Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Free Speech

Enlightened Algorithms: Democrats Call For Increased Corporate Controls To Protect Citizens From Their Own Dangerous Curiosities

Below is my column in USA Today on the recent call by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) for Amazon to steer readers to “true” books on climate change. It is the latest example of Democrat’s embracing a type of  corporate governance model to carry out tasks barred to the government under the Constitution. Companies are now being asked to protect us from our own dangerous interests and inquiries. An array of enlightened algorithms will now watch over citizens to help them make good choices and read “true” things.

Here is the column:

Two centuries ago, rulers sought to convince subjects that they should embrace the notion of “enlightened despotism,” living without rights under the beneficent watch of overlords. Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II summed up the idea with the maxim “everything for the people, nothing by the people.”

Today, we seem to be living in an age of enlightened corporate despotism, where social media and technology companies watch over what we read and what we discuss to protect us from ourselves.

That corporate governance model was on display this month when Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called on Amazon CEO Andy Jassy to use algorithms to steer readers away from books that spew “misinformation.”

Enlightened algorithms are already responsible for large-scale censorship across social media platforms that reach global audiences. They “stand the wall” as sentinels against dangerous ideas.

Warren argued that people were not listening to the enlightened views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of vaccine skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books, including “falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures, including those written by the most prominent spreaders of misinformation.”

Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.”

In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.

What was most striking about this incident is that Warren was eager for others to see her efforts to promote a form of censorship.

Once considered unAmerican and authoritarian, censorship has become a rallying cry from the left. Indeed, a new poll shows roughly half of the public supports not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

In one critical hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate to discuss censorship programs. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, but then pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it was not broad enough.

He noted that it was hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but the companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. “The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “But I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.”

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal also warned that he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” He demanded “the same kind of robust content modification” from the companies – the new Orwellian term for censorship.

Others have sought even more “robust” action. For years, Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, have called for corporate censorship on a variety of subjects.

Last year, Democratic Reps.  Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney of California wrote a letter to cable carriers like AT&T to ask why they are still allowing people to watch FOX News. (For the record, I appear as a FOX legal analyst). The members stressed that “not all TV news sources are the same” and called the companies to account for their role in allowing such “dissemination.”

Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Max Boot also wrote that cable providers should “step in and kick FOX News off.” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof  insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.”

CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter has called for censorship as “a harm reduction model.”

Twitter, Facebook, and other companies have responded enthusiastically in banning those who question the official view of vaccines, climate change, elections or other subjects.

Calling for companies to protect us from ourselves is the ultimate in enlightened despotism.  It is ironic that Warren has denounced the use of “racist” algorithms in biometric technology like facial recognition. She objects to the error rate in such algorithms but has few such concerns when other algorithms are used to curtail free speech.

The embrace of corporate censorship reflects a change in attitude of many toward free speech. Once the very defining right of our constitutional system, it is now more often portrayed as an existential threat to that system. Speech is now “harmful” and allowing the expression of unpopular opinions is treated as an act of an accomplice.

Once free speech is defined as harmful or violent, the algorithms can take it from there. At the urging of our leaders companies like Amazon can censor “everything for the people, nothing by the people.”

We can then live under the enlightened despotism of governing algorithms that protect us from our dangerous curiosities.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

46 thoughts on “Enlightened Algorithms: Democrats Call For Increased Corporate Controls To Protect Citizens From Their Own Dangerous Curiosities”

  1. Professor Turley tirelessly points out these attempts to curtail freedom of speech, and often repeats the position that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, the idea being that unsupportable views and contentions can be undermined by exposure to more objective facts and better reasoning,

    I agree.

    Therefore, when the government or someone in a position of some authority attempts to unilaterally silence opposing views or bury information, the reasonable conclusion is that the “offending” information is likely true. Otherwise, it should be possible for the allegedly “better speech” or more accurate information of the government etc. to “outshine” the less worthy information, allowing all with open minds and intelligence to recognize the truth and agree with it.

