YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/first-amendment-doesnt-apply-on-youtube-judges-reject-prageru-lawsuit/
245 comments
How the heck do such wild, ludicrously wrong misunderstandings propagate when it's so trivial to just pull up a search engine or Wikipedia or the like and type "Section 230" and see the law itself (as well as subsequent court rulings and ample discussion)? This post is nearly completely wrong. First, here is what Section 230 actually says:
>Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Note there are no requirements for "neutrality", or for perfection or any other such thing. "Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post" is completely incorrect. A service that carries anything neutrally short of a lawful order is covered under Common Carrier status, which is a different thing. Before 230, Internet services faced two choices: to be perfectly neutral and engage in no moderation and thus not be responsible under common carrier, or else to engage in moderation, fail to be 100% perfect at it, and after inevitably having something bad posted get sued for it and end up being ruled the "publisher or speaker". This would destroy all real time user content posting, and potentially user content posting in general.
The point of 230 was precisely to allow imperfect and biased moderation and content enforcement by real time (or close) private platforms without assuming legal responsibility for what users published. Quite arguably more than any other law in existence it's what made the modern Internet possible.
>Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Note there are no requirements for "neutrality", or for perfection or any other such thing. "Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post" is completely incorrect. A service that carries anything neutrally short of a lawful order is covered under Common Carrier status, which is a different thing. Before 230, Internet services faced two choices: to be perfectly neutral and engage in no moderation and thus not be responsible under common carrier, or else to engage in moderation, fail to be 100% perfect at it, and after inevitably having something bad posted get sued for it and end up being ruled the "publisher or speaker". This would destroy all real time user content posting, and potentially user content posting in general.
The point of 230 was precisely to allow imperfect and biased moderation and content enforcement by real time (or close) private platforms without assuming legal responsibility for what users published. Quite arguably more than any other law in existence it's what made the modern Internet possible.
> How the heck do such wild, ludicrously wrong misunderstandings propagate
Hypothesis: in the modern era, perhaps thanks to strong belief in freedom of speech and support for said belief baked into our mass bidirectional communications tools on the internet, false beliefs can easily outstrip true facts on publicly-accessible fora because false beliefs greatly outnumber true facts.
Hypothesis: in the modern era, perhaps thanks to strong belief in freedom of speech and support for said belief baked into our mass bidirectional communications tools on the internet, false beliefs can easily outstrip true facts on publicly-accessible fora because false beliefs greatly outnumber true facts.
This argument has become a meme at this point. EFF debunks it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
>These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines.
No. If HN removes spam or off topic content or anything else, it does not automatically mean that it's suddenly liable for someone posting libel and getting sued over it. That wasn't the intent of the law from the text, and it was never interpreted that way.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
>These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines.
No. If HN removes spam or off topic content or anything else, it does not automatically mean that it's suddenly liable for someone posting libel and getting sued over it. That wasn't the intent of the law from the text, and it was never interpreted that way.
EFF's word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it's a settled debate. I'm here to say there's another side and present that viewpoint.
As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz's line of question from the article you linked. And I don't think EFF's solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see.
But this misses the entire point. Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. They've proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith.
Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see.
But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.
As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz's line of question from the article you linked. And I don't think EFF's solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see.
But this misses the entire point. Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. They've proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith.
Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see.
But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.
I'm not sure where you (or Sen. Cruz) are getting this interpretation from. Section 230 exists because Congress recognized that the then-only options of "common carrier" and "publisher" were too binary and didn't account for anything in between. It explicitly allows owners of content platforms that have moderation/curation in place to avoid liability for what their users publish.
I'm not saying it's good that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don't like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly allows them to do that, not the opposite.
I'm not saying it's good that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don't like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly allows them to do that, not the opposite.
What you're describing is illegal. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government cannot (at least outside of very specific circumstances - like an employer informing employees of workplace protections) make companies publish content. If congress tried to pass a law forcing YouTube to host PragerU's content, that would get immediately thrown out by the courts.
>But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.
Section 230 explicitly states they can restrict access to constitutionally protected content. You can disagree that the law should allow that, but I can't understand how you can read the section that way.
Section 230 explicitly states they can restrict access to constitutionally protected content. You can disagree that the law should allow that, but I can't understand how you can read the section that way.
> They've proven that they are nakedly partisan
Cite your claim here. If PragerU is dropped for being conservative, but FB helped a conservative president, how can you lump these two?
> Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. Maybe go after this aspect if you believe they are suppressing other content providers.
> Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. Maybe go after this aspect if you believe they are suppressing other content providers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you believe Facebook is a monopoly, then the solution is to break up its monopoly, not to compel it to behave a certain way in its capacity as a monopoly.
In the past, other remedies have been found. For some time, there was a status called "common carrier". Firms that were considered common carriers certainly were compelled to behave in certain ways. Now they've paid lobbyists and lawyers lots of money so that doesn't exist anymore. Still, it isn't inconceivable that legislators who really valued the public good could create a "common online service" status to cover this and similar situations.
This doesn't make any sense. The common carrier status still exists. It doesn't make sense to apply it to particular websites unless Congress acts to create a new law.
As a supporter of EFF, I wish they had found space in that piece to talk about the monopoly in online video that Alphabet enjoys. If Youtube had to stand on its own feet as a profitable service, different editorial choices would be made. So fortunate, for them, that we've allowed them the massive subsidy of Alphabet's massive online advertising business...
>As a supporter of EFF, I wish they had found space in that piece to talk about the monopoly in online video that Alphabet enjoys.
In the same spirit, I wish you had space to discuss PragerU's fracking billionaire funded fossil fuel propaganda.
https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-the-greenest-ener...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo&vl=en
From the Wiki:
>Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[2][4]
Not to mention all the heavily funded global warming denialism pushed by it.
In the same spirit, I wish you had space to discuss PragerU's fracking billionaire funded fossil fuel propaganda.
https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-the-greenest-ener...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo&vl=en
From the Wiki:
>Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[2][4]
Not to mention all the heavily funded global warming denialism pushed by it.
In the same spirit...
What spirit is that? Have you sent me money? Do you wear hats and T-shirts with my name on them? b^)
Seriously, though, we have plenty of space here. It doesn't surprise me that rich people like to give money to people who agree that those same rich people should be rich. Basically everything I see on TV, and certainly all the ads, amount to the same thing. With all of their vast resources, the Wilks haven't managed to keep the message of global warming from reaching me.
Isn't that curious? Here you have several actual billionaires, allied with a variety of vaguely telegenic pundits, and Alphabet swats them away without even really making an effort. That's the monopoly I was talking about. You may celebrate when speakers you dislike are silenced, but it makes me wonder who else is being silenced, who because they're not billionaires never even came to my attention.
What spirit is that? Have you sent me money? Do you wear hats and T-shirts with my name on them? b^)
Seriously, though, we have plenty of space here. It doesn't surprise me that rich people like to give money to people who agree that those same rich people should be rich. Basically everything I see on TV, and certainly all the ads, amount to the same thing. With all of their vast resources, the Wilks haven't managed to keep the message of global warming from reaching me.
Isn't that curious? Here you have several actual billionaires, allied with a variety of vaguely telegenic pundits, and Alphabet swats them away without even really making an effort. That's the monopoly I was talking about. You may celebrate when speakers you dislike are silenced, but it makes me wonder who else is being silenced, who because they're not billionaires never even came to my attention.
I get that, but what happens when the big ISPs decide to moderate content? They're private businesses too...
Isn't that what started the movement for Net Neutrality in the first place? They were going to start charging us to provide YouTube, etc.
I agree that this is a bad legal argument, but I do think there's an underlying issue, even if it's not an issue with YouTube itself.
Granted, the best way to deal with that might be to attach some sort of neutrality provisions to the various contracts they have to agree to in order to lay fiber, get spectrum, etc. rather than deciding what websites can and can't do.
Isn't that what started the movement for Net Neutrality in the first place? They were going to start charging us to provide YouTube, etc.
I agree that this is a bad legal argument, but I do think there's an underlying issue, even if it's not an issue with YouTube itself.
Granted, the best way to deal with that might be to attach some sort of neutrality provisions to the various contracts they have to agree to in order to lay fiber, get spectrum, etc. rather than deciding what websites can and can't do.
I believe ISPs are common carriers, so a different set of laws apply to them.
Net Neutrality had to nothing to do with partisan content, it was about charging senders of the data extra, based on the type of bits, e.g video content.
Net Neutrality had to nothing to do with partisan content, it was about charging senders of the data extra, based on the type of bits, e.g video content.
As long as they can charge senders of data, surely they can do so in a partisan way?
I would agree that they shouldn't, but I don't know if I can say that they won't.
I would agree that they shouldn't, but I don't know if I can say that they won't.
> Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post
as has been pointed out in other comments[1], this isn't true, and is also irrelevant to PagerU's first amendment argument, which definitely was the heart of their claim.
[1] e.g. root at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434592
as has been pointed out in other comments[1], this isn't true, and is also irrelevant to PagerU's first amendment argument, which definitely was the heart of their claim.
[1] e.g. root at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434592
You're also wrong in that these are not inherently conflicting things. A platform can moderate their content AS WELL AS have immunity from what their users post.
> Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post.
I don't believe that is true. There is nothing in the law that says the platforms can't select or edit what their users post.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
I don't believe that is true. There is nothing in the law that says the platforms can't select or edit what their users post.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
I don' believe your interpretation is correct. I believe the law assumes that platforms are treating all content equally. But they're not.
Even if the content was originally provided by someone else, the platform is making the decision to promote some content and demote other content. In other words, they are making active decisions about what content they'd like to have appear on their supposedly neutral platform.
Even if the content was originally provided by someone else, the platform is making the decision to promote some content and demote other content. In other words, they are making active decisions about what content they'd like to have appear on their supposedly neutral platform.
> I believe the law assumes...
That's not how law works. The law, as written, does not require -- or even say anything about -- treating all content equally. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was written specifically to find a middle ground between "common carrier" and "publisher". It's actually very simple and very readable for a layperson[0]:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
That's it; that's the full text.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
That's not how law works. The law, as written, does not require -- or even say anything about -- treating all content equally. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was written specifically to find a middle ground between "common carrier" and "publisher". It's actually very simple and very readable for a layperson[0]:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
That's it; that's the full text.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
Laws are written by people, and people make assumptions.
When I say "the law assumes" I obviously meant "the people who wrote the law assumed."
People expose unintended loopholes in laws all the time, because the people who wrote the laws assumed certain things that ended up not being correct.
When I say "the law assumes" I obviously meant "the people who wrote the law assumed."
People expose unintended loopholes in laws all the time, because the people who wrote the laws assumed certain things that ended up not being correct.
I don't agree that the people who wrote the law assumed that at all. The actual text of the law gives no indication of that. But regardless, neither you nor I have any idea what was in the heads of lawmakers at the time, so any such speculation is useless. All we have is the text.
> I believe the law assumes that platforms are treating all content equally.
Can you cite anything about the law that supports this?
Can you cite anything about the law that supports this?
> We have common carrier provisions for other communication mediums with no liability (ex. TV, ISP's). And we have liability for communication mediums with editorial control (ie. Newspapers, Magazines).
...and we have bookstores, which can choose to not carry books on certain subjects, but are not generally liable for the content of the books they do carry.
Online forums seem to me to be more like bookstores than either common carriers or newspapers.
...and we have bookstores, which can choose to not carry books on certain subjects, but are not generally liable for the content of the books they do carry.
Online forums seem to me to be more like bookstores than either common carriers or newspapers.
I'm not aware of any bookstore that allows anyone off the street to come in and put their own books up for sale in their store.
I'm not really sure that is relevant. The question is how much control can you exercise over the content that is presented or carried by your service without incurring liability for that content.
The OP was saying that choosing what content is allowed => liability (such as with newspapers), and ! liability => not choosing (such as with common carriers).
My point is that bookstores do get to choose, but do not generally incur liability, showing that the idea that except for internet under section 230 everything else follows a simple liability <=> choosing model is not really accurate.
The OP was saying that choosing what content is allowed => liability (such as with newspapers), and ! liability => not choosing (such as with common carriers).
My point is that bookstores do get to choose, but do not generally incur liability, showing that the idea that except for internet under section 230 everything else follows a simple liability <=> choosing model is not really accurate.
