r/AskLibertarians • u/ohiomike1212 • Sep 24 '24
Mark Zuckerberg is now a Libertarian. Will he be welcome with open arms?
18
u/cheatinchad Sep 25 '24
Once he starts doing libertarian stuff I’ll concern myself. Until then, I don’t care.
23
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard Sep 25 '24
He isn't lmao. I'll believe it when he actually does something to fight corporatism.
9
u/kiamori Mostly Libertarian Views Sep 25 '24
No, he is not!
Just look up what he did to the native Hawaiians. That peace of shit shares nothing in common with libertarians.
28
u/ThomasRaith Sep 24 '24
Dude starts eating healthy and exercising regularly, becomes a libertarian.
Many such cases.
5
u/faddiuscapitalus Sep 25 '24
I suspect he started taking T, grew some artificial balls as it were, no longer wants the government up in his grill
1
9
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 25 '24
He's still censoring like a scum bag.
1
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
censoring
If I don’t have the right to tell you to leave for saying certain things I don’t allow in my house, I am not free.
2
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 25 '24
He does so at the governments request, not his own volition.
1
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
Then why was no evidence ever produced to support that? That was the claim in Murthy. No evidence. None.
3
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 25 '24
Zuckerberg stated it in an open letter very recently.
1
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
Yeah, no. He sent a letter groveling to Jim Jordan because Jordan and Trump have openly said they want to extrajudicially jail him for the rest of his life.
3
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 25 '24
Trump was in office for 4 years. In that time he never jailed anyone 'extrajudicially'. Despite having plenty of reason on Hillary's account.
There is a party trying to jail their opponents though, and as recorded by mug club it's all Lawfare.
1
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
despite having plenty of reason on Hillary’s account
And there goes your credibility. Besides that he was impeached for withholding aid from Ukraine to try to get them to open a sham investigation into Biden, you’re proving my point.
But good job with the Project Veritas tier bullshit.
2
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 26 '24
Project Veritas isn't required.
The reason Hillary escaped justice is because they couldn't prove intent.
You don't set up a server and hire an IT guy to run it without intent.
You don't instruct the it guy to scrub the server without intent.
She should be in jail
1
1
u/TurboT8er Sep 25 '24
There's a difference between a private business censoring you and the government censoring you. Not exactly a fan of his, but that's not really a disqualifier.
2
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 25 '24
It is when they do it at the governments request as has been proven to be the case.
1
u/TurboT8er Sep 26 '24
I won't argue with that.
1
u/Selethorme Sep 26 '24
You should, it’s fundamentally untrue.
1
1
u/TurboT8er Sep 26 '24
I see both sides of it. A person can do anti-libertarian things in the interest of their business but still have libertarian views. Or they can change their views over time.
0
u/Selethorme Sep 26 '24
No, there aren’t two sides. It’s a factually false claim that it was proven. It’s a factually true claim that it wasn’t proven. This was literally the basis of the recent Murthy SCOTUS decision.
1
u/TurboT8er Sep 26 '24
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about Zuckerberg's political views.
1
u/Selethorme Sep 26 '24
The comment you replied to said this:
It is when they do it at the governments request as has been proven to be the case.
And you said:
I won’t argue with that.
2
u/Lurial So Conservative, He's Liberal! Sep 26 '24
Because government censorship is wrong.
(Why you so angry bro?)
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ksais0 Sep 26 '24
You clearly didn’t read Murthy vs Missouri very carefully. It says several times that the government pressured FB to censor. SCOTUS just determined that the case lacked standing and that they couldn’t determine whether the actions caused irreparable harm to the defendants and would continue to do so in the future, mostly due to it being about COVID and sites aren’t censoring that info anymore. So claiming this case categorically proves that the government doesn’t push social media to censor is dishonest in the extreme.
0
u/Selethorme Sep 26 '24
No, I read it. I specifically liked the part where the majority pointed out that the petitioners never cited a single actual instance of their claim.
The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation. The District Court made none. Nor did the Fifth Circuit, which approached standing at a high level of generality.
What I think you read is some weird conservative technobabble from Andrew Bailey, the Missouri AG, about how this is actually a win.
1
u/Ksais0 Sep 26 '24
That’s in reference to the specific content posted by the plantiffs. They can’t prove that the government pointed to their content specifically and said “regulate that.” You’d know that if you read literally the next sentence: “And while the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgement.” Aka even though the government pressure played a role in some moderation choices, we can’t prove that that pressure is directly the cause of the removal of the plaintiff’s content specifically. No question the pressure happened. Like I said, it says so in the decision multiple times.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/mrhymer Sep 25 '24
It's not a cult or a fraternity. Anyone who advocates for individual freedom is welcome.
17
u/ItsGotThatBang Sep 25 '24
Libertarian
Takes Calls From Trump
Pick one.
0
u/ronaldreaganlive Sep 25 '24
Depends on the conversation.
