But it is, though. That’s the reason for my concern. When I see “megacorp cracks down on right wing extremists” I get two things out of it: “Nazis having a bad day hooray” but also “megacorp can crack down on whoever it feels like”.
Those of us who are deliberately being branded as “leftist extremists” and being subjected to similar treatment by megacorps have good reason to be worried. Because while the alt-right can grab headlines when they’re persecuted*, their opponents often can’t.
Paypal is clearly doing this as a PR move to seem like a responsible anti-fascist force in society, but they aren’t, and they won’t protect us. So this development is happy but equally ominous, and it’s worrisome to see folks celebrating as though the system works.
it’s not clear to me that society at large functions apart from perceived norms and the systems which follow from those norms to make one course of action more difficult or onerous than another.
the latter include laws.
should there be stronger laws about hate speech and inciting violence in the united states. laws which could extend to the internet in some or fashion?
possibly. like melz said
it might be hard to codify that into law. some nations try. maybe the us should try. maybe that’s a good conversation to have.
even with that, law and law enforcement don’t always achieve justice. in fact, all too often even well meaning laws are used to further entrench the dominance of things like white supremacy and male patriarchy.
so
is always true. of corporate interest, and – ultimately – of law and government ( from which those corporate interests derive their legitimacy and power. )
meaning, sometimes you just got to take a win for a win. start there and say – yes: more of that and here’s the reasons why.
it’s that conversation that changes people’s understanding of the world, and it’s people’s understanding of the world which changes everything else.
no corporation, no law or government, no one person or leader is going to fix things and ever after let us live in harmony and perfection. nothing will ever protect us from all the possible what-ifs.
But the thing is: they’re going to do that anyway. As I’m sure you know, chunks of the left were being suppressed long before Alex Jones and Gab were inconvenienced, and they’ll continue to be silenced whether or not some leftists decide that it’s a good idea to stand in defence of the rights of fascists.
Standing on principle is of little value here. The corps don’t give a shit about consistency or precedent.
Myself, I also think it’s worth celebrating that at least a few of the right are going down at the same time. If people wanted to usefully make a fuss about corporate censorship, they needed to be doing it years ago.
I get this argument, but honestly, this happens regardless of what happens to the right wing. And the state is FAR more likely to crack down on the speech of the left anyway, historically speaking (such as what happened to Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, and other socialists, unionists, and anarchists during the first world war). The only times the hard right saw any serious attempts to constrain their speech was twice - during reconstruction, where the KKK and other organizations were officially labeled terrorist organizations and during the run up to the second world war (such as when FDR personally intervened to get Father Coughlin off the air). Since there, the state has done nothing to suppress the speech of the far right, and while at the same time, they’ve spied on and harassed left wing groups with impunity. Much the same can be said for mega corps - they were less likely to give such groups a platform into the early 90s (people like Jerry Springer and other day time talk shows being an exception), but that’s slowly been changing as the hard right has attempted to rebrand itself in a more respectable fashion, from a white supremacist movement to a white nationalist movement.
It’s likely irrelevant if we allow the far right to have a plat form in terms of a similar crackdown happening to the left, because that is going to happen anyway, at least if history is any indication. Left wing, anti-corporate speech, no matter how civil and respectable, is almost always going to receive the brunt of state and corporate attention in terms of curbing that language, even if we gave Alex Jones and his ilk prime time talk shows on one of the major networks (which has been happening on Fox News, with some figures who regularly spout hard right language with little to no repercussions).
Anyway, that’s my take on it… TLDR: left wing speech is going to be suppressed by the state and corporations, whether or not the right gets a platform… Also, @Wanderfound already sort of made this point, but I tried to add some new dimensions to it…
I would say that also
And then I would say more things, too, because I think we can do more than just look at a headline and give a or . I don’t think the more things need to be interpreted as a contradiction of your above point, but the existence of right-wing “concern driving trollies” does make it confusing.
I’m not suggesting that we need to take any kind of stand regarding Gab specifically. What happened to them happened and I’m not interested in defending them or something. But I am suggesting that this development should make us uncomfortable. You know, like if Richard Spencer got droned by the CIA I would be like but also
Well said.
I draw a different conclusion. I think it’s dangerous to accept uncritically PayPal’s or any other large institution’s implication that they will look out for us, or are accountable to us in any meaningful way, because this weakens our defenses against fascism in the future. So to me, this is a win on one front and a threat on another, and it’s worth acknowledging both.
Yeah, good point. I’m thinking about this not from a “rights” perspective but from a “power” perspective. So I’m not concerned about whether Gab’s rights are being violated or whether they get to have a platform, I’m concerned that PayPal has the power to do this. Because as you illustrated, that power will be directed occasionally against the Gabs of the world, but mostly against us.
your overall point is spot on but let’s not forget that even when the far right has been “oppressed” such as during the same time as coughlin was being pushed off the airwaves, the government was still taking note of and working for the oppression of those labeled “premature antifascists.”
That was a post-war, Cold War term. But, yes, during the 1930s and WWII the FBI was keeping a file on anyone who had the temerity to join or support the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain or who advocated on behalf of refugees from fascism.
i knew the term was anachronistic but i didn’t know what other term which conveyed the category so effectively. i first ran across that in studs terkel’s “the good war.”
Yeah, that’s kind of my point if it’s not entirely clear. The rarely gets fully suppressed in the US, and almost always has a platform. And as the overton window has been pulled further right, there is less and less room for even center-left ideas to get any serious attention. Much further out than that, and you’re considered a threat, on par with actual terrorists…
or 
. I don’t think the more things need to be interpreted as a contradiction of your above point, but the existence of right-wing “concern driving trollies” does make it confusing.
but also 