And my point is that bookstores do not even begin to resemble a "public square" which is why I don't believe your analogy is a good one.
You mean a consignment bookshop? I know of several.
Maybe because they're hard to find :)
But actually you can self-publish a book and convince the store owner to sell it. It's not easy by any means, but not impossible. One of my more organized classmates in college sold his bound notes at the school bookstore for a decent sum.
But actually you can self-publish a book and convince the store owner to sell it. It's not easy by any means, but not impossible. One of my more organized classmates in college sold his bound notes at the school bookstore for a decent sum.
> and convince the store owner to sell it
That's the key bit. The store owner can say "no".
That's the key bit. The store owner can say "no".
[deleted]
> These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines.
They're not contradictory, they're unrelated.
They're not contradictory, they're unrelated.
I will repeat a comment I made on another article: treat certain surfaces of social media companies, mainly the user specific pages (Donald Trump's twitter page, PewDiePie's YT channel etc) as a platform; treat other surfaces which are generated based on algorithms and not directly by individual users (FB feed, YT watch feed, reddit homepage etc) as a publisher. That way, social media companies won't be responsible for what their users upload. But they will be responsible for what they present to their users to optimize clicks / engagement / revenue etc.
I wasn't aware that this claim was central to the suit, thanks for that. Many people here are not focusing on that claim. EDIT: Per other replies, it seems like that claim has a large amount of direct evidence against it.
I think it is interesting that in some long-term sense there is pressure for the government's regulatory reach to move farther up the network layer stack.
~50+ years ago it was clear that telephone lines were a natural monopoly and required regulation. Over time this transferred to ISP's, over time this may transfer to "platform websites", which currently to me seems like a pretty dang vague category.
It would be very strange for an Elizabeth-Warren-esque tech regulatory crackdown to occur without guaranteeing certain freedoms of speech for users.
I think it is interesting that in some long-term sense there is pressure for the government's regulatory reach to move farther up the network layer stack.
~50+ years ago it was clear that telephone lines were a natural monopoly and required regulation. Over time this transferred to ISP's, over time this may transfer to "platform websites", which currently to me seems like a pretty dang vague category.
It would be very strange for an Elizabeth-Warren-esque tech regulatory crackdown to occur without guaranteeing certain freedoms of speech for users.
The world is a better world when reasonable opinions are well-considered on all sides.
Prager U's videos are not hate speech. They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner.
It is sad that YouTube chooses to de-promote Prager's content. But it is not illegal.
Prager U's videos are not hate speech. They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner.
It is sad that YouTube chooses to de-promote Prager's content. But it is not illegal.
>The world is a better world when reasonable opinions are well-considered on all sides.
Absolutely, that's categorically not what PragerU does. But if it did, that would be relevant.
> They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner.
Actually no, quite a lot of them are entirely unreasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner. Go and search for PragerU's presentation of evolution for example - their criticism amounts to "Scientists are unsure whether the speed of light is 3x108 or 3.015x108 so clearly there's no speed of light". And "Well maybe micro-evolution but 'many' scientists doubt macro evolution".
It's not reasonable, it's deliberate mis-representation of the scientific material to serve a religious agenda.
Absolutely, that's categorically not what PragerU does. But if it did, that would be relevant.
> They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner.
Actually no, quite a lot of them are entirely unreasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner. Go and search for PragerU's presentation of evolution for example - their criticism amounts to "Scientists are unsure whether the speed of light is 3x108 or 3.015x108 so clearly there's no speed of light". And "Well maybe micro-evolution but 'many' scientists doubt macro evolution".
It's not reasonable, it's deliberate mis-representation of the scientific material to serve a religious agenda.
I agree that the video "Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven" is misleading and serves a religious agenda.
The video accepts natural selection, and references real research data, which is nice, but it asks too much of science. The implicit claim is "until all biological mechanisms underlying evolution are fully explained, you should remain skeptical of the theory of evolution."
An obvious likely audience interpretation of the video could be, "this calm, smart, and reasonable-sounding man is telling me that it is fine to be skeptical of evolution. I'll keep on believing in creationism."
However, this amount of misdirection is reasonable, is fairly typical among political organizations, and does not reflect an incendiary or particularly damaging viewpoint. If the corpus of PragerU videos can pass this bar, then there is no reason to de-rank them in YouTube.
The video accepts natural selection, and references real research data, which is nice, but it asks too much of science. The implicit claim is "until all biological mechanisms underlying evolution are fully explained, you should remain skeptical of the theory of evolution."
An obvious likely audience interpretation of the video could be, "this calm, smart, and reasonable-sounding man is telling me that it is fine to be skeptical of evolution. I'll keep on believing in creationism."
However, this amount of misdirection is reasonable, is fairly typical among political organizations, and does not reflect an incendiary or particularly damaging viewpoint. If the corpus of PragerU videos can pass this bar, then there is no reason to de-rank them in YouTube.
> They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner.
Many of their videos are wildly against academic consensus and also inflammatory. A classic is the claim that colonialism was actually great for colonized nations.
You can absolutely voice inflammatory and bogus intellectual material in a "calm manner". That doesn't change that it is both wrong and inflammatory.
Many of their videos are wildly against academic consensus and also inflammatory. A classic is the claim that colonialism was actually great for colonized nations.
You can absolutely voice inflammatory and bogus intellectual material in a "calm manner". That doesn't change that it is both wrong and inflammatory.
And blindly following academic consensus is good?
You are more likely to hold accurate beliefs about the world by deferring to experts. Its not a guarantee but it works well. Treating heterodox ideas as valuable simply by virtue of being heterodox is a much worse epistemological model than trusting academic consensus.
We should be free to be "wrong".
All advancement of knowledge stops when the prevailing truth of the elite is unquestionable.
All advancement of knowledge stops when the prevailing truth of the elite is unquestionable.
Part of the point of the academy is to have people argue wildly different positions. Certainly debating the merits of colonialism would fall in there.
If debates like this don't happen, you end up with a populace that has no idea why certain things that were tried in the past went horribly wrong, even if they seemed innocuous.
Personally I'd far rather be exposed to outrageous claims and work it out for myself.
If debates like this don't happen, you end up with a populace that has no idea why certain things that were tried in the past went horribly wrong, even if they seemed innocuous.
Personally I'd far rather be exposed to outrageous claims and work it out for myself.
Forever? Surely at some point it stops being productive to debate everything.
There are plenty of topics that have been discussed and settled. Colonialism is one such topic. PragerU isn't bringing new facts or ideas to the table. Instead they are repeating ideas that have been analyzed and dismissed by experts decades ago.
There are plenty of topics that have been discussed and settled. Colonialism is one such topic. PragerU isn't bringing new facts or ideas to the table. Instead they are repeating ideas that have been analyzed and dismissed by experts decades ago.
Yes, actually. Being exposed to a bad idea once doesn't confer eternal immunity. Periodic exposure is the price for real immunity.
Beyond that, hardly anything can make a bad idea more attractive than telling people that it's been dismissed by their betters long ago and should no longer be discussed.
Beyond that, hardly anything can make a bad idea more attractive than telling people that it's been dismissed by their betters long ago and should no longer be discussed.
You'd support continued and endless discussion and debate about the following topics then:
* Whether it is good to own black people as property due to belonging to an inferior race
* Whether women are incapable of rational thought and should be denied voting rights and the ability to hold a job
* Whether gay people are aberrant and should be forcibly sterilized
or less evil but still stupid
* Whether the earth is flat
* Whether the halting problem is undecidable
* Whether the ether exists
* Whether bloodletting is an effective medical treatment
* Whether the miasma theory of disease is correct
* Whether the time cube theory is correct
And you'd support active discussion among experts at professional conferences on these topics, taking time away from other topics?
Frankly that's insane. We've only got so much time in the day. Your approach enables literally anybody to perform a denial-of-service attack against any discipline.
* Whether it is good to own black people as property due to belonging to an inferior race
* Whether women are incapable of rational thought and should be denied voting rights and the ability to hold a job
* Whether gay people are aberrant and should be forcibly sterilized
or less evil but still stupid
* Whether the earth is flat
* Whether the halting problem is undecidable
* Whether the ether exists
* Whether bloodletting is an effective medical treatment
* Whether the miasma theory of disease is correct
* Whether the time cube theory is correct
And you'd support active discussion among experts at professional conferences on these topics, taking time away from other topics?
Frankly that's insane. We've only got so much time in the day. Your approach enables literally anybody to perform a denial-of-service attack against any discipline.
No, you've strayed from what we're discussing.
The question is: Should someone be able to present a position on either side of such questions in public? My answer is yes. For questions that are clearly "decided", those positions are very likely to be completely ignored in general. But it would be very useful to have people periodically explain why they are incorrect.
There is no DOS here, unless someone is actively interfering with (say) a professional conference. Those people should be bounced regardless of the position they're advocating.
The question is: Should someone be able to present a position on either side of such questions in public? My answer is yes. For questions that are clearly "decided", those positions are very likely to be completely ignored in general. But it would be very useful to have people periodically explain why they are incorrect.
There is no DOS here, unless someone is actively interfering with (say) a professional conference. Those people should be bounced regardless of the position they're advocating.
You led with "Part of the point of the academy is to have people argue wildly different positions. Certainly debating the merits of colonialism would fall in there."
"of the academy"
In the beginning, you were explicitly talking about academia. PragerU is welcome to spray its drivel all over the web. But when academics all look at that and say "this is garbage" and didn't engage on PragerU's terms, you complained.
Colonialism is discussed. Constantly. There have been hundreds of academic books written on the subject in the past year or so. But these books don't set out to discuss the merits of colonialism, since that would be a waste of paper. The material is widely available if people care. PragerU doesn't.
"of the academy"
In the beginning, you were explicitly talking about academia. PragerU is welcome to spray its drivel all over the web. But when academics all look at that and say "this is garbage" and didn't engage on PragerU's terms, you complained.
Colonialism is discussed. Constantly. There have been hundreds of academic books written on the subject in the past year or so. But these books don't set out to discuss the merits of colonialism, since that would be a waste of paper. The material is widely available if people care. PragerU doesn't.
If you are referring to to the video "If you Live in Freedom, Thank the British Empire", it is factual regarding its objective claims but heavily spun in its subjective claims and in which material it chooses to cover and omit. It would be wrong to call it wrong- no history professor would claim that the historical events it discussed did not happen. Disagreement would only occur regarding how beneficial they were and whether important details were omitted.
In the context of that particular video, the degree to which the value judgements disagree with academic consensus is mostly reflective of the ideological leanings of current history departments in comparison to PragerU. And to address the main thesis of the video- Western democratic freedom is almost certainly more widespread nowadays than it would have been without the presence of the British Empire (also assuming that France or similar colonial competitors didn't swoop in to fill the power vacuum).
The way that the video seems tone-deaf is that it isn't sufficiently critical of Britain's moral failings. However, its central thesis is not incorrect.
In the context of that particular video, the degree to which the value judgements disagree with academic consensus is mostly reflective of the ideological leanings of current history departments in comparison to PragerU. And to address the main thesis of the video- Western democratic freedom is almost certainly more widespread nowadays than it would have been without the presence of the British Empire (also assuming that France or similar colonial competitors didn't swoop in to fill the power vacuum).
The way that the video seems tone-deaf is that it isn't sufficiently critical of Britain's moral failings. However, its central thesis is not incorrect.
> It would be wrong to call it wrong- no history professor would claim that the historical events it discussed did not happen.
My time to shine! I'm married to a history professor. All of the history faculty I know would call that video wrong. History is not the collection of facts but instead putting those facts into a narrative. If you make a narrative that is ill supported by evidence then you've done wrong history.
My time to shine! I'm married to a history professor. All of the history faculty I know would call that video wrong. History is not the collection of facts but instead putting those facts into a narrative. If you make a narrative that is ill supported by evidence then you've done wrong history.
What is the main thesis of the particular video?
It is that the spread of the British Empire spread Western democratic norms.
This particular facet is well-supported by the facts. I agree that it fails to be sufficiently critical of the British. However, it falls well within the Overton Window and any claim that this particular video is incendiary, or that it is sufficiently wrong that it should be discouraged for people to watch it, is absurd.
To the degree that History departments want to tell a moral narrative, they need to be a lot more careful than a youtube channel, I agree. I remember my British History professor in college implied that any Republicans taking courses at a state-supported university are hypocrites, so I'm well-aware of the ideological leanings of the ivory tower. If it came down to it, I'd prefer a left-leaning history department to a right-leaning one, just for the fact that you can (typically) squeeze more nuanced narratives out of the (typically) increased moral relativism of the left. It's a pretty slight preference though, subject to the tradeoff that a bleeding-heart professor still has enough assertiveness to admit to moral failings across all sorts of different cultures.
Regarding objective facts of a video- they remain true on the ground. Regarding the moral narrative- I see no reason to hold the rest of the world's commentariat to the same standard of preference as a history department. I would also remark that PragerU has the merit of making it's moral leanings obvious enough that you don't have to guess at their direction of bias, in contrast to other presenters who may be willfully disguising their revisionism.
Perhaps it's easier to discern the truth when you give competitors on all sides of the moral landscape a fair fight.
It is that the spread of the British Empire spread Western democratic norms.
This particular facet is well-supported by the facts. I agree that it fails to be sufficiently critical of the British. However, it falls well within the Overton Window and any claim that this particular video is incendiary, or that it is sufficiently wrong that it should be discouraged for people to watch it, is absurd.
To the degree that History departments want to tell a moral narrative, they need to be a lot more careful than a youtube channel, I agree. I remember my British History professor in college implied that any Republicans taking courses at a state-supported university are hypocrites, so I'm well-aware of the ideological leanings of the ivory tower. If it came down to it, I'd prefer a left-leaning history department to a right-leaning one, just for the fact that you can (typically) squeeze more nuanced narratives out of the (typically) increased moral relativism of the left. It's a pretty slight preference though, subject to the tradeoff that a bleeding-heart professor still has enough assertiveness to admit to moral failings across all sorts of different cultures.
Regarding objective facts of a video- they remain true on the ground. Regarding the moral narrative- I see no reason to hold the rest of the world's commentariat to the same standard of preference as a history department. I would also remark that PragerU has the merit of making it's moral leanings obvious enough that you don't have to guess at their direction of bias, in contrast to other presenters who may be willfully disguising their revisionism.
Perhaps it's easier to discern the truth when you give competitors on all sides of the moral landscape a fair fight.
> This particular facet is well-supported by the facts.
Oh boy. I've got some friends who would be set off on a multi-hour rant if you said this in front of them.
PragerU's history is shit. Absolute garbage.
Oh boy. I've got some friends who would be set off on a multi-hour rant if you said this in front of them.
PragerU's history is shit. Absolute garbage.
Do you consider it "sad" that Fox doesn't have 50% left leaning contributors, too?
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
Yes, it is sad that Fox doesn't have enough left-leaning commentators.
Media producers have realized that consumers self-select into viewing distribution channels that appeal to their existing beliefs. It creates a feedback loop where media market segmentation by political affiliation drives people further apart.
PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion; I like it for that. I also like it when liberal entities try to penetrate conservative bastions.
From my subjective survey of the media landscape, it seems that the left-leaning bastions currently dominate. To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels, they encourage conservatives to bifurcate: either join them, or retreat to far-right positions.
Media producers have realized that consumers self-select into viewing distribution channels that appeal to their existing beliefs. It creates a feedback loop where media market segmentation by political affiliation drives people further apart.
PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion; I like it for that. I also like it when liberal entities try to penetrate conservative bastions.
From my subjective survey of the media landscape, it seems that the left-leaning bastions currently dominate. To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels, they encourage conservatives to bifurcate: either join them, or retreat to far-right positions.
> PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion
> To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels
PragerU is classified as "extreme right" by media bias groups.
And it scores "Low" (on a scale of Very Low to Very High) on Factual Reporting.
I know reasonable conservatives exist. I'm not entirely sure that PragerU is a representation thereof.
> To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels
PragerU is classified as "extreme right" by media bias groups.
And it scores "Low" (on a scale of Very Low to Very High) on Factual Reporting.
I know reasonable conservatives exist. I'm not entirely sure that PragerU is a representation thereof.
It would be extremely sad, if they dominated their market to the degree that YouTube does.
Fox holds something like 60% market share for "news"
Leonard French (an actual lawyer) who runs the Lawful Masses YouTube channel has quite a good analysis of the failed appeal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz5u8Yygys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz5u8Yygys
The court could not have ruled otherwise. Still, a society where a dominant corporation has this much power to squelch voices it doesn't like is not what we ought to hope for.
It’s interesting that the article lists PragerU as a conservative outlet. The stuff I’ve seen of theirs in the past gave me the opposite impression.
Citation needed -- link me to something that isn't conservative.
I’d have to find it. They put out one on the causes of the civil war that went viral years ago that was so misleading it was embarrassing.
( Civil War history is a hobby of mine because it’s really interesting )
( Civil War history is a hobby of mine because it’s really interesting )
The only civil war cause related video of theirs I've seen is them explaining that, "No, really, the civil war was because states wanted slavery and not anything about states rights unless you think states should have the right to allow slavery"
This is an odd position to take since the typical conservative angle is to pretend slavery wasn't directly called out in like 50% of the seceding state's documents of secession, and instead claim some nebulous "states rights" claim
This is an odd position to take since the typical conservative angle is to pretend slavery wasn't directly called out in like 50% of the seceding state's documents of secession, and instead claim some nebulous "states rights" claim
IIRC they circulated a video along those lines in the wake of the Charleston church shooting to capitalize on the topic for marketing purposes. It was a very oversimplified video designed for the quick "FACT! In your face!" social media argument.
If they are a conservative outlet then that video was specifically designed to engage non-conservatives so that they could reach them and that would make sense if that was the mission.
As for the the actual causes, there really is a lot of complexity to it.
The short version:
- 11 states seceded
- There were only 4 declarations of causes (SC, Georgia, Miss, Texas)
- Secession happened slowly over the course of many months, from November to May
- The border states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seceded in direct response to Lincoln's requisition for troops. The request bypassed Congress. Virginia legislature in particular took it as an abuse of executive power.
The viral video put out by Prager quickly listed off the states that seceded and oversimplified by saying "all the declarations of causes" which insinuated that each state produced such a declaration. It gave the appearance that the secessions were something of a quick and unified action.
It hit all of the necessary points for a viral share though. Gave the appearance of an educational entity delivering a quick video to support the "everybody in the south was evil" rhetoric.
If you ever really deep dive into the history, there was a lot going on, so seeing something like that from an "educational" institution immediately put them on my propaganda radar. I haven't seen much else from them since.
If they are a conservative outlet then that video was specifically designed to engage non-conservatives so that they could reach them and that would make sense if that was the mission.
As for the the actual causes, there really is a lot of complexity to it.
The short version:
- 11 states seceded
- There were only 4 declarations of causes (SC, Georgia, Miss, Texas)
- Secession happened slowly over the course of many months, from November to May
- The border states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seceded in direct response to Lincoln's requisition for troops. The request bypassed Congress. Virginia legislature in particular took it as an abuse of executive power.
The viral video put out by Prager quickly listed off the states that seceded and oversimplified by saying "all the declarations of causes" which insinuated that each state produced such a declaration. It gave the appearance that the secessions were something of a quick and unified action.
It hit all of the necessary points for a viral share though. Gave the appearance of an educational entity delivering a quick video to support the "everybody in the south was evil" rhetoric.
If you ever really deep dive into the history, there was a lot going on, so seeing something like that from an "educational" institution immediately put them on my propaganda radar. I haven't seen much else from them since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU points out "PragerU was founded in 2009 by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager and radio producer and screenwriter Allen Estrin,[7] in order to present conservative views and to offset what Prager regards as the undermining of college education by the left." ... "Vanity Fair said PragerU "packages right-wing social concepts into slick videos" and that PragerU was "one of the most effective conversion tools for young conservatives."[30]"
Their home page includes "Join PragerFORCE, our student ambassador program — the fastest-growing conservative digital army, fighting the war of ideas online and on campus." Their press releases include "PragerU’s Day in Court: Ninth Circuit Court to Hear PragerU’s Appeal August 27 as Censorship of Conservative Free Speech Continues".
So I think both general society and PragerU regard PragerU as "conservative."
Their home page includes "Join PragerFORCE, our student ambassador program — the fastest-growing conservative digital army, fighting the war of ideas online and on campus." Their press releases include "PragerU’s Day in Court: Ninth Circuit Court to Hear PragerU’s Appeal August 27 as Censorship of Conservative Free Speech Continues".
So I think both general society and PragerU regard PragerU as "conservative."
Wow a fake university that promotes pseudo-science doesn't understand the first amendment? Shocker.
What a deceptive headline
There are a lot of comments here suggesting that this case is cut-and-dried obvious. YouTube is a private entity, QED.
This case is more nuanced than that, and part of an ongoing, evolving understanding of the purview of the First Amendment in the United States.
(NOTE: IANAL, much less a constitutional law scholar, I'm just digging into some news over coffee as an interested citizen)
Poking around the case materials a little bit:
PragerU lawyers reference a decision (here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html) in which a corporate entity tried to remove street preachers from grounds (the Rose Garden) partially leased from a public entity (the City of Portland). The court found in favor of the preachers, holding that the corporation effectively was a state actor over which the court had jurisdiction.
If you read the reasoning in that case, you'll find reference to other cases in which the courts tried (unsuccessfully) to hammer down what counts as a state actor. From a very cursory reading there's substantial jurisprudential churn around the notion of "state actor" - there are commonly accepted "tests" (which are sort of like thought experiments in philosophy), a substantial amount of common sense, and a large margin of error involved in determining whether or not a private entity is behaving in a way that might run afoul of restrictions placed on public actors.
It's clear that there are cases where publicly owned resources are leased to private entities, and that "speech" happens over these resources (broadcast frequencies, ISP rights, publicly-owned domains, etc.). There certainly are private actors in this space that do fall under the purview of the First Ammendment.
Again, I don't think YouTube is such an entity - and the courts agree - but this is a space where limits are evolving and being tested all the time.
edit:
I enjoy the court's somewhat punchy decision:
This case is more nuanced than that, and part of an ongoing, evolving understanding of the purview of the First Amendment in the United States.
(NOTE: IANAL, much less a constitutional law scholar, I'm just digging into some news over coffee as an interested citizen)
Poking around the case materials a little bit:
PragerU lawyers reference a decision (here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html) in which a corporate entity tried to remove street preachers from grounds (the Rose Garden) partially leased from a public entity (the City of Portland). The court found in favor of the preachers, holding that the corporation effectively was a state actor over which the court had jurisdiction.
If you read the reasoning in that case, you'll find reference to other cases in which the courts tried (unsuccessfully) to hammer down what counts as a state actor. From a very cursory reading there's substantial jurisprudential churn around the notion of "state actor" - there are commonly accepted "tests" (which are sort of like thought experiments in philosophy), a substantial amount of common sense, and a large margin of error involved in determining whether or not a private entity is behaving in a way that might run afoul of restrictions placed on public actors.
It's clear that there are cases where publicly owned resources are leased to private entities, and that "speech" happens over these resources (broadcast frequencies, ISP rights, publicly-owned domains, etc.). There certainly are private actors in this space that do fall under the purview of the First Ammendment.
Again, I don't think YouTube is such an entity - and the courts agree - but this is a space where limits are evolving and being tested all the time.
edit:
I enjoy the court's somewhat punchy decision:
Both sides say that the sky will fall if we do not adopt
their position. PragerU prophesizes living under the tyranny
of big-tech, possessing the power to censor any speech it
does not like. YouTube and several amicus curiae, on the
other hand, foretell the undoing of the Internet if online
speech is regulated. While these arguments have interesting
and important roles to play in policy discussions concerning
the future of the Internet, they do not figure into our
straightforward application of the First Amendment. Because
the state action doctrine precludes constitutional scrutiny
of YouTube's content moderation pursuant to its Terms of
Service and Community Guidelines, we affirm the district
court's dismissal of PragerU's First Amendment claim.why on earth was this downvoted? did I incorrectly report something? I'm actually confused. was the observation that the case represents a sample of a complicated and interesting legal landscape in the United States of America incorrect, insulting, or what?
I have no idea why you were downvoted.
The whole concept of down/up votes is broken - I am a grown-up and quite capable of critical thinking and can form my own opinion of other people's view.
Furthermore, in this current era of group-think and censorship, comments (like yours) that are downvoted are usually the the most interesting.
On the plus side, the greying-out of such comments just makes it easier to find them among a sea of conformance.
Sincere thanks to all downvoters.
The whole concept of down/up votes is broken - I am a grown-up and quite capable of critical thinking and can form my own opinion of other people's view.
Furthermore, in this current era of group-think and censorship, comments (like yours) that are downvoted are usually the the most interesting.
On the plus side, the greying-out of such comments just makes it easier to find them among a sea of conformance.
Sincere thanks to all downvoters.
shaneprrlt(1)
mark my words: this will get to the supreme court, and youtube will lose. sites like youtube, facebook, twitter ultimately need to be recognized as some kind of semi-public forum. once they are, the rules change.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Google (rightly) led the net neutrality fight against ISPs/carriers, with one of the complaints being potential censorship from these entities.
And then they turn around and censor conservative content disproportionately, with no self awareness on perceptions of bias that it creates.
It doesn't matter if section 203 requires neutrality, a giant megacorp with a monopoly on internet video needs to stay neutral. We cannot have a "rules for thee, not for me" attitude from Google. If they won't stay neutral, they need to be regulated.
Section 203 needs to be scrapped, and something that guarantees 1A, while shielding platforms from culpability, needs to emerge.
And then they turn around and censor conservative content disproportionately, with no self awareness on perceptions of bias that it creates.
It doesn't matter if section 203 requires neutrality, a giant megacorp with a monopoly on internet video needs to stay neutral. We cannot have a "rules for thee, not for me" attitude from Google. If they won't stay neutral, they need to be regulated.
Section 203 needs to be scrapped, and something that guarantees 1A, while shielding platforms from culpability, needs to emerge.
> Does anyone else find it ironic that Google (rightly) led the net neutrality fight against ISPs/carriers, with one of the complaints being potential censorship from these entities.
No, because to use a transportation analogy ISPs are like buses or light rail, while websites are like the stores and offices and gathering places that you take the buses or light rail too.
There would be nothing ironic about believing that a city's bus or light rail systems should be required to accept all passengers who have the fare and are not an actual danger to other passengers, while simultaneously believing that a private store or office that one might reach by bus does not have to accept everyone.
No, because to use a transportation analogy ISPs are like buses or light rail, while websites are like the stores and offices and gathering places that you take the buses or light rail too.
There would be nothing ironic about believing that a city's bus or light rail systems should be required to accept all passengers who have the fare and are not an actual danger to other passengers, while simultaneously believing that a private store or office that one might reach by bus does not have to accept everyone.
Why does Google feel the need to censor any conservative content? The right to censor doesn't have to culminate in actual censorship without cause.
Double speak is on full display here: self certified ethical, moral, freedom loving, anti authoritarians are the first to indulge in thought policing.
Moreover, this kind of censorship plays out on the daily across tech, while the companies involved lie about not being biased, with a straight face. It's all too Orwellian
Double speak is on full display here: self certified ethical, moral, freedom loving, anti authoritarians are the first to indulge in thought policing.
Moreover, this kind of censorship plays out on the daily across tech, while the companies involved lie about not being biased, with a straight face. It's all too Orwellian
Since the First Amendment acts as a constraint on Government, yeah, it makes sense that YouTube is under no obligation to protect your freedom of speech. This isn't a hard concept.
I think it’s a little more nuanced than that, in a way the bill of rights never had reason to consider.
The freedom of speech prohibits government control of speech in government (read: public) spaces, in order to conserve public right of criticism of the government.
These massive platforms, as a matter of business, attempt to replace and own “the public square.” Google/YouTube, directly or indirectly, controls an enormous fraction of the public conversation. Their interests, as corporations constantly lobbying for favorable regulatory treatment, tend to align along the “appease the government as long as it doesn’t hurt our revenue” axis.
You can with some validity argue that an entity that monopolizes control of the public square is obligated to protect the rights intrinsic in that square, all the more so when their interests align with the government’s.
You can, with some validity, argue that a company doesn’t have to have a monopoly on the public square to be forced to recognize those rights, but as a continuous function, as they subsume more of the public square they should undergo increasing burden for conserving the functions of that square.
It used to be “the public square” was a distinct geographic entity. We are now faced with the fact that it was, maybe, a set of functions attached to that geographic entity, and it’s those functions that must be protected.
The freedom of speech prohibits government control of speech in government (read: public) spaces, in order to conserve public right of criticism of the government.
These massive platforms, as a matter of business, attempt to replace and own “the public square.” Google/YouTube, directly or indirectly, controls an enormous fraction of the public conversation. Their interests, as corporations constantly lobbying for favorable regulatory treatment, tend to align along the “appease the government as long as it doesn’t hurt our revenue” axis.
You can with some validity argue that an entity that monopolizes control of the public square is obligated to protect the rights intrinsic in that square, all the more so when their interests align with the government’s.
You can, with some validity, argue that a company doesn’t have to have a monopoly on the public square to be forced to recognize those rights, but as a continuous function, as they subsume more of the public square they should undergo increasing burden for conserving the functions of that square.
It used to be “the public square” was a distinct geographic entity. We are now faced with the fact that it was, maybe, a set of functions attached to that geographic entity, and it’s those functions that must be protected.
It gets even more complicated than that with things like the comments section. Does anyone know prager U's moderation policy? I have a feeling it would be quite hypocritical, they've been known to send false copyright infringement notices. Would things like not allowing comments be controlling the public square?
Even the public square analogy doesn't really work because we never had global public squares.
Even the public square analogy doesn't really work because we never had global public squares.
While I am quite sympathetic to the argument, PragerU would need to disagree (if we assume they actually believe their videos are true). So they are American conservatives in the sense that they argue that free markets have the right outcomes, and more importantly they are originalists, that is they argue that one should interpret the US constitution as intended when written, not in a sense, what the principle would tell one when we imagine the US constitution was written today.
These platforms don’t replace the public square. The internet is the “public square” and you can buy your own domain and do whatever you want.
These platforms are the giant retail shops that line the square in a capitalist world. They come and go. You don’t have to go into them and they can kick you out whenever they want.
These platforms are the giant retail shops that line the square in a capitalist world. They come and go. You don’t have to go into them and they can kick you out whenever they want.
The argument is that YouTube is the big private park (with its own rules restricting speech) that everyone goes to while the actual public park is some square of concrete off on the edge of town that no one visits.
There's at least some merit in an argument that YouTube is so dominant in user-uploaded video that, absent a big budget and/or notability to drive viewers elsewhere, if your video is not on YouTube it might as well not exist as far as the broader world is concerned.
There's at least some merit in an argument that YouTube is so dominant in user-uploaded video that, absent a big budget and/or notability to drive viewers elsewhere, if your video is not on YouTube it might as well not exist as far as the broader world is concerned.
This isn't an effective analogy. The Internet is one big concrete square. YouTube and Facebook occupy one part of this big concrete square. You're free to occupy your own section of the square, too. The fact that YouTube and Facebook are so popular isn't because their portion of the square is any better than others - it's because the content they're offering is better (at least in the eyes of most people). There's nothing inherently better about YouTube or Facebook's portion of the square, their popularity is the product of the content they offer.
No, it’s not. My parents barely even know how to use YouTube, let alone use it regularly.
You spend too much time in tech and you get blinders and literally start to think that nothing else exists. Most people still get their information from television and, believe it or not, radio.
YouTube just makes video hosting easy. You have a freedom of speech, not a freedom to a guaranteed audience.
Have you ever actually seen someone in a public square going on a rant? They are often lucky if they reach a few people.
You spend too much time in tech and you get blinders and literally start to think that nothing else exists. Most people still get their information from television and, believe it or not, radio.
YouTube just makes video hosting easy. You have a freedom of speech, not a freedom to a guaranteed audience.
Have you ever actually seen someone in a public square going on a rant? They are often lucky if they reach a few people.
>dominant in user-uploaded video
As far as I'm aware, I can't upload videos to CNN. I'm certainly aware that other sources of video exist; I don't even use YouTube much myself.
I'm actually sympathetic to your overall argument especially when complaints focus on the difficulty of monetizing video outside of YouTube. But it's at least worth discussing what it means when a private company has outsized control over certain types of information sharing.
As far as I'm aware, I can't upload videos to CNN. I'm certainly aware that other sources of video exist; I don't even use YouTube much myself.
I'm actually sympathetic to your overall argument especially when complaints focus on the difficulty of monetizing video outside of YouTube. But it's at least worth discussing what it means when a private company has outsized control over certain types of information sharing.
YouTube is the dominate player in videos hosted on YouTube.com. In fact, they have a total monopoly on YouTube.com. But you can upload videos to your own domain. It’s super easy.
When YouTube started you could at least make the argument that uploading video was difficult, because in order for people to watch you had to convert it to VP6 and play it within Flash, but today everything supports MPEG4.
Monetizing video outside of YouTube also isn’t difficult. Sponsors are easy to get if you have high quality content. If you have trash content then yeah, it is hard to monetize. Which lets be real here—that’s what we are talking about.
People think they have a right to a free audience and a (cost free) revenue stream for uploading garbage content that is just marginally better than literally nothing at all. People seem to believe they have a right to an income for creating what is really just spam in video form. Honestly, I wish YouTube would just terminate the revenue sharing option entirely for non-partners. Let someone else deal with the garbage content and its associated drama.
When YouTube started you could at least make the argument that uploading video was difficult, because in order for people to watch you had to convert it to VP6 and play it within Flash, but today everything supports MPEG4.
Monetizing video outside of YouTube also isn’t difficult. Sponsors are easy to get if you have high quality content. If you have trash content then yeah, it is hard to monetize. Which lets be real here—that’s what we are talking about.
People think they have a right to a free audience and a (cost free) revenue stream for uploading garbage content that is just marginally better than literally nothing at all. People seem to believe they have a right to an income for creating what is really just spam in video form. Honestly, I wish YouTube would just terminate the revenue sharing option entirely for non-partners. Let someone else deal with the garbage content and its associated drama.
>There's at least some merit in an argument that YouTube is so dominant in user-uploaded video that, absent a big budget and/or notability to drive viewers elsewhere, if your video is not on YouTube it might as well not exist as far as the broader world is concerned.
Lets see who funds PragerU. From the Wiki:
>Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[2][4] Two members of the Wilks family are on PragerU's board.[2] The next-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[7][23] Other donors include the Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust, and the Minnesota-based Sid and Carol Verdoorn Foundation, led by former C.H. Robinson CEO Sid Verdoorn.[23]
>As of 2018, the organization reportedly had a $10 million annual budget, of which it spent more than 40% on marketing.[2] In 2019, PragerU raised $22 million and expects to receive $25 million in 2020.[4][24] PragerU consistently spends more on Facebook advertising than major political campaigns and national advocacy groups.[25] It ranks among the 10 biggest political spenders on the platform.[25]
The lawsuit also talks about being demonetized because of advertiser preferences.
You can literally start with uploading .mp4 files on your site immediately. How many tens of billions have been spent on campaigns? There's so much money sloshing about just in the immediate vicinity of the political agenda driven folks complaining but somehow no one can throw source code on GitHub of Reddit and clones onto a server and buy a domain for a few bucks, or set up a video sharing site with all the commercial tools available, and advertise them.
Lets see who funds PragerU. From the Wiki:
>Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[2][4] Two members of the Wilks family are on PragerU's board.[2] The next-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[7][23] Other donors include the Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust, and the Minnesota-based Sid and Carol Verdoorn Foundation, led by former C.H. Robinson CEO Sid Verdoorn.[23]
>As of 2018, the organization reportedly had a $10 million annual budget, of which it spent more than 40% on marketing.[2] In 2019, PragerU raised $22 million and expects to receive $25 million in 2020.[4][24] PragerU consistently spends more on Facebook advertising than major political campaigns and national advocacy groups.[25] It ranks among the 10 biggest political spenders on the platform.[25]
The lawsuit also talks about being demonetized because of advertiser preferences.
You can literally start with uploading .mp4 files on your site immediately. How many tens of billions have been spent on campaigns? There's so much money sloshing about just in the immediate vicinity of the political agenda driven folks complaining but somehow no one can throw source code on GitHub of Reddit and clones onto a server and buy a domain for a few bucks, or set up a video sharing site with all the commercial tools available, and advertise them.
Well, you could, except that if cloudflare doesn't like your content, your site isn't actually on the internet.
Never used Cloudflare. The internet has existed without it for quite some time. I’m not even sure what they do, to be honest. Aren’t they just another CDN?
I’ve used AWS and Cloudfront for years, never had a problem. And that’s only for high traffic applications.
I’ve used AWS and Cloudfront for years, never had a problem. And that’s only for high traffic applications.
About 10% of web requests flow through Cloudflare. If they decide they don't like you, you're gonna have a hard time.
I guess you just have to do what the other 90% do.
To an extent? But you have no control over what DNS server your visitors use, for example, and Cloudflare is the default for Firefox users in the US.
Has Cloudflare created a blacklist on their DNS server of entries they won't resolve?
EDIT I just looked this up. Seems like, in this specific instance, Cloudflare is contractually bound by the following:
"The party operating the resolver should not by default block or filter domains unless specifically required by law in the jurisdiction in which the resolver operates. Mozilla will generally seek to work with DNS resolvers that provide unfiltered DNS responses and, at its discretion, may remove from consideration resolvers subject to legal filtering obligations, depending on the scope and nature of those obligations."
EDIT I just looked this up. Seems like, in this specific instance, Cloudflare is contractually bound by the following:
"The party operating the resolver should not by default block or filter domains unless specifically required by law in the jurisdiction in which the resolver operates. Mozilla will generally seek to work with DNS resolvers that provide unfiltered DNS responses and, at its discretion, may remove from consideration resolvers subject to legal filtering obligations, depending on the scope and nature of those obligations."
From a philosophical/moral perspective I agree with you; that seems like a very reasonable position. From the perspective of constitutional law though I don't think its very relevant. The constitution only prohibits the government from making laws restricting the freedom of speech; it doesn't mandate the the government take an active role in preventing freedom of speech from being suppressed by non-government entities. If we want to fix that problem we'll have to do so through other means (whether they be legislative, technical, or social).
I think the legal precedent that Prager U should have targeted was Marsh vs Alabama. In that ruling, the state held that under certain conditions private property could become a public forum.
For example, Knight vs Trump basically held that Twitter was enough of a public forum that the president could not block people on his twitter account (here's a counter argument to that decision: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/07/twitter-is-not-a-public-foru...).
I'd be curious to know why Prager U didn't try to argue that youtube is a public forum. Youtube is by default open to the public to post speech on, and it holds a near monopoly position on its particular product, much like twitter. The hitch in this plan is that from my understanding, Knight didn't argue that all of twitter was a public forum, they just argued that Trump's account was a public forum.
Despite that, it seems a little contradictory to me to have legal system where twitter is considered a quasi public forum, and youtube it not.
For example, Knight vs Trump basically held that Twitter was enough of a public forum that the president could not block people on his twitter account (here's a counter argument to that decision: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/07/twitter-is-not-a-public-foru...).
I'd be curious to know why Prager U didn't try to argue that youtube is a public forum. Youtube is by default open to the public to post speech on, and it holds a near monopoly position on its particular product, much like twitter. The hitch in this plan is that from my understanding, Knight didn't argue that all of twitter was a public forum, they just argued that Trump's account was a public forum.
Despite that, it seems a little contradictory to me to have legal system where twitter is considered a quasi public forum, and youtube it not.
The difference in Knight v Trump was that in that case it was President Trump, a public official of the United States, doing the censoring.
The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination.
But it doesn’t mean a private business can’t block people from their accounts - just that it’s illegal for a government official to use that feature.
The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination.
But it doesn’t mean a private business can’t block people from their accounts - just that it’s illegal for a government official to use that feature.
> The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination.
Except this isn't true. There are a number of exceptions where a public official can hold a meeting that is open to the public but only allows very specific topics to be discussed as chosen by the public official. In some cases, only the official may speak which means it isn't a public forum at all. Public officials in public meetings even have the power to exclude people based a a variety of criteria such as the case where someone is disrupting the meeting, or a press briefing. Knight vs Trump ruled that none of those exceptions could apply to Trump on Twitter, in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not.
In the case of Marsh vs Alabama, both parties involved were private. My point in bringing up Knight vs Trump was to point out that the issue of social platforms as public forums has already been decided in very narrow cases. It seems like Prager U's best legal strategy would be to argue for the expansion of the public forum designation to apply to youtube. A number of people in this very thread have expressed sympathy to that approach so it's not out of left field. Without youtube being declared a public forum, Prager U's first amendment approach is dead on arrival as the court rightly pointed out in this case.
Except this isn't true. There are a number of exceptions where a public official can hold a meeting that is open to the public but only allows very specific topics to be discussed as chosen by the public official. In some cases, only the official may speak which means it isn't a public forum at all. Public officials in public meetings even have the power to exclude people based a a variety of criteria such as the case where someone is disrupting the meeting, or a press briefing. Knight vs Trump ruled that none of those exceptions could apply to Trump on Twitter, in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not.
In the case of Marsh vs Alabama, both parties involved were private. My point in bringing up Knight vs Trump was to point out that the issue of social platforms as public forums has already been decided in very narrow cases. It seems like Prager U's best legal strategy would be to argue for the expansion of the public forum designation to apply to youtube. A number of people in this very thread have expressed sympathy to that approach so it's not out of left field. Without youtube being declared a public forum, Prager U's first amendment approach is dead on arrival as the court rightly pointed out in this case.
>in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not
Yes, but even with that ruling Twitter is still free to ban people from its platform and even prevent them from viewing Trump's tweets by blacklisting spammer and scraper IPs from it's platform, or even restrict and delete Trump's account. The court declaring Trump's twitter account a public forum does not change any of that. No can sue Twitter over that for not being able to view Trump's tweets. So this is not relevant at all.
Yes, but even with that ruling Twitter is still free to ban people from its platform and even prevent them from viewing Trump's tweets by blacklisting spammer and scraper IPs from it's platform, or even restrict and delete Trump's account. The court declaring Trump's twitter account a public forum does not change any of that. No can sue Twitter over that for not being able to view Trump's tweets. So this is not relevant at all.
Well, it's not a hard concept if you believe in rule of law and have read a few Wikipedia pages. But a surprisingly large number of people seem to start from the position, "My actions should never have consequences I don't like," and then backfill from there.
Well, there is a different way of looking at it.
As real flesh and bones individuals, the first amendment protections should apply.
For companies (aka: fictitious entities), are granted corporate charters by the government. They are extensions of the government allowing a bubble of state/federal government of what we call a company.
Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation?
In that light, companies should have a requirement to uphold the bill of rights. They are created legal entities, not at all like a person.
------------------------
The glaring problem with not applying 1FA to a company means the mega-companies that wish to deplatform you leads you to no recourse. Do you have a right to use a monopolistic service?
The issue with that course of actions is that the rules to the megacorps (FAANG) also apply to the small companies with 1 or more. More regulation does tend to kill tiny companies.
As real flesh and bones individuals, the first amendment protections should apply.
For companies (aka: fictitious entities), are granted corporate charters by the government. They are extensions of the government allowing a bubble of state/federal government of what we call a company.
Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation?
In that light, companies should have a requirement to uphold the bill of rights. They are created legal entities, not at all like a person.
------------------------
The glaring problem with not applying 1FA to a company means the mega-companies that wish to deplatform you leads you to no recourse. Do you have a right to use a monopolistic service?
The issue with that course of actions is that the rules to the megacorps (FAANG) also apply to the small companies with 1 or more. More regulation does tend to kill tiny companies.
The natural outcome of this line of thought is complete destruction of all online platforms.
Without moderation things quickly become a cesspool. Whether spam, or child porn, or scams, or just extremely toxic behavior that scares off 99% of users the end result is the same.
Moderation of content - some form of censoring - is a feature, not a bug.
Nothing is stopping you from providing your own video platform that doesn't censor content (or at least doesn't censor any legal content). The free market, however, is unlikely to support you in that effort. Advertisers have always refused to sponsor content they find objectionable, and most people won't pay, so that leaves you with rather thin margins for such a service.
Without moderation things quickly become a cesspool. Whether spam, or child porn, or scams, or just extremely toxic behavior that scares off 99% of users the end result is the same.
Moderation of content - some form of censoring - is a feature, not a bug.
Nothing is stopping you from providing your own video platform that doesn't censor content (or at least doesn't censor any legal content). The free market, however, is unlikely to support you in that effort. Advertisers have always refused to sponsor content they find objectionable, and most people won't pay, so that leaves you with rather thin margins for such a service.
Nothing is stopping you from providing your own video platform that doesn't censor content
I agree this is true in theory, with the internet as it is today. PragerU can and should host their own videos if Google doesn't want to (edit: though in this case the problem is not related to hosting but advertising, it seems?). Anyway, we can and should criticise Google for their partisan stances and they shouldn't be treated with much sympathy if a conservative government retaliates in some way either, but that's by the by.
The problem is that this sort of thing doesn't have any limits. People were making the exact same argument when Google seized the domain of a source of unpopular speech such that the owners were not only unable to use Google's services, but in fact, were unable to host themselves too. It was basically a DoS attack by a corporation on that site.
The internet is run entirely by private companies. What happens to your argument when someone does in fact stop PragerU from providing their own video platform that doesn't censor content? For instance because an angry mob tries to shut down your ISP, or a DNS provider steals your domain, or a DDoS protection firm decides not to protect you anymore and then lets an anonymous mob take your servers offline?
Nobody at any point has violated the constitution, but the outcome is identical. Digital technology requires private sector collaboration. If an increasingly partisan set of tech firms systematically try to wipe conservative thought out - which is what they are doing - despite that this political philosophy represents about half the voting population, then they are going to end up regulated so strictly it'll make banks look like free-wheeling anarchists in comparison. This will happen slowly because conservatives don't want to do that, but it will happen, especially as actual shrink-the-state conservatives don't tend to get into leadership positions in the west.
Ultimately the right to criticise the government is a right to criticise those who have power. The arguments for it don't change if the government outsources suppression of speech to contractors, and don't change if a bunch of political allies manage to take control of organisations required to engage in speech. It's the right itself that matters.
I agree this is true in theory, with the internet as it is today. PragerU can and should host their own videos if Google doesn't want to (edit: though in this case the problem is not related to hosting but advertising, it seems?). Anyway, we can and should criticise Google for their partisan stances and they shouldn't be treated with much sympathy if a conservative government retaliates in some way either, but that's by the by.
The problem is that this sort of thing doesn't have any limits. People were making the exact same argument when Google seized the domain of a source of unpopular speech such that the owners were not only unable to use Google's services, but in fact, were unable to host themselves too. It was basically a DoS attack by a corporation on that site.
The internet is run entirely by private companies. What happens to your argument when someone does in fact stop PragerU from providing their own video platform that doesn't censor content? For instance because an angry mob tries to shut down your ISP, or a DNS provider steals your domain, or a DDoS protection firm decides not to protect you anymore and then lets an anonymous mob take your servers offline?
Nobody at any point has violated the constitution, but the outcome is identical. Digital technology requires private sector collaboration. If an increasingly partisan set of tech firms systematically try to wipe conservative thought out - which is what they are doing - despite that this political philosophy represents about half the voting population, then they are going to end up regulated so strictly it'll make banks look like free-wheeling anarchists in comparison. This will happen slowly because conservatives don't want to do that, but it will happen, especially as actual shrink-the-state conservatives don't tend to get into leadership positions in the west.
Ultimately the right to criticise the government is a right to criticise those who have power. The arguments for it don't change if the government outsources suppression of speech to contractors, and don't change if a bunch of political allies manage to take control of organisations required to engage in speech. It's the right itself that matters.
Nobody's infringed PragerU's right to criticize the government, and a private company uplifting other content above Prager's doesn't imply Prager's has been suppressed.
No, clearly. I'm talking about the extrapolation of a trend, not this specific case.
> Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation?
PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But this decision is absolutely consistent with applying the First Amendment to corporations.
Compulsory speech is not free speech. Why should YouTube be forced to spend their time and money to disseminate PragerU's content on their platform — i.e. to "speak" against their will?
PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But this decision is absolutely consistent with applying the First Amendment to corporations.
Compulsory speech is not free speech. Why should YouTube be forced to spend their time and money to disseminate PragerU's content on their platform — i.e. to "speak" against their will?
If a video on YouTube constitutes YouTube's speech then does that mean if somebody posts a video containing something illegal YouTube should be held responsible?
It's not the video that YouTube creates; it's the metadata of recommendations, classification, and advertising association.
PragerU attempted to argue YouTube infringed PragerU's freedom by arranging that metadata in a way PragerU didn't like.
PragerU attempted to argue YouTube infringed PragerU's freedom by arranging that metadata in a way PragerU didn't like.
If I lend you my megaphone, should I be held responsible if you use it to say something illegal?
As an individual, I don't have to let PragerU say whatever they want on my property. If I and some other people who also individually have that right pool resources and create a company, why should that company then lack the right to govern who can use our property? Why should we lose our freedom of association (you know, something actually protected under 1A)?
>Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation?
It comes from the body of everyone who holds shares in the corporation. Banning free speech from corporations would increase the influence of billionaires, not lessen it, by making it impossible for those who don't have the means individually of purchasing distribution from banding together and purchasing distribution as a collective entity.
Concrete example: let's say there's an evil billionaire, Lex Luthor, who's flooding the airwaves with propaganda for policies that you think are awful and evil. In a world where corporate speech was prohibited or restricted, you and your neighbors would have much less power to oppose Mr. Luthor, because you would be unable to band together and form a corporate entity (e.g. "Concerned Citizens Against Kryptonite Pollution") to oppose Mr. Luthor's advertising that kryptonite is a perfectly safe chemical which has no negative health effects.
It comes from the body of everyone who holds shares in the corporation. Banning free speech from corporations would increase the influence of billionaires, not lessen it, by making it impossible for those who don't have the means individually of purchasing distribution from banding together and purchasing distribution as a collective entity.
Concrete example: let's say there's an evil billionaire, Lex Luthor, who's flooding the airwaves with propaganda for policies that you think are awful and evil. In a world where corporate speech was prohibited or restricted, you and your neighbors would have much less power to oppose Mr. Luthor, because you would be unable to band together and form a corporate entity (e.g. "Concerned Citizens Against Kryptonite Pollution") to oppose Mr. Luthor's advertising that kryptonite is a perfectly safe chemical which has no negative health effects.
It cuts both ways. There are many more wealthy corporations than individuals.
That's absolutely true! However, I think restricting corporate speech is a misguided way of going about balancing the free speech rights so that the wealthy can't overwhelm the rest of us with their ability to marshal the (digital) presses. Like I pointed out in my original comment, restricting corporate speech would hurt individuals of lesser means as much, if not more, than it would hurt wealthy individuals.
The real "problem" is that the US has the First Amendment, which guarantees both free association and free speech in a relatively absolutist manner. Unrestricted corporate speech is a result of the confluence of those two conditions. I can associate with whomever I please, so long as it is not for a criminal purpose, and I can say whatever I want (subject to the usual restrictions around threats and direct incitements to violence). So of course, I can gather with like-minded individuals to say things more loudly.
I don't think the solution to this "problem" has anything to do with speech laws. The root cause, as you pointed out, is the massive disparities in wealth. If we addressed that, then the problem of the wealthy being able speak more goes away, without us having to weaken the First Amendment, a step I am very averse to taking.
The real "problem" is that the US has the First Amendment, which guarantees both free association and free speech in a relatively absolutist manner. Unrestricted corporate speech is a result of the confluence of those two conditions. I can associate with whomever I please, so long as it is not for a criminal purpose, and I can say whatever I want (subject to the usual restrictions around threats and direct incitements to violence). So of course, I can gather with like-minded individuals to say things more loudly.
I don't think the solution to this "problem" has anything to do with speech laws. The root cause, as you pointed out, is the massive disparities in wealth. If we addressed that, then the problem of the wealthy being able speak more goes away, without us having to weaken the First Amendment, a step I am very averse to taking.
Indeed!
We, as many societies, will have to deal with the other large question: what do we do with monopolistic mega-companies?
The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography. There is Vimeo and other tiny video sites, but none of them amount to the connected monetization platforms, like the way Google does with YT.
Traditional monopolies don't really come into place, because as the canard here on HN is, "You can just make your own video site." In reality, that ignores all the interconnection and entrenchment. But Google doing X doesn't mean you can't. Are they a monopoly? (I believe they are.) And if so, what restrictions should they have in place to be fair?
(As and aside: I am arguing this in good faith. I've seen and had friends deplatformed for infosec, hacking, and gun repair videos on YT. I've also seen similar on FB and Twitter as well, with no recourse. And on FB and Twitter both, my elected politicians show up and talk with the populace. But alas, my first comment sits at -4, for what I guess is as a 'disagree button'. )
We, as many societies, will have to deal with the other large question: what do we do with monopolistic mega-companies?
The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography. There is Vimeo and other tiny video sites, but none of them amount to the connected monetization platforms, like the way Google does with YT.
Traditional monopolies don't really come into place, because as the canard here on HN is, "You can just make your own video site." In reality, that ignores all the interconnection and entrenchment. But Google doing X doesn't mean you can't. Are they a monopoly? (I believe they are.) And if so, what restrictions should they have in place to be fair?
(As and aside: I am arguing this in good faith. I've seen and had friends deplatformed for infosec, hacking, and gun repair videos on YT. I've also seen similar on FB and Twitter as well, with no recourse. And on FB and Twitter both, my elected politicians show up and talk with the populace. But alas, my first comment sits at -4, for what I guess is as a 'disagree button'. )
> The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography
Why draw the line at pornography? It's legal and protected speech (at least "mainstream" porn, not talking about child porn or anything like that).
It's easy to say "well obviously YouTube isn't going to host that!", but it feels if we're going to compel them to platform speech they don't like, why would it stop at porn exactly?
NOTE:
I disagreed with your point above but I actually upvoted to offset some of the downvotes. HN really should reserve downvotes for problematic stuff or spam, not just people disagreeing where to draw the line for free speech.
Why draw the line at pornography? It's legal and protected speech (at least "mainstream" porn, not talking about child porn or anything like that).
It's easy to say "well obviously YouTube isn't going to host that!", but it feels if we're going to compel them to platform speech they don't like, why would it stop at porn exactly?
NOTE:
I disagreed with your point above but I actually upvoted to offset some of the downvotes. HN really should reserve downvotes for problematic stuff or spam, not just people disagreeing where to draw the line for free speech.
> Banning free speech from corporations would increase the influence of billionaires, not lessen it
Billionaires own, or control, PragerU, both in funding and board seats.
So they get the best of both worlds - the ability to use corporations to speak on their behalf _and_ shield them from the consequences.
Billionaires own, or control, PragerU, both in funding and board seats.
So they get the best of both worlds - the ability to use corporations to speak on their behalf _and_ shield them from the consequences.
The speech comes out of the bodies of the ownership of the company. Companies are just groups of people acting together for financial gain. Why should an individual give up constitutional rights or have to become an agent of the government just because they are acting in coordination with others rather than alone?
Wait, do you really believe what you're saying? You realize that YouTube has to appeal to advertisers to make money, and advertisers don't typically like sharing platforms with every group. If you crawl through new uploads, you'll find literal neo-Nazi propaganda without even working that hard.
There's nothing illegal about being a Nazi (at least in the US), but advertisers typically don't want to be on the same platform as Nazis (for good reason). Are you claiming that advertisers should be forced to advertise on platforms that they don't agree with?
NOTE:
I'm not claiming that PragerU is outright Nazi propaganda. I think they're a terrible organization and their videos are idiotic, but I haven't seen outright Nazi promotion on their stuff (though admittedly I haven't watched everything by them).
There's nothing illegal about being a Nazi (at least in the US), but advertisers typically don't want to be on the same platform as Nazis (for good reason). Are you claiming that advertisers should be forced to advertise on platforms that they don't agree with?
NOTE:
I'm not claiming that PragerU is outright Nazi propaganda. I think they're a terrible organization and their videos are idiotic, but I haven't seen outright Nazi promotion on their stuff (though admittedly I haven't watched everything by them).
gregd(3)
See Marsh V Alabama.
I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh.
I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh.
> I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh.
Or as pointed out in the article, probably not:
> Appeals court judges were not convinced. They pointed to a Supreme Court case[1] from last year in which plaintiffs unsuccessfully "tested a theory that resembled PragerU's approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its 'operation' of the private property as 'a public forum for speech.'" The case involved public access channels on a cable TV system.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-commun...
Or as pointed out in the article, probably not:
> Appeals court judges were not convinced. They pointed to a Supreme Court case[1] from last year in which plaintiffs unsuccessfully "tested a theory that resembled PragerU's approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its 'operation' of the private property as 'a public forum for speech.'" The case involved public access channels on a cable TV system.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-commun...
"Manhattan Community Access Corp" doesn't seem to have the same market power as Google/Youtube. I still think this will be a novel SC case.
Interestingly Manhattan Community Access Corp is definitely in some regards closer to a state actor, being authorized by NYC to operate.
Interestingly Manhattan Community Access Corp is definitely in some regards closer to a state actor, being authorized by NYC to operate.
It's true they would have a more favorable shot in the SC than in the 9th circuit.
One of the judges on the panel was Jay Bybee. You might know him from signing the Torture Memos authored by John Yoo.
If they can't convince that level of hack, they don't have a chance in the SC.
If they can't convince that level of hack, they don't have a chance in the SC.
This is a fascinating example, particularly in comparison to the "wedding cake" cases from a couple of years ago.
The question of trading off between the customer's speech and the service provider's freedom seems to be nearly the same in both cases.
But the people following along at home have almost all traded sides! Those who were for the customer before are now cheering for the provider. Those who supported the old provider are now supporting the new customer. And they're using many of the same arguments to do it.
People are weird.
The question of trading off between the customer's speech and the service provider's freedom seems to be nearly the same in both cases.
But the people following along at home have almost all traded sides! Those who were for the customer before are now cheering for the provider. Those who supported the old provider are now supporting the new customer. And they're using many of the same arguments to do it.
People are weird.
Not at all.
One important difference here is that people are free to discriminate on almost any grounds except a narrow set that have proven to be irrational and historically devastating. Race, gender, religion, and a few other things depending on jurisdiction.
The same rules apply to YouTube. If they had been arbitrarily banning the accounts of black people, they would have lost.
One important difference here is that people are free to discriminate on almost any grounds except a narrow set that have proven to be irrational and historically devastating. Race, gender, religion, and a few other things depending on jurisdiction.
The same rules apply to YouTube. If they had been arbitrarily banning the accounts of black people, they would have lost.
Ok, I did some digging.
The wedding cake case in Oregon was much closer to what you describe.
The one in Colorado was more like the Youtube case. He offered to sell them a cake off the shelf, but refused to create a custom cake for something he didn't support.
The wedding cake case in Oregon was much closer to what you describe.
The one in Colorado was more like the Youtube case. He offered to sell them a cake off the shelf, but refused to create a custom cake for something he didn't support.
Your theory is that, say, a baker not making a cake because he's opposed to interracial marriage is basically indistinguishable from YouTube deciding not to run ads against some of PragerU's videos?
You're making a moral case that one of these examples should be treated differently from the other because of the morality of their opinions.
It's not against the law to be a bad person. In fact, there's a famous quote from H.L. Mencken that "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."
The legal question is whether or not you can be required to create, perform, or publish something against your will. So in that narrow sense, yes the two cases are isomorphic.
If you start trying to create a legal framework that grants rights based on who's a good person and who isn't, well... Then you have a long road in front of you, and as they say, it's "paved with good intentions."
It's not against the law to be a bad person. In fact, there's a famous quote from H.L. Mencken that "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."
The legal question is whether or not you can be required to create, perform, or publish something against your will. So in that narrow sense, yes the two cases are isomorphic.
If you start trying to create a legal framework that grants rights based on who's a good person and who isn't, well... Then you have a long road in front of you, and as they say, it's "paved with good intentions."