    When Elizabeth Warren et al. try to prevent people from even coming into contact with certain information and information sources, that constitutes a tacit admission that they know their position is weak and is liable to be exposed as untrue by comparison with the information they attempt to censor.

    Congratulations Sen. Warren, by your aggressive actions you have personally validated the position that the mRNA vaxxxes are dangerous. Your upside-down support will potentially save many lives!

  2. Google monopolizes market shares in searches. Amazon controls the largest swath of book distribution. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is closely connected to the Tides Foundation. Google owns YouTube.

    I sat next to a Google software engineer on a flight home a few years ago. We chatted a while. He said (among many things), “The best place to hide a dead body is on page two of a Google search.”

    They may not actually censor searches at this point, but they can easily rank their position of importance. This can be a good thing when looking for relevance but is also a potential way to hide opposing viewpoints.

    I’ve seen Amazon price a controversial book out of a reader’s range instead of technically banning the title. They also pull or refuse to sell some titles that lesser known publishers and outlets continue to sell.

    The information seeker must be careful. It is easy to take shortcuts in the age of information overload but he/she does not have that luxury.

    2. It isn’t ‘at this point’. It has been this way for nearly two decades. Nobody cared. What the Valley didn’t have in the past was a complicit media and an entire political institution on their side – they did have massive enough wealth to continue regardless of setbacks. This is not new, and nipping it now is going to take unprecedented effort. Where the heck were all of you folks even ten years ago?

  4. Today, we seem to be living in an age of enlightened corporate despotism, where social media and technology companies watch over what we read and what we discuss to protect us from ourselves.

    I would argue that it’s not that they are enlightened, but rather the path to tyranny was lit. It’s not as though history is void of what life was like under this kind of rule. More importantly, these tyrants mistakenly assume our citizens are not merely stupid or ignorant, but that they’ve returned to a state of self-imposed nonage (Kant). They will no doubt keep poking at what they believe are sheep, but they will eventually awaken the bear in everyone.

    This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom–and the most innocent of all that may be called “freedom”: freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: “Do not argue!” The officer says: “Do not argue–drill!” The tax collector: “Do not argue–pay!” The pastor: “Do not argue–believe!” Only one ruler in the world says: “Argue as much as you please, but obey!” We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one’s reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.
    http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

    1. I don’t know who said it first but I think this may be worth remembering:
      Questions that cannot be answere is the basis of science
      Answers that cannot be questioned is the basis of authoritarianisnl

      2. Supra, Toyota,

        It means hey bro, look out for that Dear coming across the hood at 160mpg in Western Kansas headed for Denver & living to tell. 🙂

  5. People might not agree with conservatives, but hopefully they are beginning to realize why we’ve been speaking out about the totalitarian aspects of the Left. Whether it’s a Leftist government, or a Leftist private company, these tendencies will out. It’s in the genes of the paradigm.

    Which way do you want to go? Do you want to give away more control over your lives, and give up more freedoms, or do you want to be more free, but more responsible for yourself?

    Humans tend to not value what they’ve never done without. We didn’t value the availability of toilet paper in the grocery store until there was a run on it. Many don’t value free speech. They want speech with which they disagree to be banned. They’ve never lived in a country where you could be jailed or executed for criticizing a government, a dictator, or a religion.

    1. Amerika’s “leaders” are in the shadows …we have a gummi puppet installed as potus. It is a clique of goobermint bureau apparatchiks and wealthy leftist elitest running the senile man and the show. Twighlight Zone could not have made a more creepy episode to mock the reality we have been poisoned with !.

  7. In the United States it was once illegal or obscene for men to go topless at the beach until the 1930’s. It was a felony crime for a couple to live together that are unmarried in many states. It was illegal to marry someone of a different race. Illegal for homosexuals. Many states de facto outlawed marriage between different religions. The United States once totally outlawed alcohol consumption, enforced by the federal government.

