Private prejudice

I’m not sure how to feel about this particular issue:

This is another scary example of corporate censorship. Now yes, I know that the First Amendment only applies to the government, but with just a few big corporations having control over the distribution of information, such as Apple and Google, and these big corporations enforcing the political correctness of the political left, the future looks scary. A few months ago, Google punished me by removing the ads from my blog. This month, Apple prevents a conservative church from spreading its message on Apple devices. I don’t like where this is headed.

On one hand, Half Sigma is correct – corporate censorship seems scary.

On the other hand, if government got a lot smaller (which would be good) I think we’d see a lot more prejudice. When people are freed, they don’t want to live near people they don’t like, put up with ideas they don’t like, or generally have to deal with the "benefits of diversity" (even diversity of opinion).


2 Responses to Private prejudice

  1. Anon Again says:

    To what extent does corporate censorship recapitulate local anti-discrimination laws?

    Don’t these laws have a habit of creating a “PC” bureaucracy which then affects the corporate mindset?

    After a few years lawsuit-proofing itself, even the most conservative newspaper won’t publish an editorial questioning the wisdom of such laws, and the activist networks will constantly broaden the definition of discrimination.

  2. Handle says:

    The essence of what is legitimate in anti-trust thought is that if one lives in a society where, if they must seek the provision of some particular good or service, they can only get it from one dominant entity – there is little practical difference to that person whether that entity is the government (as in a Socialist society) or a large government-aligned corporate monopoly or oligopoly.

    I say “aligned” because you don’t have to go to Singapore to see that many of our “private” corporations are quickly transforming into state-capitalist corporatist enterprises – dependent on the favor of the ruling class for their rent-seeking legal protections, and offering lucrative revolving-door positions to entice government agents to make the “right” call. GE is a great example of this – and they have the best tax-lawyers in the world, many of whom worked for Treasury at some point.

    The exercise of power over the individual’s life does not necessarily imply the threat of coercion, only conditions that would not exist or long survive in a truly competitive marketplace.

    Back in the pre-internet era, the entire press apparatus was thoroughly dominated by Blue-Media. Just because it was “private” and “competitive” did not mean it was essentially a blue-government-aligned oligopoly which shaped information flow, manufactured consent and public opinion, and therefore served as a mechanism of the exercise of great power over the individual – power which the internet has routed around, much to our satisfaction.

    A great, quick read of the relentless chronicling of this phenomenon can be found in Ann Coulter’s, <a href=""Slander. It shows it’s pre-internet, pre-Fox-domination-era age, but the utter mindless uniformity of slant in the coverage of every single news event will frequently make you laugh.

    There’s no doubt that blue-media has some kind of Spontane Gleichschaltung mechanism, and in the journ-o-list-II era, maybe not so Spontane. I was listening to NPR yesterday morning, and it was clear they had gotten the memo from the White House not to say the word “war”, and so you have the comedy of some Gallup poll analyst catching himself when trying to express a concept in natural English,

    This is a much lower level of support in this poll than in most previous times when America has gone to … uh …. I mean, when our country has been at … ummm …. you know … ahh … during these kinds of military events and situations involving … oh, ehh … defense actions, you know.

    And you’re right, more competition in the press has only left the blue-media must more blatant in it’s marketing of prejudice to the prejudiced.

    Trust-busting is an area fraught with legal and economic confusions, but in terms of a social vision where the individual is as free as possible from the exercise of arbitrary power over his options – I think it has a place even in a Reactionary society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: