8 ms·

At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently

by Alupis 6y ago

At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently than, say a restaurant refusing service to a guy without a shirt or shoes on. We're clearly in uncharted territory, when it comes to the control and release of information. Just using Twitter and Facebook for example - they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics. Regardless what you think or feel about the guy, he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no? How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies?

wvenable 6y ago
> Regardless what you think or feel about the guy, he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no? So he aught to be able to grab a soap box and stand on your lawn every day and preach? He is a former US president so you are proposing he can go onto private property and say whatever he wants at any time. > How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies? Because you misunderstand free speech. Is the government going to arrest you for posting on twitter? No. However no one is required, not even the government, to provide you with a platform to speak on. You want free beer speech. Speech without paying for it. Speech without restriction of any kind by anyone at any time. Why should we care about that?
tw04 6y ago
>How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies? Quite easily. Freedom of speech is freedom from government suppression of that speech - it's quite clear in the constitution. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I or anyone else has to give you a platform to speak from.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  And antitrust laws are designed precisely to prevent corporations from monopolizing and abusing market position. Freedom of speech means I have the right to hear from people I choose to assemble with. Monopolies dominating the market for speech and then dictating the terms of speech is an antitrust situation. Not least of which because by the same mechanisms they can use to silence political opponents they can use to silence and squeeze out competition or mentions of competitors. This isn't crazy or unprecedented. We don't give unlimited contractual rights to landlords. You'd end up with a virtual serfdom otherwise. So we grant tenant rights exclusive of any contractual terms. Past time to do the same for social media participants.
  - tw04 6y ago
    That's apples and bananas. A more apt comparison would be: does your local newspaper HAVE to print anything you want on the front page? No? Then why should a social media site be forced to? Facebook doesn't control whether you pick up the phone and call your friend to voice your opinion. Twitter can't prevent you from driving to your local bar and telling your drinking buddies what you think of the president. Then again, the bar owner can kick you out of his establishment if he disagrees with your thoughts and gets sick of listening to you. Because again, your freedom of speech doesn't mean a business has to host you.
    - chabad360 6y ago
      > That's apples and bananas. A more apt comparison would be: does your local newspaper HAVE to print anything you want on the front page? No? Then why should a social media site be forced to? Yes, but there is the other side of that coin: a newspaper (as in the company) can get sued for libel or other such things, precisely because they have editorial control. It's seems that social media companies would like to have their cake and eat it too. They are explicitly protected from their users content (thanks to section 230), and yet they seem to flex this immunity by arbitrarily blocking users, often without recourse. IIRC they have even occasionally flipped between being publisher or a platform depending on the question. To be fair, there is no winning for large social media companies, either they preform this filtering and everyone hates on them, or they don't and everyone hates on them. I do not believe there is a perfect way to block only people who everyone agrees should be blocked, as every method has both false positives and false negatives.
hackersword 6y ago
They didn't "silence" him because his brand of politics. Their stated reason for banning him from their platform was literally " due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Their TOS have specific "Glorification of Violence policy", which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate. Further, the claim that Twitter "Silenced" the President of the United States, a man who literally has a press room in his house, and could have a room full of reporters convened at any hour of the day to speak to. He could issue any statement from official whitehouse channels and it would instantly be disseminated across every news outlet around the world. He chose not do those things, because he is a coward. The quintessential Keyboard Warrior/troll who likes to rile up people safe from any counter argument.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Everyone and their cat understands that it is hypocritical bullshit. They'd let his incitements slide easily if he was their political ally and not an opponent. I don't have a horse in that race, but it is disgusting how people defend this blatant and obvious bias as perfectly normal thing.
  - kvia 6y ago
    Twitter is a company, not a court of law. Trump tarnished their reputation like nobody else, so they ceased doing business with him when it was convenient. This was facilitated by him flagrantly violating their rules for years, culminating in the riot he incited via their platform. It's as simple as that.
    - gsich 6y ago
      Tarnished? No. Twitter was in the news every day. They profited massively, but now that his presidency is over there is no interest anymore.
      - kvia 6y ago
objclxt 6y ago
> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics 1. The second - and third, for that matter - most voted for President is Obama (69.5 and 65.9M votes). Trump is the fourth (62.9M votes)[1]. 2. He was not banned because he wasn’t ‘their brand of politics’, he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms. You can certainly argue Twitter and Facebook had - and have - a very inconsistent enforcement approach for those policies. But that’s not what you are saying. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
- Alupis 6y ago
  The guy got 74,216,154 votes in 2020. The second most votes in American History, only outclassed by the current President with 81,268,924 votes.[1] Your other point is based on your own personal political biases, which just furthers my point about these platforms controlling the release of information (or disinformation) to the general public. Just imagine if Twitter was a Right-Wing organization, and decided to silence the current President. How would that change this discussion? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    That probably would change the current discussion, yes. An amazing number of people would flip positions. For that to happen, though, the current president would have to do something that was at least colorable as a violation of terms and services. I haven't heard even right-wingers claim that this is so, so far. (But maybe I just haven't heard, not being one who listens to those circles.)
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Well, just like anything can be securities fraud, anything can be a political lie. It just depends on perspective.
willk 6y ago
> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics. I think that is disingenuous. Twitter said "specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter" [0]. It wasn't his brand of politics it was how his supporters were interpreting him and incitement of violence like what was seen when his supporters stormed the Capitol. [0]: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- ttt0 6y ago
  How it was interpreted was a mere interpretation in itself on Twitter's part. You can get rid of literally anyone for any reason if this is the standard. How about we get rid of these 'white privilege' theories, because people are interpreting it as if every single white person is somehow inherently racist and evil?
mustbedreaming 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter are not essential platforms, and I detest the idea that they must be made to allow anyone to say anything on them. If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there. He can write letters to the editors of news sites and see if they’ll publish them. He can do TV interviews - any network would kill for those ratings right now. Or he can stand outside and yell. No one is entitled to a privately owned platform publishing their demonstrably violent rhetoric, even if they’re famous. Media platforms have always been allowed to be gatekeepers of whatever content they choose; the internet age didn’t change that.
dopamean 6y ago
I'll never understand the argument that Trump was "silenced." As you said, he's a former US president. He has ample resources to get his word out. The only people who think he has been silenced are people who spend too much time on twitter or people who are being disingenuous.
- tryonenow 6y ago
  >If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    > And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? I don't believe that "violent overthrow of the democratic process" specifically is a valid political position. I am comfortable discriminating against it. I am also comfortable with private parties exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of expression. > Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? Yes, or find someone else to do business with. Or... change your behavior so it is less objectionable to those companies. I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas. Some ideas thrive and grow, others wither and die. The first amendment is a mandate for minimal governmental regulation so the forces of competition can evaluate ideas. > How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? We don't allow it at all, that's why these companies are able to set these policies and issue bans. Exercising first amendment rights is not tyranny. > If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case. You could also call this "social discrimination" and reuse the ideas of protected classes. But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas. Regulating social consensus and private beliefs is itself tyranny. The constitution is clearly designed to prevent exactly that outcome. > Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression. This is not "literally oppression". There is no evidence that there was any collusion, only that violent overthrow of democratic processes is widely objectionable to many corporations and individuals. That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas.
literallyWTF 6y ago
Are you seriously equating inciting an insurrection with “not their brand of politics”?
- ctdonath 6y ago
  What insurrection?
  - literallyWTF 6y ago
    Oh I don’t know, I think it was that mob of people who were spurred into literally storming the US Capitol building? Ya know, that mob that followed the beck and call of a man who still refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy and results of democratic election? Yeah I think that was the one...
    - ctdonath 6y ago
      Is this an insurrection: https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1380216557700284422?s=20 https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1380216557700284422?s=2... ? Happening now, same idea. Of course not, just like the Jan 6 incident wasn’t. An insurrection involves intent to overthrow government, not merely protest.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zapnuk 6y ago
> second-most voted for President in American history The population of the USA is continuously rising. This is not an achievement. All it takes is an unusual voter turnout and a somewhat close election. > because he isn't their brand of politics. No. They banned him because at that time they determined that his violence encouraging speech was a real danger to society. > he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no? Also no. Traditionally, former presidents live a more private life to pave the way for a new generation of politics. And even if you think he should be able to continue to influence the day-to-day political news, he has the ability to release press statements and contact any media outlet he wants. Trump literally is an example that being banned from social media does NOT limit his public speech. Anything he puts out is discussed in mainstream media. Just a few days ago we were informed of his utterly stupid idea of using cancel culture to protest cancel culture.
sdenton4 6y ago
How did previous generations claim to value free speech when mainly reading heavily curated newspapers and watching network television? (...where you could famously prick your finger, but not the reverse...) We can tolerate the existence of nazis, but there's no obligation to give them a platform.
bastardoperator 6y ago
Free speech protects you from the Government, that's it. We as society commonly confuse free speech with free from consequence speech which doesn't exist. Donald Trump is the reason Donald Trump has been silenced.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
fennecfoxen 6y ago
n.b. "aught" means "anything at all", as in the opposite of "naught" (nothing at all). you are looking for "ought".
smoe 6y ago
> he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks Honest question: Why? It is a bit my outside perspective that the US has too big of person cult thing going. Not just in politics and independent of brand.
amalcon 6y ago
That "censorship and silencing" is just those platforms using their free speech back. If you think the corporations running these platforms don't have that right, you'll want to meaningfully differentiate this decision from e.g. the decision of Fox News to not give equal airtime to someone like AOC. I think both of those platforms should have editorial discretion.
zp33 6y ago
It's Trumps own fault that he chose Twitter to be his way of messaging the public. Why not build whitehouse.gov/words_from_the_pres? Twitter isn't funded by taxpayers and we aren't entitled to it.

by Alupis 6y ago

wvenable 6y ago

> Regardless what you think or feel about the guy, he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no? So he aught to be able to grab a soap box and stand on your lawn every day and preach? He is a former US president so you are proposing he can go onto private property and say whatever he wants at any time. > How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies? Because you misunderstand free speech. Is the government going to arrest you for posting on twitter? No. However no one is required, not even the government, to provide you with a platform to speak on. You want free beer speech. Speech without paying for it. Speech without restriction of any kind by anyone at any time. Why should we care about that?

tw04 6y ago

>How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies? Quite easily. Freedom of speech is freedom from government suppression of that speech - it's quite clear in the constitution. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I or anyone else has to give you a platform to speak from.

chrisco255 6y ago
And antitrust laws are designed precisely to prevent corporations from monopolizing and abusing market position. Freedom of speech means I have the right to hear from people I choose to assemble with. Monopolies dominating the market for speech and then dictating the terms of speech is an antitrust situation. Not least of which because by the same mechanisms they can use to silence political opponents they can use to silence and squeeze out competition or mentions of competitors. This isn't crazy or unprecedented. We don't give unlimited contractual rights to landlords. You'd end up with a virtual serfdom otherwise. So we grant tenant rights exclusive of any contractual terms. Past time to do the same for social media participants.
- tw04 6y ago
  That's apples and bananas. A more apt comparison would be: does your local newspaper HAVE to print anything you want on the front page? No? Then why should a social media site be forced to? Facebook doesn't control whether you pick up the phone and call your friend to voice your opinion. Twitter can't prevent you from driving to your local bar and telling your drinking buddies what you think of the president. Then again, the bar owner can kick you out of his establishment if he disagrees with your thoughts and gets sick of listening to you. Because again, your freedom of speech doesn't mean a business has to host you.
  - chabad360 6y ago
    > That's apples and bananas. A more apt comparison would be: does your local newspaper HAVE to print anything you want on the front page? No? Then why should a social media site be forced to? Yes, but there is the other side of that coin: a newspaper (as in the company) can get sued for libel or other such things, precisely because they have editorial control. It's seems that social media companies would like to have their cake and eat it too. They are explicitly protected from their users content (thanks to section 230), and yet they seem to flex this immunity by arbitrarily blocking users, often without recourse. IIRC they have even occasionally flipped between being publisher or a platform depending on the question. To be fair, there is no winning for large social media companies, either they preform this filtering and everyone hates on them, or they don't and everyone hates on them. I do not believe there is a perfect way to block only people who everyone agrees should be blocked, as every method has both false positives and false negatives.

