“Modern technology companies have enabled misinformation to poison our information environment with little accountability to their users, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said at a White House press briefing on July 15. “They’ve allowed people who intentionally spread misinformation — what we call ‘disinformation’ — to have extraordinary reach.”

In follow-up questions, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed that the Biden administration is “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. … Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts .”

The single most on-point response to Psaki’s disclosure I’ve read so far comes from Glenn Greenwald via Twitter (the whole thread is worth a read): “There is no circumstance — none — in which it’s acceptable for the White House or any other agency of the government to be providing lists to Facebook of ‘problematic’ content it wants removed.”

Over the last few years, we’ve watched as politicians and bureaucrats of both major parties lean hard on social media platforms to act as, at turns, their unwilling soapbox providers and proxy censors.

Having spent decades browbeating and bribing the “mainstream media” into remaking itself as a stenography pool which reliably parrots every “official” pronouncement as indisputable fact, the American political class is beside itself over Internet freedom. That freedom frustrates the state’s near-monopoly on shaping public opinion. If there’s one thing politicians can’t stand, it’s competition.

What can we do about it, though?

While Facebook, Twitter, et al. are theoretically “private” companies, they’re vulnerable to retaliation through regulation or even prosecution should they defy their would-be masters in government. And the biggest players also seek the prize of “regulatory capture” — getting government on THEIR side in ways that prevent new competitors from cutting into their market share.

Short of abolishing the state itself (which I’m all for), there’s only one way to get the Donald Trumps, Joe Bidens, Josh Hawleys, and Adam Schiffs out of the social media bullying business.

We need to take away their social media access. Completely.

For obvious reasons, Facebook and Twitter aren’t going to do the right thing, which would be to ban all government officials and government employees and block access to all government IP addresses.

I’m surprised to hear myself saying “there oughta be a law,” but I guess there’s an exception to every rule.

The law I have in mind would impose a long prison term on any public official or government employee caught accessing social media.

Collecting a government paycheck? No social media. Not at work, not at home, not on your smartphone, not on your kid’s laptop. If you’re caught looking at Facebook or tweeting, you’re not just fired, you’re going to jail.

Like most of my great ideas, this one won’t happen. Such a law would have to be passed by the politicians themselves, and politicians never willingly limit their own power or their own freedom, only yours.

So I guess we’re back to abolishing the state, or at least looking for social media platforms that operate beyond the politicians’ reach.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“When the House revamped its rules in the early days of the pandemic to allow lawmakers to vote remotely,” Nicholas Fandos reports at the New York Times, “Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina was among 161 Republicans who sued to block the arrangement, arguing that it ‘subverts’ the Constitution.”

He was right, but times have changed. Formerly a critic, Norman’s now a fan. On June 29th, he notified the Clerk of the US House of Representatives that he was “unable to attend proceedings in the House Chamber due to the ongoing public health emergency,” designating a proxy (fellow South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson) to vote in his stead.

Oddly, the “public health emergency” which prevented Norman from traveling the 400 miles or so  from his home in Rock Hill, South Carolina to Washington, DC, proved no obstacle to a 1,400-mile trip from Rock Hill to Weslaco, Texas.

That’s where Norman turned up during his “inability” to attend House proceedings. It seems that “public health emergency” is Normanese for “too busy attending a Donald Trump whinefest to be bothered with irritating distractions like, you know, showing up for work.”

Until well in to the 19th century, members of Congress spent days, even weeks, traveling between their homes and Washington on foot, by horse, or by slow boat or ship. And Washington itself was an unpleasant, pestilential town.

Rail, steamboat, and the automobile cut travel time considerably, while the ever-increasing size and wealth of the federal government turned the city into, all things considered, a veritable pleasure garden.

For more than 200 years, if a member of Congress wasn’t present at the Capitol — in time of peace, in time of war, and yes, in time of pandemic — his or her vote was neither cast or counted.

The increasing reach of commercial air travel has reduced travel times between Washington anywhere else in the United States to hours, at most a day or so. Members of Congress have fewer, and less convincing, excuses for playing hooky than ever before.

For his “service,” Ralph Norman receives a salary of $174,000 per year, plus fantastic fringe benefits and a posh potential pension.

If Norman worked at Arby’s assembling French Dip sandwiches (a far more worthwhile and productive activity than anything Congress does), he’d make a lot less money. And if he got caught calling in with a “public health emergency” so he could attend a Tool concert, he’d almost certainly find himself looking for other work.

“Serving” in Congress should be harder, not easier, than the jobs of the people Congress lords it over. And those who don’t want to actually do the job should find themselves real work in the private sector instead of leeching off the taxpayers.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Toward the end of his otherwise tumultuous term, former President Donald Trump leaned into his role as Whiner In Chief to do something nice for all of us. Something minor and, in a sane world, completely non-controversial, but nice nonetheless.

“Showerheads —  you take a shower, the water doesn’t come out,” he complained. “You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair — I don’t know about you, but it has to be perfect.”

The reason: US Department of Energy “conservation rules” that limit how much water (2.5 gallons per minute) a shower head is allowed to pour over you.

And by golly, he did something about it (the water flow, not his hair):

He directed the US Department of Energy to roll back its restrictions to the glory days of 1992, when showers could still rain down cleanliness on you such that it was possible to get wet, washed, dry, and dressed during the last segment of “Unsolved Mysteries” and not miss the opening scene of “Seinfeld.” Or, unfortunately, the entirety of “Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After.”

It was a minor change,  however lovely, and not yet implemented by shower head manufacturers when the Biden Administration nixed it on July 16.

The excuse is “water conservation.” The real reason, one has to assume, is “because it was a Trump thing, and all Trump things must be undone.” The rule reversion probably won’t save an ounce of water.

For one thing, if you have to spend twice as long in the shower to get clean, using half as much water per minute doesn’t save any. It just wastes your time.

For another, weak showers drive many people back to an old-fashioned and much more water-wasteful alternative, the bath.

And, finally, a little secret: Anyone with a pair of needle-nose pliers and access to YouTube can quickly and easily build a time machine that re-locates your shower to the pre-1992 era!

Millions of Americans  have pulled the “flow restrictors” out of their shower heads, hopefully wagging their middle fingers in the direction of Washington, DC as they did so. Manufacturers are required to put those flow restrictors in the shower heads they sell, but you’re not required to leave them there. Yet.

If the Biden administration is serious about water conversation, it should look into options like reducing water-wasteful methanol subsidies instead of dirty tricks like mandating inferior shower experiences.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY