Who Get's to Decide?

As is typical these days there are posts circulating on social media calling for signing of a petition to support the social media giant’s claim they will not support “fascist” posts.  I usually see these things circulated by liberals who are all about closing down what they consider hate speech.  Others might view the speech as dissenting speech, but in today’s world of vulgar and unedited though who really can be sure?  This leads to the question of the day, who decides what is fascist hate speech? 

Is there some all-knowing board of intellectual giants who’ve spent their lives studying the nuances of language and have the complete moral authority to render unquestionable decisions, or is it just some algorithms put together by some 20-something computer nerds who believe what they think is the only right way to think?

I’m guessing it’s the latter, and their decisions could be second-guessed if there is enough outrage, or the bottom line profit margins of the social platform are significantly impacted.

The funny thing about these calls and the people who support them is the mere fact they seek to limit speech, especially speech they don’t like, is a significant part of what fascism is.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism (a noun) as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (emphasis added).

The other features (dictator, nationalism, and racism) explain why the political opposition to the President is so eager to present him, or his followers as such.  It fits their political narrative regardless of what the actual behavior is.  Ask yourself, who was more dictatorial, the previous President who could ignore Congress, govern with his pen and his phone, and had the unquestioned support of the press, or this President who occasionally says outrageous things, but is challenged at every turn.  And as we see in the Mueller Report, accused of things unsupported by fact.

At the end of the day, how different is fascism from socialism?  Both call for social regimentation and as we see in socialist and communist states (according to Marx socialism is just an intermediate step to the communist ideal), the forcible suppression of opposition views.  Those who advocate for socialism seem a lot closer to the ideal of fascism than a market capitalist would.

So, at the end of the day, should some social media company have the right to limit speech in a nation that has codified the right to speech within its constitution?  My answer would be a qualified (i.e. limited) yes.  As a private entity, they are not limited as the government is, but with multi-billion dollar companies, we are (I think) in uncharted territory as far as their ability to support or challenge the nation-state.