hackersword 6y ago

They didn't "silence" him because his brand of politics. Their stated reason for banning him from their platform was literally " due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Their TOS have specific "Glorification of Violence policy", which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate. Further, the claim that Twitter "Silenced" the President of the United States, a man who literally has a press room in his house, and could have a room full of reporters convened at any hour of the day to speak to. He could issue any statement from official whitehouse channels and it would instantly be disseminated across every news outlet around the world. He chose not do those things, because he is a coward. The quintessential Keyboard Warrior/troll who likes to rile up people safe from any counter argument.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Everyone and their cat understands that it is hypocritical bullshit. They'd let his incitements slide easily if he was their political ally and not an opponent. I don't have a horse in that race, but it is disgusting how people defend this blatant and obvious bias as perfectly normal thing.
- kvia 6y ago
  Twitter is a company, not a court of law. Trump tarnished their reputation like nobody else, so they ceased doing business with him when it was convenient. This was facilitated by him flagrantly violating their rules for years, culminating in the riot he incited via their platform. It's as simple as that.
  - gsich 6y ago
    Tarnished? No. Twitter was in the news every day. They profited massively, but now that his presidency is over there is no interest anymore.
    - kvia 6y ago

objclxt 6y ago

> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics 1. The second - and third, for that matter - most voted for President is Obama (69.5 and 65.9M votes). Trump is the fourth (62.9M votes)[1]. 2. He was not banned because he wasn’t ‘their brand of politics’, he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms. You can certainly argue Twitter and Facebook had - and have - a very inconsistent enforcement approach for those policies. But that’s not what you are saying. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

Alupis 6y ago
The guy got 74,216,154 votes in 2020. The second most votes in American History, only outclassed by the current President with 81,268,924 votes.[1] Your other point is based on your own personal political biases, which just furthers my point about these platforms controlling the release of information (or disinformation) to the general public. Just imagine if Twitter was a Right-Wing organization, and decided to silence the current President. How would that change this discussion? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  That probably would change the current discussion, yes. An amazing number of people would flip positions. For that to happen, though, the current president would have to do something that was at least colorable as a violation of terms and services. I haven't heard even right-wingers claim that this is so, so far. (But maybe I just haven't heard, not being one who listens to those circles.)
  - Alupis 6y ago
    Well, just like anything can be securities fraud, anything can be a political lie. It just depends on perspective.

willk 6y ago

> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics. I think that is disingenuous. Twitter said "specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter" [0]. It wasn't his brand of politics it was how his supporters were interpreting him and incitement of violence like what was seen when his supporters stormed the Capitol. [0]: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

ttt0 6y ago
How it was interpreted was a mere interpretation in itself on Twitter's part. You can get rid of literally anyone for any reason if this is the standard. How about we get rid of these 'white privilege' theories, because people are interpreting it as if every single white person is somehow inherently racist and evil?

mustbedreaming 6y ago

Facebook and Twitter are not essential platforms, and I detest the idea that they must be made to allow anyone to say anything on them. If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there. He can write letters to the editors of news sites and see if they’ll publish them. He can do TV interviews - any network would kill for those ratings right now. Or he can stand outside and yell. No one is entitled to a privately owned platform publishing their demonstrably violent rhetoric, even if they’re famous. Media platforms have always been allowed to be gatekeepers of whatever content they choose; the internet age didn’t change that.

