Carte Blanche: Clubhouse Gives Free Speech A Chance
SOPA Images
I recently participated in an open-ended discussion on Clubhouse – a new app in which users are able to participate in town hall that started with Joe Biden’s tax policies and ended with the effects of India’s economic liberalization in the 1990’s. This topic came from a PhD student from India who explained his skepticism of laissez-faire economics. He used the example of how domestic soda companies suffered when Coca-Cola was allowed to enter the Indian market due to decentralization. Coca-Cola was able to offer lower prices than domestic soda producers, so demand for the latter fell, and some of these companies eventually went belly-up or were bought by Coca-Cola. He had protectionist inclinations because, from his perspective, his favorite soda was a victim of greedy capitalism. Libertarians countered that lower prices reflected the positive aspect of free trade that allowing foreign direct investment to compete with domestic companies ultimately benefits consumers. This is correct, but I further assumed that if domestic competitors believed Coca-Cola was intentionally pricing them out, then they could’ve challenged under predatory pricing laws, which have been liberally utilized by India’s government against foreign corporations since the country’s economic liberalization.
The Clubhouse session ended before I could make this point, so I simply tapped on the man’s profile, clicked on his linked Twitter handle, and messaged him there. He expressed that he wasn’t aware of predatory pricing laws, so I explained what they are and after some back and forth I had alleviated his concerns about monopolistic behavior of foreign corporations. While I hold the belief that predatory pricing laws tend to hinder a true free market, especially if used too liberally, I considered this a win. India had long suffered from extreme central planning and protectionism and it’s important to recognize how market liberalization truly saved the country from economic ruin. Over the course of this interaction, I learned about economic revolution in India, and he learned about legal blockades to anti-competitive behavior in a liberalized economy.
This mutually civil and fruitful interaction highlights the tremendous potential of Clubhouse. It allows for the instantaneous and free exchange of ideas with people around the world – and much more effectively than Twitter or Facebook. In only a couple weeks on the app, I’ve expanded my own knowledge by engaging in dialogue with people of truly diverse backgrounds, while also sharing my libertarian perspective with many who are unfamiliar and/or skeptical of the philosophy. I’ve participated in many political discussions on the app and in almost every instance, my perspective has been well received. In the instances where other participants push back on my reasoning, it has always led to a civil exchange of opinions. The amount of respect that people of different viewpoints have for each other is almost shocking. It is a stark contrast to the overall vibe of Twitter and Facebook, where anytime you dare express political views, you can expect the irrational keyboard warriors to come at you. Not only that, but those platforms also have a history of censoring libertarian expression, and both Democrats and Republicans want to add another layer of government regulation onto that.
While Clubhouse’s terms of service prohibit racism and hate speech, it generally does not censor or record people’s lawful free speech because participants are able to self-regulate the room. For example, Justin Amash and Matt Kibbe recently held a room titled “Welcome to the Libertarian Party”, which was as essentially a Q&A session for those curious about the LP. It was a productive and positive conversation for about three hours until a participant asked Amash his opinion of the January 6th Capitol insurrection and then asserted that the despicable event should be supported by libertarians. Amash and Kibbe vehemently denounced this claim, rightly expressing that the insurrection was against basic human decency and certainly antithetical to the LP’s Non-Aggression Principal. Many others in the room echoed this sentiment and the combative troll left. Social pressure took care of the nuisance, who was exercising his First Amendment rights, and censorship was not needed.
To nobody’s surprise, mainstream media has already started to take aim at the unregulated structure of Clubhouse. The Washington Post complained, “the restrictions on recording has… made Clubhouse a seemingly safe place to spread lies or bully without consequences.” I have participated in rooms of all stripes and colors and have yet to experience any sort of bullying. Every now and then, debates might get heated enough to the point where one accuses another of lying or being naïve – a far cry from bullying. In fact, if the temperature of the room gets too hot, a moderator (who are users, not employees) usually jumps in to “reset the room”. When somebody does say something that doesn’t sound legitimate, they are often asked to clarify or provide a source. It’s akin to students debating in a college classroom, where professors often have to interject in healthy debate. The fact that the rooms aren’t recorded means users don’t have to worry about everything they say being forever archived on the internet. I fail to understand how this isn’t a positive for anyone except for officials in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The Post also grossly mischaracterizes Clubhouse as a place “used to spread misinformation about Covid-19 and racist and misogynistic content.” First of all, the Post is in no position to accuse others of spreading misinformation about the pandemic. Furthermore, if racists and misogynists want to assemble for a bigoted discussion, banning them from Clubhouse isn’t going to stop them. They can go to Zoom, or the numerous competitors listed in the same Post article, or just meet up in person. Nobody is forced to join these conversations. It actually gives reasonable people the opportunity to challenge bigotry by hopping into one of these intolerant rooms (which I haven’t come across).
Other publications are perpetuating this false narrative. Vanity Fair describes the app as an exclusive place where, “powerful users can go unchecked, leaving them free to promote racist ideas under the guise of posing legitimate questions or playing devil’s advocate.” The Verge declared, “Jewish users on the invite-only social network Clubhouse say they no longer feel safe on the app after a heated conversation Monday night, which many participants felt perpetuated racist stereotypes.” That’s right, one heated conversation makes this voluntary app unsafe for Jewish people (there are thousands of active rooms at every time of the day). And then there is Wired, who wrote a sympathy piece for Silicon Valley journalist Taylor Lorenz, who initially loved the app but eventually became one of its harshest critics because, “as a young woman, she had difficulty getting recognized to speak in the bigger rooms when she had something to say,” and she, “heard a lot of anti-media sentiment.” Those American media people are so oppressed!
None of the aforementioned articles talk about Sami Steigmann, the Holocaust survivor who has drawn crowds in the thousands on the app to hear his story and has had conversations with Uyghur activists. Nor do they mention the powerful conversations that happened between Uyghurs and Han-Chinese in which members of both groups shared their stories, sympathies, and frustrations about their inability to help. Of course, all of this free expression prompted the CCP to shut down the app, but we got a glimpse of what can happen when citizens who are controlled by government propaganda are able to break free from their bubble. I was recently in a room talking about Asian-American issues, and one man flippantly suggested that Chinese citizens have more freedoms than Americans. This prompted an emotionally charged response from a Cuban-American who escaped Cuba but only after most of her family had tragically fallen victim to Castro’s tyranny. America is far from perfect, but hearing first-hand accounts of the atrocities happening at the hands of authoritarians reminds us of how lucky we are to even be able to debate societal problems.
Fortunately, the Founders of this great country gave us the ability to debate freely. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” Clubhouse is a new-age vehicle for exercising these freedoms on a global level. So, spare me the woke journalist or politician who is concerned about bullying and discussions that don’t align with their preferred world view. If we keep restricting everyone’s ability to share their thoughts and experiences with others, then we are heading down a dangerous path that always leads to totalitarianism.
