In the past, I was involved with the platform Parler as a strategic investor.  I wrote an article regarding Facebook and its then newly anointed supreme court, empowered to deplatform users, which they called an "oversight board."  They condemned people to a digital inquisition.

People who claim to be free speech activists did not condemn the concept of this council, empowered with the privileges of condemning people to a digital death penalty.  They argued about who was on the council and its composition, thereby accepting the legitimacy of the council itself and leaving only a dispute about who should control it.  They tossed aside principle for power.

When Parler started to grow, the founder asked me if I had suggestions regarding who could lead policy there.  I suggested someone whom the founder decided to hire, who was a self-avowed NeverTrump, objectivist, and free speech and privacy advocate.  Viewpoint diversity was important, and viewpoint discrimination was not to be tolerated from a neutral perspective.  Some people working at Parler objected to the hire, forgetting Parler's original mission to promote free speech, free expression, open debate, civil discourse, and civil dialogue without subjecting those conversations to surveillance.  We were skeptical of content moderation from a perspective of humility and respect for our users.

Now I read so many pathetic people inserting their opinions on how Elon Musk will compose the Twitter content moderation council.  Again, we are faced with no objections to the idea of content moderation and no objections to banning.  There are no objections to the digital inquisition that ends people's digital careers.  What these people really want, in my opinion, is a guarantee from the Twitter council that they will not be banned for their content, nor will their fans, friends, and allies.

Nobody seems to have any problem with Apple and Google being the final arbiter as long as he gets access to an audience.  What is most difficult and requires courage is to advocate against the idea of content moderation.  I predicted that when Parler was deplatformed, it would be the last platform to speak out against content moderation.  Respecting the privacy of the people who engaged on the platform, without subjected them to surveillance, was our goal.  If you read the Terms of Service of any or all of the so-called social media platforms, you will see that there is no appetite to eliminate content moderation.

The choice is simple: free speech and data sovereignty without surveillance, or subordinate yourself to Apple and Google.  Obviously, the path of least resistance is to acquiesce to the requirements Apple and Google demand to have access to their devices in their respective App Stores.  Or there is a principled commitment to free speech, data sovereignty, and the absence of surveillance.

I am a free speech absolutist, an anarcho-capitalist who defends the right to encrypt.  Surveillance should exist only under the conditions defined by the Fourth Amendment.  Data are our property and should be portable.  I am saddened by the fact that it is much easier to defend content moderation than to defend the absence of content moderation and the absence of surveillance.

I do not deny the right of any privately owned business to determine the rules upon which access is granted, yet the right of speech that is the hardest to defend, speech that offends, is now deemed a threat to our constitutional republic.  In fact, the defense of offensive political views was an attribute of our constitutional republic and necessary to preserve and keep it.

I am defending what should be the most defensible point of view: freedom.  Those who are putting at risk our constitutional republic are those who subvert features and attributes of the design we inherited from our Founders.  They are changing our system, without our consent, to a system where there are no inalienable rights, but privileges dispensed by those in power in an authoritarian manner.  That is indefensible.

Jeffrey Wernick is a former strategic investor in Parler and Gab.

Image via Max Pixel.