dopamean 6y ago

I'll never understand the argument that Trump was "silenced." As you said, he's a former US president. He has ample resources to get his word out. The only people who think he has been silenced are people who spend too much time on twitter or people who are being disingenuous.

tryonenow 6y ago
>If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression.
- mulmen 6y ago
  > And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? I don't believe that "violent overthrow of the democratic process" specifically is a valid political position. I am comfortable discriminating against it. I am also comfortable with private parties exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of expression. > Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? Yes, or find someone else to do business with. Or... change your behavior so it is less objectionable to those companies. I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas. Some ideas thrive and grow, others wither and die. The first amendment is a mandate for minimal governmental regulation so the forces of competition can evaluate ideas. > How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? We don't allow it at all, that's why these companies are able to set these policies and issue bans. Exercising first amendment rights is not tyranny. > If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case. You could also call this "social discrimination" and reuse the ideas of protected classes. But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas. Regulating social consensus and private beliefs is itself tyranny. The constitution is clearly designed to prevent exactly that outcome. > Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression. This is not "literally oppression". There is no evidence that there was any collusion, only that violent overthrow of democratic processes is widely objectionable to many corporations and individuals. That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas.

literallyWTF 6y ago

Are you seriously equating inciting an insurrection with “not their brand of politics”?

ctdonath 6y ago
What insurrection?
- literallyWTF 6y ago
  Oh I don’t know, I think it was that mob of people who were spurred into literally storming the US Capitol building? Ya know, that mob that followed the beck and call of a man who still refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy and results of democratic election? Yeah I think that was the one...
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    Is this an insurrection: https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1380216557700284422?s=20 https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1380216557700284422?s=2... ? Happening now, same idea. Of course not, just like the Jan 6 incident wasn’t. An insurrection involves intent to overthrow government, not merely protest.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zapnuk 6y ago

> second-most voted for President in American history The population of the USA is continuously rising. This is not an achievement. All it takes is an unusual voter turnout and a somewhat close election. > because he isn't their brand of politics. No. They banned him because at that time they determined that his violence encouraging speech was a real danger to society. > he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no? Also no. Traditionally, former presidents live a more private life to pave the way for a new generation of politics. And even if you think he should be able to continue to influence the day-to-day political news, he has the ability to release press statements and contact any media outlet he wants. Trump literally is an example that being banned from social media does NOT limit his public speech. Anything he puts out is discussed in mainstream media. Just a few days ago we were informed of his utterly stupid idea of using cancel culture to protest cancel culture.

sdenton4 6y ago

How did previous generations claim to value free speech when mainly reading heavily curated newspapers and watching network television? (...where you could famously prick your finger, but not the reverse...) We can tolerate the existence of nazis, but there's no obligation to give them a platform.

bastardoperator 6y ago

Free speech protects you from the Government, that's it. We as society commonly confuse free speech with free from consequence speech which doesn't exist. Donald Trump is the reason Donald Trump has been silenced.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fennecfoxen 6y ago

n.b. "aught" means "anything at all", as in the opposite of "naught" (nothing at all). you are looking for "ought".

smoe 6y ago

> he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks Honest question: Why? It is a bit my outside perspective that the US has too big of person cult thing going. Not just in politics and independent of brand.

amalcon 6y ago

That "censorship and silencing" is just those platforms using their free speech back. If you think the corporations running these platforms don't have that right, you'll want to meaningfully differentiate this decision from e.g. the decision of Fox News to not give equal airtime to someone like AOC. I think both of those platforms should have editorial discretion.

zp33 6y ago

It's Trumps own fault that he chose Twitter to be his way of messaging the public. Why not build whitehouse.gov/words_from_the_pres? Twitter isn't funded by taxpayers and we aren't entitled to it.