tradition, anti-moralistic attitude. It's also related to the fact that these are huge global organizations and Trump was explicitly anti-globalism. So there is an economic incentive behind their actions. We've seen these tech companies try to perpetuate the notion that Trump is a dictator. Yet right now, the supposed dictator has had his freedom of speech taken away from him and has absolutely no platform to even say anything. It's these tech companies that look increasingly like the dictator. Do these events suggest that these tech firms collectively are even more powerful than traditional governments? Is it fair to say they constitute a global threat? That this could happen to other countries? When they called Trump a dictator, they are using their own standards. Because Trump was for things they were against, he's a dictator. When he called them fake news, he's a dictator. So Trump isn't allowed to criticize the media? The only reason they labeled him a dictator is because he didn't agree with them. With the latest developments, it's very clear who's the dictator. They say the Parler platform had, quote, So if someone says something violent on Gmail, Twitter, does this mean that those platforms also need to be shut down? Is Amazon saying that Parler servers are the only ones that contain violent material? Their actions are grounded in double standards and are completely unjustified. Yes, I agree. Some of the reasons are just absurd. They say that Parler didn't have the necessary management in place to properly handle the content. How is their management any of your business? How is this even a reason? Are they supposed to consult you when they do their hiring? I've seen the reports that Parler plans to take legal actions against Amazon. We've also heard of lawmakers looking to investigate these companies. How do you feel about the prospects of these actions? I hope the courts and government can take decisive actions against these firms and protect Parler. If Parler were to go out of business, this portends badly for democracy in this country, because nearly half the country would have had their voices silenced. It suggests that only leftist viewpoints will have a platform going forward. This is very dangerous. I do have some concerns. In the past, other people have attempted to sue these firms over violations of freedom of speech, and they have all been unsuccessful. The reason these lawsuits failed is because these companies are protected by Section 230, which allows these firms to selectively block content without being held accountable. Based on what is happening, the time is ripe for the government to finally revoke Section 230. Thank you for your thoughts. We know you have to go, so we will see you next time. We'll continue our discussion with our second guest, Mr. Tangjing Huan. Hello and welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Let's pick up where we left off with our first guest. We're saying that it's really the actions of the tech companies that look like the dictatorship brawl. What do you think? If you think about it, private companies are by nature dictatorial. Yes, they may exist and function within a democracy, but by nature they're authoritarian. What the boss says goes. This is fine most of the time, and there isn't any real conflict. But when companies grow to be so powerful, especially in this instance, where they're effectively controlling communications, they have taken on or even exceeded the authority given to governments. The power the five tech companies are exhibiting today is exceeding even the censorship we're used to seeing in China. They have the power to take away the president's freedom of speech. Of course the government is corrupt, but tech companies in China are still accountable to the government. Here they can do whatever they want. So when they're able to coerce the behavior of individuals or other companies, it's fair to say that in certain respects their power has exceeded that of the government. It's almost like they're a hidden government with unwritten rules and regulations that you nevertheless must adhere to in order to function in society. Add to the fact that they're international and their power is multiplied because they can speak with one uniform voice. We know that Western democracies value an independent press, so close relationships between the government and the press is scrutinized. The idea of the fourth estate. Ideally the fourth estate, the media, is supposed to provide a vibrant and free press to call out abuses and prevent tyranny. But what has happened is that they themselves have lost their way and are perpetrating abuses against freedom. Instead of being independent of the government, they have themselves taken on roles normally reserved for authoritarian governments, regulating what they feel is proper behavior. They're using their own values and standards to control others? Exactly. Again, instead of being independent of the government, we have seen an alliance between the media and political left wing of this country. So there is no free and independent press. When this happens, it leads to what we're seeing today. Absolute power and authoritarianism. They've combined powers exceeding that of the government? Yes, if you look at the US government, within the framework of the three branches set up, all the checks and balances, the government is actually very constrained. No branch by themselves has all the power. For example, even if the Democrats control Congress, there are still measures in place to constrain that power. This is not the case for the tech giants. Their power is absolute. No one can check and balance them. This explains their arrogance. They can ban whoever they want. They can shut down Parler, a platform with 8 million users. They killed it in a matter of days. It took 2-3 days from their expressing their concern to pulling it from their app stores. So they can destroy a company at will in a matter of days. Compare this to the person they have been calling dictator, President Trump. For years he has criticized the social media companies and has wanted to make them more accountable. He couldn't do this as the President of the United States in 4 years. Social media can shut down President Trump and their competitor in days. Who has more power? Who is the dictator? We speak of the 5 tech giants who have already exerted immense power by themselves, but their collective influence actually far exceeds even that. When Amazon announced that they would shut down Parler's servers, Parler tried to obtain hosting services and couldn't do it. Everyone is scared of being associated with Parler. This is not just happening with Parler and Amazon or Google or Apple. It is impacting everything associated with Parler. In an interview, the CEO of Parler said that the companies that they have been doing business with are all refusing to work with them. From basic tech services like email or message hosting, even lawyers are severing their relationship with Parler just out of fear. This is absolute unchecked abuse of power. You can no longer look at them in a narrow way as, quote, just a private company because their services are now a common good. Their platform is a public forum, yet they're telling you what you can and can't say. They're operating within a loophole. When these companies first started, they registered as public forums, so they were afforded the protection of Section 230. They expanded quickly under the protection of Section 230. They weren't held accountable for their content, but now they're acting like publishers. Publishers are responsible for all the content on their platform. They can be sued. They can be held accountable for censorship, for libel. You're either a publisher or a public forum. You can't be both. This is why President Trump has been trying to remove Section 230 protection for these social media firms. We're seeing the reason today. Section 230 could be used to check the power of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. But companies like Google, Apple and Amazon fall outside the purview of Section 230. What can be done about these firms? Also, I've seen leaders of the countries Australia, Germany, France, calling out these firms for violation of freedom of speech. So they're obviously also concerned. Do you feel they represent a worldwide threat? We spoke about this a little before. When you have these powerful companies acting in concert to coerce behavior, they're a real threat to everyone. I would go so far as to say they're national security threats. As we've already seen happen in the U.S., when they choose to align themselves with one political party against another, they can have a real impact due to their control of the media and communication. There is nothing to stop them from doing the same thing in other countries if they choose to. We saw these companies taking a beating in the stock market today. I think together they lost over $150 billion in the market cap. But personally, I don't think this will be a deterrence for them. I think they're so hell-bent on acting against Trump and Trump supporters or just conservative voices. It almost seems that they just want to totally exterminate their viewpoints once and for all. What do you think is the motivation for this type of loathing, this type of hatred? There are two factors, one of which you touched upon with the first guest. These companies are built on globalism. They grew up in this era and rode this train to the promised land. Their own success is intertwined with globalism. Trump is anti-globalism, America first, so this explains a lot. Within the realm of globalism, I want to draw a distinction. First, you have what I'll call organic globalism that arises out of technology, internet, and so on and so forth. This is a natural development as people become more connected. There's nothing wrong with this. The other type of globalism is really more along the continuation of the leftist agenda of spreading socialism worldwide, using resources to infiltrate countries and turn them leftward. This is the hidden sinister part of globalism, the establishment of an international order aligned along their values. The tactics used by tech companies is precisely out of this playbook. The other factor goes to the core of their value system. Trump and Trump supporters are generally more religious, more moralistic. They care about traditional values, family values. Trump himself said, we don't worship government, we worship God. We all know the tech companies' execs and employees are younger and believe in value-neutral, relevist viewpoints, so there's a fundamental gap between the two groups. So I think both of these factors, their political interests that are aligned with globalism, their core values that lead to an instinctive dislike of Trump and what he represents, together it's just driving them to the extreme, to the extreme actions we see today. What is also concerning is that we're not only seeing this play out in the tech industry or in politics, it started to affect average citizens. I saw a report that an airline blocked Trump supporters from boarding the plane. PayPal has banned some accounts related to Trump supporters. To me, this is starting to resemble the type of group persecution that we saw in Germany, China and Soviet Union in the last century. What do you think? I think there is an overarching similarity. They are all examples of those with power acting to discriminate or oppress a specific group based on some sort of attribute. Of course, the things happening now do not as yet approach the severity of what happened back then. Their tactics are actually very similar to what the Chinese regime is doing right now to control its people. The main tool of the CCP to silence dissidents and activists is to cut off all your resources. They use your job, your family, your education, your entire future as a giant blackmail tool to make sure you do what they want. The tech companies are using the exact same tactics. We've already seen Parler being targeted and forced out of business because everyone else is afraid to work with it. Their power permeates not just big tech but everywhere. If you can't board a plane, if you're banned by certain businesses, if employers won't hire you just because of what you believe, how is this any different from China? We've started to see the beginning of what might probably be called speech crime, or even thought crime. Things that Americans probably only experience in novels and movies. The suddenness of all of this must be shocking to many Americans, especially those who still value things like freedom of speech. We know Parler is going to the courts. I saw a report today that an internet provider blocked Twitter and Facebook. What is next for the conservative and moderate Americans? What can they do to counter all of this? I think you will see a pushback to all of this. The core values of this country, things like freedom, liberty, are still here. Why do we have the term silent majority? Because the majority of people aren't personally involved in politics and aren't seeking to seize power, so they tend to be more quiet. I believe the majority of Americans do not agree with what is happening. What is happening today is that the left has the megaphone and they're shouting at the top of their voices and muting everybody else. So it just looks like most people feel this way, that their extreme views are the mainstream. I don't believe this is the case. Up until very recently, maybe a lot of people still thought things were okay, but the actions of the last few days should be a wake-up call to everyone. We're seeing people speaking up. Of all people, the ACLU condemned Big Tech's censorship of Trump. If Big Tech continues along this path, there is no reason why, with some effort and determination, traditional conservative Americans can't establish their own platforms. Big Tech may be getting their day in the sun, but I think it will be short-lived. Thank you. We will be paying very close attention to all these events in the coming days, as they are so important and will have an impact on all of our lives. Thank you for watching.