Want to know the definition of fascism?
Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.
He posted this just days ago:
“I just met with President Emmanuel Macron in Paris to discuss new rules and regulations for the internet. We both believe governments should take a more active role around important issues like balancing expression and safety, privacy and data portability, and preventing election interference — reflecting their own traditions of free speech.
Last year we invited French government officials to look at how we manage harmful content on our platforms. Our systems now proactively identify 65% of the hate speech we take down before it’s even reported — up from 24% a year ago. But there are nuanced decisions to make here, such as how we should handle content that isn’t illegal but might cause harm. This is an area where I believe companies should not make these decisions by themselves and there should be a public process with democratically elected governments.
Today the French government shared their recommendations for a new model that sets guidelines around what’s considered harmful.”
Mind you: Zuckerberg wants you to think this is a GOOD thing!
THIS is fascism. Fascism is when you operate with government permission. Sure, you have freedom — but only the extent to which the government says you do. And there are no objective, rationally defined limits on what the government may do. That’s the key.
Let’s be clear. Unless you live in a state of anarchy, there has to be a government. “Harmful” means when a person initiates force or fraud against you. That’s more than enough to keep any state, federal or local government busy. The initiation of force or fraud — THESE are the proper crimes to prosecute, the scope of any government respectful of individual rights. Regulating “hate speech” defined by the government is NOT. Our First Amendment explicitly outlaws such censorship.
But Zuckerberg, like his fellow socialist Emmanuel Macron, wants to go way, way beyond limited government respectful of individual rights. He and Macron want to define “hate speech” and use the force of government against it. Because that’s what Facebook and other social media giants will be under Zuckerberg’s vision: A government-corporate partnership. That’s fascism. Facebook will, of course, continue to be permitted to earn a profit. In exchange, it will get to censor citizens from saying things the government does not like.
Does that sound like freedom to you? Well, perhaps it does if you share Zuckerberg’s hard-left political views. But if you’re a dissenter or a deplorable … it’s not freedom. You’re going to have to shut up.
Laws must be objective. Hate is not an objective concept. It’s an emotion. When the government says it’s against the law to murder, rape or steal, then those are objective concepts. You can debate the particulars of any case using reason, DNA testing, facts, logic, witnesses, police evidence and the like. But what the accuser is being asked to prove — guilt for an objectively defined crime — is not in question.
When “hate” speech becomes a crime, then you’re left to infer what the government means by it. Of course, under any kind of fascist government (left-wing, right-wing, not the point), it’s usually all too clear to the citizens whom you may or may not criticize.
Zuckerberg already tosses people whose political or social views he does not like off Facebook on a daily basis. Google and Twitter do the same. That’s not enough for him. He wants to enlist the help of government to turn the stifling of speech by his private company into full-fledged government-run censorship. He’s doing it openly, proudly and with the full support of the Democratic Party, surely all of the Democratic candidates for president, and virtually all of our media-entertainment-financial corporate establishment, most of whom are in bed with government in some way.
Notice that Zuckerberg does not approach President Donald Trump. He runs to the socialist-fascist French president instead. Zuckerberg is not stupid, and he realizes, no doubt, that he doesn’t stand a chance with Donald Trump for instituting the censorship of indefinable “hate speech” at the point of a government gun.
But it’s important to realize we could be just one election away from a dictatorship. Because the minute a company as gigantic as Facebook, Google or Twitter gets to direct the government to tell us what we may or may not talk about on social media … it’s all over.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, and see “Michael Hurd” on MeWe.