CENSORSHIP AND ALTERNATIVES

            As the big social media outfits face Senate hearings and justice department pushback on both censorship and illegal bullying in the marketplace, it creates a practical conundrum.

             If you try to live a life of intention and integrity, the tension between expediency and consistency rears its ugly head in many ways.  If I believe in local business, do I pay 30 percent more for a product in a local store or get it on Amazon?  Mandatory face masks now muddy the water.  Do I go out in public, or just click and pick it up when it lands at my front door?

             Some thirty years ago we had this same issue when Wal-Mart came to town.  People were cultish about going to Wal-Mart and then we saw local businesses begin to die.  Interestingly, Amazon is now a lifeline for craft local businesses to access the world. 

             I've always tried to patronize the smaller entity just to preserve competition in the marketplace and to give a hand up to innovation.  The reason I'm typing this blog on an Apple computer is because when I was ready to buy my first computer Apple was struggling.  Many business pundits said it would die.  I decided I'd buy one just to help keep this struggling alternative in business.  I knew nothing about computers; all I wanted to do was preserve choice.  You're welcome, Apple.

             So now we come to the new tension du jour.  Social media.  The big orthodox platforms are censoring more and more aggressively.  Just last week Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook decided to purge holocaust deniers.  I've always liked these folks being able to spew their drivel into the idea marketplace because I can now know who they are, who they're affiliated with, and who not to give any credence.   For Facebook to decide I'm too stupid to ferret out the nuts is offensive and condescending.

             Amazon prohibited Sally Fallon Morell's new book, The Contagion Myth.  The censorship of anti-vaxers, anti-maskers--essentially anyone who dares to question the orthodox view--is growing daily.  I think hate speech and whackos participating in the public square is the best way in the world to know who they are.  That these media elitists think they are the arbiter of credible ideas is arrogant beyond description.

             For years I've refused to vote for either mainline political party candidate, choosing instead third party and mavericks because while inclusiveness is the public mantra, both main parties do everything possible to keep heretical views from the public's ears.  It's simply not helpful and not fair to bully ideas out of the public discourse, regardless of how crude, hateful, or weird. 

             Which brings me to my problem.  Right now, my personal and business platforms flow on these big bad guys' platforms.  But upstart platforms exist.  Indeed, we've found one that doesn't censor anything, including hate speech.  I'm reminded that Joe Rogan moved his podcast to Spotify for a cool $100 million.  That would certainly make the decision to move a little easier.

             But with 90 percent of the people on Facebook and my personal email account on gmail, the practical integrity question is am I willing to risk losing customers, losing listeners, losing readers to switch over to more inclusive platforms?  It's easy to rail against "the man."   It's hard to leave.

             If we (Polyface and I) left the mainline platforms, would you follow?