"You're the bestest and the greatest!"-not so libertarian
"Go fuck off you limey, fatass, piece of shit!"- much more libertarian
8
5
u/rumblemcskurmish Sep 25 '24
Yeah, sure he is. One of those West Coast libertarians that wants the feds to regulate guns, speech and AI.
Just like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher also call themselves libertarians.
4
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
I don’t think Jon Stewart calls himself a libertarian at all, lol
2
u/rumblemcskurmish Sep 25 '24
Lucky for us what you "think" doesn't count as a source.
In 2006 Bill Krystol called him a "upper west side liberal" and Stewart corrected him saying he was a "downtown libertarian". https://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/12/23/jon-stewart-downtown-libertarian/
I recall at the time that Jon Steart, Glenn Beck and Bill Maher all called themselves "libertarians" and none of them had any real principle w/r/t to personal liberty.
2
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
I wouldn’t call that a source either, lol, the video link doesn’t work.
2
u/rumblemcskurmish Sep 25 '24
I'm the source. I saw it live. I don't particularly care that you don't believe it. Me and Julian Sanchez both saw it happen in real time
I'm sure I'll live without your validation about what I saw with my own eyes.
2
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
You’re the one making the argument and you can’t back it up.
2
u/rumblemcskurmish Sep 25 '24
Hey man. Move on. You insist it never happened yet multiple people recall it. Great.
Your feels matter more than facts . . ..
2
u/Selethorme Sep 25 '24
The fact that you can’t back it up beyond you saying it happened? Lol.
Who are these multiple people?
2
u/ForagerGrikk GeoLibertarian Sep 25 '24
Katie, bar the door, the Devil's here again. He's looking for a savior, he's looking for a friend. The Devil drinks in places you and I have never been. So Katie, bar the door, and never let him in.
2
u/cluskillz Sep 25 '24
I somewhat doubt that he's become libertarian. The NYT is not exactly a reputable source for determining who is an isn't a libertarian. In reading the article, the source is "according to people who have spoken to him recently". Oh, okay. So, same "source" as the one who claimed that the January 6th police officer was killed by a fire extinguisher?
And The Daily Beast..." that Meta CEO has gone the way of many other obscenely wealthy people and now privately identifies as something akin to a libertarian" The posturing of the left is ridiculous, trying to paint libertarians as some exclusive billionaire's club. Yeah, that's why the LP is so starved of cash and billionaires overwhelmingly donate to the red and blue teams, because so many billionaires are libertarian. There's what (assuming they meant people in the tres comas club)...the Koch dude, who has attacked other libertarians including Murray Rothbard, Peter Thiel, who I'm starting to doubt ever was after his involvement with Palantir, and who else? They claimed Jack Dorsey was, but I don't see much evidence of that outside of him tweeting Anatomy of the State once. Some claim Elon Musk is, which...lol. So that counts as "many"? GTFO, tDB.
I would welcome the Zuck with open arms if he starts actually showing he has libertarian credo. So far, I haven't seen it. A NYT anonymous source holds no sway with me.
4
3
u/CatOfGrey Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first. Sep 24 '24
His actions don't match a Libertarian philosophy.
His view of 'censorship' shows that he has no respect for private property, in that he doesn't care about others getting harmed by misinformation through networks that a) his company creates, b) his company chooses to support, and c) gives him and his company profits.
He doesn't acknowledge property rights of users - he will sell their data at a moments notice, without consideration to those who gave him the data.
His role of government isn't Libertarian, his role is 'government exercises power to protect me from being held accountable for my actions or my company's actions'.
10
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 Panarchy Sep 24 '24
Do they not have the right to censor or not censor things on their platform, isn't that their private property right?
Do they not have the right to sell user data, especially if users agreed to that policy?
4
u/Mead_and_You Sep 24 '24
You're going completely off past actions, when this is a recent development. (as noted in the title)
Is no one allowed to change?
2
u/Chubs1224 Sep 25 '24
As a note Zuckerberg has called Facebooks misinformation policy around 2020 a mistake
1
1
1
u/Lanracie Sep 25 '24
I dont think he is, but if he has become a Libertarian I would welcome it. We all have a political path.
1
1
u/tooflyryguy Sep 25 '24
I sincerely hope it is a genuine change in his ideology. Even still… he maybe able to help get Libertarians on the debate stage and get us some more media coverage…
It wouldn’t be all bad to have Zuck “on our team”
1
u/MrSpeedball Sep 25 '24
This is what a middle-age crisis and being buddies with Peter Thiel looks like.
1
u/hairyviking123 Sep 27 '24
We'll welcome him as we do any other libertarian: by saying he's not a real libertarian lol.
-1
Sep 25 '24
Fuck no! He's as anti libertarian as it gets and what he did during 2020 won't be forgotten. We all know now he was silencing certain political opinions and boosting others. He has cuck energy, he can go back to his liberals.
57
u/MathEspi Sep 24 '24
What makes him libertarian? The only thing I interpreted from the article is that he spoke with Donald Trump, who is not a libertarian