That is not in fact what I'm doing. Refusing to serve, say, black people is illegal because of the pernicious societal harm caused by discrimination. A web site refusing to run ads against some corporation's videos does not have that track record of harm.
> Refusing to serve, say, black people is illegal because of the pernicious societal harm caused by discrimination.
That is true, but that's not what the Colorado guy was doing. (In the Oregon case, you're right, it's much more similar.)
The Colorado guy was closer to somebody who refuses to make a cake for MLK Day. Not making a cake to celebrate Martin Luther King does make you a pretty crappy person, but it's not quite the same thing as excluding a customer based on their race.
That is true, but that's not what the Colorado guy was doing. (In the Oregon case, you're right, it's much more similar.)
The Colorado guy was closer to somebody who refuses to make a cake for MLK Day. Not making a cake to celebrate Martin Luther King does make you a pretty crappy person, but it's not quite the same thing as excluding a customer based on their race.
I don't think that hair can be effectively split. By your logic there's all sorts of obviously anti-black stuff he can do on the nominal grounds of message. Refuse to make a cake bearing a name he sees as black. Refuse to make a cake celebrating the birthday of a black person.
Similarly, a print shop could by that theory refuse to reproduce the resume of a black person on the grounds that they think black employment is against their religion. There's extensive (white) theological history supporting that position.
Of course, exactly none of this is the same thing as YouTube deciding not to run ads on some corporation's videos.
Similarly, a print shop could by that theory refuse to reproduce the resume of a black person on the grounds that they think black employment is against their religion. There's extensive (white) theological history supporting that position.
Of course, exactly none of this is the same thing as YouTube deciding not to run ads on some corporation's videos.
[deleted]
> It's not against the law to be a bad person. In fact, there's a famous quote from H.L. Mencken that "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."
> If you start trying to create a legal framework that grants rights based on who's a good person and who isn't, well... Then you have a long road in front of you, and as they say, it's "paved with good intentions."
This is the absolute crux of the matter, and something that the current crop of puritans ignore.
> If you start trying to create a legal framework that grants rights based on who's a good person and who isn't, well... Then you have a long road in front of you, and as they say, it's "paved with good intentions."
This is the absolute crux of the matter, and something that the current crop of puritans ignore.
I don't see how this case and the wedding cake case are even remotely similar beyond the fact that both of the defendants are businesses.
These cases are not even remotely the same.
In the case of the bakers refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple (I followed this case closely as I lived in Oregon at the time), the cake shop owners refused to bake the cake on the grounds that they said specifically they refused to bake the cake because the couple was gay. The bakers also went the additional step of doxxing this customer for which they paid a hefty fine.
Also in Oregon, gay people are a protected class of citizen by the State.
In the case of the bakers refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple (I followed this case closely as I lived in Oregon at the time), the cake shop owners refused to bake the cake on the grounds that they said specifically they refused to bake the cake because the couple was gay. The bakers also went the additional step of doxxing this customer for which they paid a hefty fine.
Also in Oregon, gay people are a protected class of citizen by the State.
The problem with that comparison is that we eat cakes. I think a better example would be that of the long-lamented "Fairness Doctrine". The explosion of right-wing AM radio would never have occurred without Reagan's repeal of that FCC policy in 1987. So naturally conservatives think the Fairness Doctrine was terrible. Imagine, having to play the same number of liberal radio programs as conservative radio programs on your AM station! Online, it's different, for reasons. Of course, no one remembers what happened in the 1980s, although Limbaugh is still around.
[deleted]
And the 14th Amendment was meant to act as a constraint on the general government but that hasn't stopped it from being used to constrain state governments.
Thought experiment: what would happen if Alphabet banned homosexual positive speech on all it's platforms?
Seems like a pretty weak argument they made regarding the first amendment. Google censorship being considered a "state action"? Yeah right.
A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session: https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-v...
A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session: https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-v...
It's Google's platform, they're not the stewards of reality and are free to censor whatever they want.
Freedom to censor being a legal right?
Yes. Free speech is just as much about your right to keep your mouth shut as it is the right to open it.
Yes, just like the freedom to spread fake news and twisted facts that PragerU is using.
Freedom of the press is a legal right recognized in the US, yes.
Yes because some people don't actually care about freedom, they just think it's important that the people that reduce it weren't elected.
> A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session...
Why is that any more interesting? Is google compelled to host and preserve any and all content?
Why is that any more interesting? Is google compelled to host and preserve any and all content?
I still don't think that would be a First Amendment issue.
> Seems like a pretty weak argument they made regarding the first amendment.
Because this was a publicity stunt, not an actual attempt to redress anything through the courts.
Because this was a publicity stunt, not an actual attempt to redress anything through the courts.
I wonder if government involvement in the creation of Google makes the case any stronger.
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
Was that not already well established?
A more interesting case would be the federal government pressuring YouTube to remove some videos, similar to the Wiki leaks payment blockade a few years back.
I wonder, why did they use a First Amendment claim rather than something to do with safe harbour considerations (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
My understanding in this area is thin, but from what I understand the big tech media companies often claim limited or no liability for user generated content because of the above legal considerations. If so, and they then go on curate content, that would seem to be allowing them to accept the upside of being a publisher (a curated experience they can sell to customers and other stakeholders) without accepting the downside (liability for copyright infringement, slander and libel, etc.).
I'm not sure why PragerU's legal team didn't push in this area rather than the admittedly dodgy First Amendment claim.
edit: grammar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
My understanding in this area is thin, but from what I understand the big tech media companies often claim limited or no liability for user generated content because of the above legal considerations. If so, and they then go on curate content, that would seem to be allowing them to accept the upside of being a publisher (a curated experience they can sell to customers and other stakeholders) without accepting the downside (liability for copyright infringement, slander and libel, etc.).
I'm not sure why PragerU's legal team didn't push in this area rather than the admittedly dodgy First Amendment claim.
edit: grammar.
This is exactly backwards. 230 does not say "you are safe if you moderate nothing but expose yourself to trouble if you moderate". It says "if you moderate, but not perfectly consistently, you are still protected from garbage on your platform".
Haha well that explains that then. Thanks.
Because that's not a requirement of the law as written.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-c...
It would have even less chance of flying in court than the first amendment claim, which at least has some precedent due to lawsuits about protests in malls.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-c...
It would have even less chance of flying in court than the first amendment claim, which at least has some precedent due to lawsuits about protests in malls.
Possibly because PragerU isn't actually good at this sort of thing.
It's not like we should assume they understand law or how to hire lawyers who do. It turns out there's no law against attaching "University" as a title to your organization without any kind of vetting, bona fides, or accreditation.
It's not like we should assume they understand law or how to hire lawyers who do. It turns out there's no law against attaching "University" as a title to your organization without any kind of vetting, bona fides, or accreditation.
YouTube is really silly to ban PragerU. Although I disagree with maybe 70% of PragerU's content (I listen to their podcast), I find it very informative of the conservative POV. It also exposes me to ideas that makes me do my own further research. I listen to them regularly; there is much worse content on other places in YouTube.
They haven't banned it; their channel is the first search result on YouTube for the keyword 'PragerU'.
They've flagged it as restricted content so that advertising isn't attached to it, organizations who specifically ask Google "Don't show me restricted content" (such as schools) can't reach it from the networks they control, and auto-recommendation engines are down-sampled on it. Essentially, PragerU is trying to argue that they should have the right to force YouTube to classify their content into the same bucket as "baby shark" videos.
It's a very silly argument from PragerU's side.
They've flagged it as restricted content so that advertising isn't attached to it, organizations who specifically ask Google "Don't show me restricted content" (such as schools) can't reach it from the networks they control, and auto-recommendation engines are down-sampled on it. Essentially, PragerU is trying to argue that they should have the right to force YouTube to classify their content into the same bucket as "baby shark" videos.
It's a very silly argument from PragerU's side.
And at the same time, Google claiming that prageru is "sensitive content" is kind of ridiculous too.
I believe it falls under "Incendiary or demeaning content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en).
Edit: other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note that it may very well simply fall under "Mature Subjects" (terror, war, crime, politics).
Edit: other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note that it may very well simply fall under "Mature Subjects" (terror, war, crime, politics).
All of those "Mature Subjects" sound like things that kids in schools should very definitely be allowed to access, IMO.
And somehow I'd imagine that CNN's YouTube channel isn't limited in the same way. (Or Fox News, for that matter)
And somehow I'd imagine that CNN's YouTube channel isn't limited in the same way. (Or Fox News, for that matter)
sensitive content
Presumably schools don't want their students ogling T&A during study hall. Does that mean students shouldn't see any politics? These are two entirely different things that should be placed in different categories.
Presumably schools don't want their students ogling T&A during study hall. Does that mean students shouldn't see any politics? These are two entirely different things that should be placed in different categories.
I believe it falls under "Incendiary or Demeaning Content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en). And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of schools consider that inappropriate for e.g. middle or high school (though I certainly haven't taken a poll).
I haven't watched anything from Prager in at least a decade, but I'd be surprised if it was anything more "incendiary or demeaning" than "Trump is a great president!" The point stands, that regardless of how many categories they list, the switch that turns off porn shouldn't also turn off political speech. That is a flaw in Youtube, that probably wouldn't exist if they didn't have a monopoly.
"Shouldn't" in what sense? Are they leaving money or users on the table by failing to increase the granularity of the filter?
The core market for the feature is schools, and that group is generally okay with the filter being conservative and low-granularity (read: little thought required for configuration)
The core market for the feature is schools, and that group is generally okay with the filter being conservative and low-granularity (read: little thought required for configuration)
Money: These videos are playing less than they would have without being restricted, therefore less associated advertising is playing. It's probably not much money on Alphabet's scale.
Users: Somewhere in this nation, there is a high school administrator who consents to students learning about politics. There might even be more than one.
Users: Somewhere in this nation, there is a high school administrator who consents to students learning about politics. There might even be more than one.
As a private organization, if that's money they want to leave on the table and users they don't choose to serve, that's their right. As you've noted, it's not much at Alphabet's scale.
Another company could pick up the slack. Hell, PragerU could do it. Nothing stopping them from brokering their own ad deals to run prerolls on video they host with their own infrastructure. A few schools might allow access, and many will just black-hole prageru.com in their firewalls.
Another company could pick up the slack. Hell, PragerU could do it. Nothing stopping them from brokering their own ad deals to run prerolls on video they host with their own infrastructure. A few schools might allow access, and many will just black-hole prageru.com in their firewalls.
This feels like ground we've already covered ITT. Sure, the current interpretation of current laws allows Alphabet to do basically anything they want. We can still talk about what they should do, and better serving users and making more money are both criteria that can inform that discussion. I thought you had suggested these criteria above.
Indeed; I was speaking broadly, not in absolute categoricals, and my question should have read "Are they leaving large amounts of money or users on the table." My apologies for being unclear. Yes, every decision they make in both directions leaves nonzero money and users on the table.
At Google scale, one has to weigh the risk of false-positive and the risk of false-negative on a low-granularity feature like this, and the risk of error due to misconfiguration being blamed upon YouTube if it's turned into a high-granularity feature. Because the failure mode for YouTube if they false-negative something that is visible to students who should not have seen it (and generate a negative press cycle for themselves) is that schools choose to black-hole youtube.com instead of bothering with Restricted Mode at all. That's what was happening before they added the feature, and it's the reason Restricted Mode exists.
At Google scale, one has to weigh the risk of false-positive and the risk of false-negative on a low-granularity feature like this, and the risk of error due to misconfiguration being blamed upon YouTube if it's turned into a high-granularity feature. Because the failure mode for YouTube if they false-negative something that is visible to students who should not have seen it (and generate a negative press cycle for themselves) is that schools choose to black-hole youtube.com instead of bothering with Restricted Mode at all. That's what was happening before they added the feature, and it's the reason Restricted Mode exists.
That's a pretty clever way to add immediate framing for anyone viewing the content: conservatism is - by definition, apparently - incendiary and demeaning. Convenient.
Other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note it may simply fall under "mature" for dealing with topics of violence, war, and terrorism.
From that link:
Mature subjects: Videos that cover specific details about events related to terrorism, war, crime and political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury, even if no graphic imagery is shown.
. . . .
You can’t post videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics.