    All of these things were once considered obscene and/or illegal. Imagine if we had had social media back then what would be censored – all of the above and more.

    Democrats like censorship and Republicans like torture and gulags – they are both wrong and both violate their Oath of Office loyalty oath. Not everyone is a villain here, good intentions can also be illegal under the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial Branch courts are the only ones that can restrict these illegal policies like censorship, torture and false imprisonment – where is the U.S. Supreme Court?

    1. Diversity, inequity, and exclusion? Trans/homosexuals? Alcohol, imbibing, through shared responsiblity, yes. America still bans the hard drugs (e.g. Fentanyl) in social settings, although there is a right/rite of privacy (e.g. elective abortion, self-mutilation) or when you can get away with it.

      Republicans and Democrats like censorship, torture, and gulags on principle or exception?

      #HateLovesAbortion

  8. I thought every educated person knows the differences between fact, falsehood and opinion. But now that ignorance even spreads to former law professors like Lieawatha here – a classic, if uninspired by anything except her own ineptitude, liar.

  12. Don’t blame Princess Summerset Winterfall, blame the people who keep electing her to office. Remember what Gruber said about the American voters?

  13. The problem now is that the algorithms steer people toward the misinformation content. Someone reads a QAnon article and then there are multiple others suggested for them, reinforcing their beliefs.

    It is how people go down the rabbit hole, and how so many people doubt the vaccines now.

    1. And, why does this scare you? Something tells me you have no problem with people falling in the “rabbit holes” you believe in.

    2. A minority of a minority doubt vaccines. The majority are skeptical of treatments, with marginal safety data, known to produce excess adverse events and short-lived non-sterilizing immunity that increases the risk to the individual (e.g. NHS’s 6x greater viability in vaccinated individuals) and community (e.g. silent spreader).

    1. Nazis/communists/fascists/socailists All the same scumbag dogma in the same wolves clothing. Big goobermint , bigger goobermint , mandates , apparatchiks , And the only people left will be the square pegs they demand be hammered in round holes.
      The education system is purposely watered down and broken where it can be by the “state” so generations of goobers can be molded like clay…and are being so. Cradle to grave free this and free that , gimme dis , gimme dat…… and the band plays on. The state will pander and make multitudes of silly laws like bait on a hook until it feels time is right to simply take over , because big brother knows best…right ?.
      And so it goes , so it goes.

  16. Oh, where were the censors when Warren was claimimg that the allegations of collusion between President Trump and the Russian government are potentially worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down former President Richard Nixon. That’s the problem with cock-sure Democrats like Warren — they believe everything they think or say is “Truth,” so why bother with discussion and debate. Unfortunately, this attitude has permeated not only partisan politics, but academia as well. The sides can argue about this until the cows come home, but in the end, it all comes down to power.

  17. Call it a disguised book banning. Some start the campfire to burn the ones Warren doesn’t want read.

  18. Remember the old war movies with the plucky resistance fighter listening to the BBC while the sheep like Germans listened to Goebbels?

    Well we have reached a similar point, with thinking Americans taking on the role of resistance fighters.

    No challenge to guess who today’s Nazis are.

  19. It takes a pretty conceited person to believe she can decide what is suitable for others to read.

  20. YouTube is blocking all anti-vaccine content and banning prominent anti-vaccine activists
    YouTube is taking down several video channels associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists, including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site.

    YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous. The company previously blocked videos that made those claims about coronavirus vaccines but not ones for other vaccines, such as those for measles or chickenpox.

    1. Wonder when the package inserts for varricila and rubella portion of mMr will be censored? Re…the stem lines.
      Informed consent is via the govt approved boiler plate hand out. So I suppose a you tube about informed consent video will be akin to anti-vac?
      We’ll see…..no we’ll never know. Just like we don’t know why there is so much autism….except every kid mandated to communion with the DNA of same stem line….. How do we know that stem line wasn’t going to produce a disabled child?. The one that was aborted. Not electively.

Comments are closed.