It's interesting that all USA politics is acknowledged to be "political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury", but somehow I doubt that MSNBC will be held to this standard...
Mature subjects: Videos that cover specific details about events related to terrorism, war, crime and political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury, even if no graphic imagery is shown.
. . . .
You can’t post videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics.
It's interesting that all USA politics is acknowledged to be "political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury", but somehow I doubt that MSNBC will be held to this standard...
They appear to be. Only a handful of PragerU's videos are marked restricted. A cursory check on https://www.youtube.com/user/msnbcleanforward/videos with restricted mode on and off shows a handful of their videos are also marked restricted, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZWasc1rC_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSFQos3XTEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZWtdFVU904
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZWasc1rC_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSFQos3XTEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZWtdFVU904
Mentioning coronavirus is violent or demeaning? I am more and more confused...
I have no idea by what criteria, precisely, these videos or the PragerU videos were marked restricted. Neither does PragerU, for that matter; Google doesn't surface that level of detail on the Restricted algorithm to end-users. I've been making educated guesses at the detailed cause, but it's somewhat irrelevant; the answer is, really, "Google's algorithm deems this content should be restricted."
By that criteria, MSNBC and PragerU appear to be treated the same way.
(Edit: FWIW, I went ahead and clicked through one video and that micro-sample should probably be flagged for "politics;" pundit accusing the President of, at best, being ignorant of science, and at worst, misleading the American people intentionally. That's clearly inflammatory political content).
By that criteria, MSNBC and PragerU appear to be treated the same way.
(Edit: FWIW, I went ahead and clicked through one video and that micro-sample should probably be flagged for "politics;" pundit accusing the President of, at best, being ignorant of science, and at worst, misleading the American people intentionally. That's clearly inflammatory political content).
That's key to the current frustration with YouTube, outside of constitutional grounds: as a platform, it's become wildly unstable to depend on, as you simply are not given the ability to understand where it will or will not draw the line, and their application of their standards leaves such an ambiguous and inconsistent trail of evidence that it's harmful to everyone who tries to rely on it.
I know you keep linking this blog post as if it proves a point, but its argument is tenuous at best.
The crux of the author's case is that PragerU's videos fall into the category of "videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics."
This is a remarkably wide net to cast. Surely you can think of countless YouTube channels which were not subject to the same scrutiny that Prager was, yet obviously have videos on politics and war.
At the end of the day, Google disagrees with Prager's politics. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
The crux of the author's case is that PragerU's videos fall into the category of "videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics."
This is a remarkably wide net to cast. Surely you can think of countless YouTube channels which were not subject to the same scrutiny that Prager was, yet obviously have videos on politics and war.
At the end of the day, Google disagrees with Prager's politics. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Under the same Restricted Content scheme, Google also flagged LGBTQ+ videos (https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demo...). I don't think anyone argues seriously that the company's politics (in general) are at odds with supporting LGBTQ+ causes and people.
It may be worthwhile to ask not what YouTube wants, but what the audience for these features wants. Are PragerU videos restricted because most schools think they're worthy of restriction?
It may be worthwhile to ask not what YouTube wants, but what the audience for these features wants. Are PragerU videos restricted because most schools think they're worthy of restriction?
While I agree with the ruling, we could use some new laws governing fairness on the Facebook and Google monopolies.
These two companies have tremendous political power and I don’t think ignoring that and hoping for the best is a great option for an open society.
The other solution could be to break up FB/Instagram/WhatsApp and Google/YouTube to inject some competition back into these markets.
These two companies have tremendous political power and I don’t think ignoring that and hoping for the best is a great option for an open society.
The other solution could be to break up FB/Instagram/WhatsApp and Google/YouTube to inject some competition back into these markets.
The problem we have is that whilst lots of people think that there should be new regulation, no one can agree on what it is and in the mean time you have to contend with:
* Both partisans pushing for legislation they can use to beat the other side with
* Monopolistic entities such as facebook that intend to use 'regulation' as a moat - writing legislation that only restricts them from doing things they already don't do
* Incompetent legislators who don't understand the issues - since they were born before colour tv was invented, let alone smart phones and the internet.
And that's before even considering the obvious anti-competitive mergers that have been happening. You talk about breaking up Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp. Why were they allowed to be sold in the first place.
* Both partisans pushing for legislation they can use to beat the other side with
* Monopolistic entities such as facebook that intend to use 'regulation' as a moat - writing legislation that only restricts them from doing things they already don't do
* Incompetent legislators who don't understand the issues - since they were born before colour tv was invented, let alone smart phones and the internet.
And that's before even considering the obvious anti-competitive mergers that have been happening. You talk about breaking up Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp. Why were they allowed to be sold in the first place.
If YouTube had to survive independently of Google/Alphabet it would look vastly different. Not sure if that is good or bad.
Indeed. Having a corporation as an Orwellian overlord isn't noticeably better than having a government as one.
Putting on my tinfoil hat on for a bit, I think PragerU did this lawsuit largely for marketing value, knowing full-well it wouldn't win, since their actual argument was bizarre and had implications that literally no one would get behind.
It puts the right-wing entity "PragerU" into the public consciousness, and they get to wear some badge of "We're the real defenders of free speech!" I'm sure that Dennis Prager and his ilk will go on Fox News and use this to talk about how the evil leftist court systems don't believe in open discourse, and it'll probably end up with more people watching the videos overall.
It puts the right-wing entity "PragerU" into the public consciousness, and they get to wear some badge of "We're the real defenders of free speech!" I'm sure that Dennis Prager and his ilk will go on Fox News and use this to talk about how the evil leftist court systems don't believe in open discourse, and it'll probably end up with more people watching the videos overall.
Agreed. PragerU doesn't appear to understand many things, but I think they understand Streisand Effect.
Not sure why you are downvoted, the theory makes sense.
Is every commercial content platform free to censor the content however they want? Can Verizon censor the CNN and Fox News that is delivered by cable? Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like? Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with?
The former cases seem unlikely, so what is the difference with YouTube?
The former cases seem unlikely, so what is the difference with YouTube?
> Can Verizon censor the CNN and Fox News that is delivered by cable?
Yes, and they already set standards for the channels they accept on their cable platform.
> Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like?
No, your phone carrier is a common carrier.
> Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with?
Yes, but they might hit issues with advertising guidelines depending on intent
Yes, and they already set standards for the channels they accept on their cable platform.
> Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like?
No, your phone carrier is a common carrier.
> Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with?
Yes, but they might hit issues with advertising guidelines depending on intent
Would it be feasible (legally) to build a website which hosts user generated content and be considered a common carrier therefore not responsible for what users post? Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here.
People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest. In the case of particularly gruesome combat footage or violent crime I don’t see how in some jurisdictions those sites could operate with the content NOT taken down. For instance, you recall how 8chan was taken down over the Christchurch NZ shooters manifesto and video.
People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest. In the case of particularly gruesome combat footage or violent crime I don’t see how in some jurisdictions those sites could operate with the content NOT taken down. For instance, you recall how 8chan was taken down over the Christchurch NZ shooters manifesto and video.
> Would it be feasible (legally) to build a website which hosts user generated content and be considered a common carrier therefore not responsible for what users post?
This is already the case per the safe harbor.
> Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here.
Note that being not liable is not the same as being immune to takedown. Youtube isn't legally liable for what you post, but they still have to comply with the law (and they are liable if they fail to comply).
> People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest.
Youtube isn't censoring material because of legal liability. Youtube censors material because their investors and advertisers don't want some materials on Youtube which they perceive to negatively affect is, such as combat footage, material seen to be preying on children and anything with nudity.
This is already the case per the safe harbor.
> Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here.
Note that being not liable is not the same as being immune to takedown. Youtube isn't legally liable for what you post, but they still have to comply with the law (and they are liable if they fail to comply).
> People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest.
Youtube isn't censoring material because of legal liability. Youtube censors material because their investors and advertisers don't want some materials on Youtube which they perceive to negatively affect is, such as combat footage, material seen to be preying on children and anything with nudity.
The question is why YouTube and Twitter shouldn't be treated as common carriers. Is it because they're one-to-many instead of one-to-one?
Because among other reasons, common carriers were given certain responsibilities to do so, among the privileges and rights they were given (legislated rights of way, exclusive access to airwaves etc.) that were deemed in the public good.
There are no such limitations on YouTube, Twitter, nor are there restrictions on competition.
There are no such limitations on YouTube, Twitter, nor are there restrictions on competition.
I need Verizon (or another carrier) to get onto the internet. I don't need Youtube to make use of the internet.
If my ISP is down I can't watch TV or check my emails. If Youtube is down for an hour I can still shitpost on HN until it's back up.
If my ISP is down I can't watch TV or check my emails. If Youtube is down for an hour I can still shitpost on HN until it's back up.
Regarding Google, there's already an abundance of evidence that they can and do.
In every case you described except for your cell carrier, yes, they can. That is not censorship so much as having the right to choose what gets shown on your platform. Verizon can and does offer TV packages that do not include CNN/Fox News. Google can and does unlist and derank websites its algorithms do not like (this is the whole premise of SEO).
YouTube, as a private entity, can choose to do whatever it wants.
YouTube, as a private entity, can choose to do whatever it wants.
> Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with?
A main motivation behind PageRank was dissatisfaction with the quality and content of other search engines. And Google's SERP algorithm has constantly changed and evolved over the years.
A main motivation behind PageRank was dissatisfaction with the quality and content of other search engines. And Google's SERP algorithm has constantly changed and evolved over the years.
> Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with?
They have been doing that for a while.
They have been doing that for a while.
Youtube has been doing that for a long time now, manually adjusting specific search results, basing it sometimes on geography. I don't know if they are still manually adjusting results in this example, but one example a couple months ago was if someone searched for "Louder with Crowder change my mind" in the US, Crowder's videos were buried several pages in. If you hop onto a VPN and try another country, the expected natural search result came up instead.
One could possibly blame it on poor engineering and bugs, but given Google's talent pool, that seems unlikely.
One could possibly blame it on poor engineering and bugs, but given Google's talent pool, that seems unlikely.
One hypothetical way that can happen is if Google is prototyping something that impacts search ordering (a lot of their prototyping starts gated US-only because the team working on a feature hasn't done the hard work of l10n for the feature yet).
Or rather, First Amendment applies to YouTube, but they have freedom of the press; they are not obligated to be a medium for other people to exercise their freedom of speech.
That's the core issue in my mind -- YouTube et al. are publishers when it benefits them and platforms when it doesn't. They can't simultaneously identify as press but then not be responsible for user-uploaded content.
When they're acting as a hosting medium, they're conduit. When they add features atop the content they host to curate and surface it or down-signal it, they're press.
The two functions seem to be acceptable within one organization.
Probably worth noting there's a hefty dose of practicality in the interpretations as they currently stand. Even this forum, without safe harbor protection, could be on the hook for user-provided content if someone linked to child pornography here, yet it seems most users here are in agreement that Hacker News shouldn't lose safe harbor protections because it has moderators and community-driven karma.
The two functions seem to be acceptable within one organization.
Probably worth noting there's a hefty dose of practicality in the interpretations as they currently stand. Even this forum, without safe harbor protection, could be on the hook for user-provided content if someone linked to child pornography here, yet it seems most users here are in agreement that Hacker News shouldn't lose safe harbor protections because it has moderators and community-driven karma.
am I the only one who finds the irony of a right wing org wanting the government to force a private company to create a safe space for their content funny?
As a private company, I don’t believe YouTube should be obligated to be a platform to host people’s free speech. However, they do advertise themselves as a public forum so by restricting viewpoints that they disagree with they really aren’t the public forum they claim to be.
Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for what users post. But at the same time, platforms want to moderate their content selecting which views are acceptable and which are not.
These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines.
We have common carrier provisions for other communication mediums with no liability (ex. TV, ISP's). And we have liability for communication mediums with editorial control (ie. Newspapers, Magazines).
Tech companies are running up the center and making huge profits with an unfair legal advantage that no other communication medium gets.
Newspapers have to vet their classifieds and editorials. Facebook/YouTube/etc doesn't. And that is inherently unfair.
So either Congress or the Courts need to fix the law. And it's fair game for the courts, because the law is not being applied correctly to these platforms, given their abuses.