I dont get this mindset.
They aren't stopping them voicing their opinions or views... they're just stopping them posting it on THEIR service.
Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time. Why is this different?
They aren't stopping them voicing their opinions or views... they're just stopping them posting it on THEIR service.
Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time. Why is this different?
Newspapers, TV programs, and radio programs are publishers. In contrast, Youtube, Facebook, and other services like them are platforms. They are more like the theater building, the radio/TV station, or a telephone company. This gives them some legal protection against being held responsible for the conduct of their users. See [1]. Without this distinction, these services could not have taken off, because Youtube and Facebook would have had to sign off on each user's post.
But advancing technology is making it possible to police speech automatically. So the distinction between the publisher and platform is fading. Because platforms can regulate their users' speech now in almost real time, very cheaply, they are kind of forced to do it. Some speech is very hard to defend. The best, and easiest argument for allowing offensive speech on these platforms has been that the offensive speech could not be technically prevented without squelching a lot of acceptable speech. But now that argument is going away.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+publisher+or+platfor...
https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi...
Unfortunately that no longer holds as certain entities have a stranglehold on online communication.
Perhaps the free market will fix this. Perhaps not. Are we willing to allow a small cadre of like minded individuals manipulate the internet in the meantime?
I believe that's an intolerant situation and am not willing to wait.
And that's why newspapers are classified as publishers and therefore are able to be sued. "Platforms" like YouTube are can't be sued because they are supposed to act like platforms - which they are not. Right now YouTube is acting like publishers while using the advantage of being called a platform. This is the Communications Decency Act section 230.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
> One of the first legal challenges to Section 230 was the 1997 case Zeran v. America Online, Inc., in which a Federal court affirmed that the purpose of Section 230 as passed by Congress was "to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision".[8] Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material."
[. . .]
> Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49-53 (D.D.C. 1998).[71]
> The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choice by "providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."
That is clearly nonsense.
The CDA doesn’t say “in order to not be liable you must host everything regardless of what it is” it allows you to host potentially anything that is uploaded without being considered directly liable for that (which would be far more censorious)
The idea that anyone can be a content creator is, it's supposed to be as neutral as possible. Let the world battle it out against itself. Once you start taking sides of opinions (as opposed to legal ones) then you become a content curator.
For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. We'll fight to my death but it is my right to hold said stupid idea and voice it with youtube being my megaphone.
That's a core tenant of free speech and youtube was supposed to be able to help that. Now they're taking sides and it's not comforting
> That's a core tenant of free speech
I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points.
The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worrying about survival of the fittest.
I believe it was Jefferson that was vehemently against government officials making false claims / lying...which is a limitation of free speech, but results in a net surplus of free speech.
The idea that all speech should be free is a fairly ignorant one.
> and voice it with youtube being my megaphone.
And this is ABSOLUTELY against any sort of semblance of the ideas America was founded on. YouTube is a private platform. They can (and SHOULD) police their speech, because it is a private platform.
YouTube is ultimately socially responsible for the outcomes of what people say on it's platform. If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic, YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.
Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives.
But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.
> YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.
Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no?
If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?
Tomorrow, if Youtube said, "We'll remove all content that does not agree with the POTUS." That's only a few letters away from the WHO, right? POTUS is authority.
But that's insane. That's absurd.
That's what this debate is about. Censoring goes both ways.
I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it.
> That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.
I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it.
> If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?
(I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me)
I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.
> Censoring goes both ways.
Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"
Yea, you're right, but thanks for getting the spirit.
> Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist.
That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux.
Your sense of justice is driving your opinions. Someone else's is going to be slightly different. Okay that's obvious, but the high level is how do you decide what is right/wrong? It's a spectrum, a very wide and diverse one. What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?
> I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.
FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas. You can have a net-surplus of "good done" via censorship. But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?
All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.
I'd say this was a poor choice of words. All opinions are "legitimate" in that people actually hold them and believe in them.
> What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?
I don't think this is hard to measure, especially since we already have tests for what is protected speech and what is not in the US. For instance, we have federal laws that stop employers or landlords from exercizing their right to free speech when it involves discrimination against certain protected classes of people. Or slander/libel, or inciting violence.
> FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas.
This is not the case, as explained above and in an earlier comment. In the US we already have laws that limit free speech, yet result in a more free society.
> But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?
Yes, both of these things are good and would be considered good under just about any normative ethical framework.
> All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.
I agree with this fully, and would condemn anyone using censorship to remove free speech that isn't harmful. I advocate for similar positions in that I am generally ok with the government jailing people (which is an act of violence) that commit crimes. The right to jail people is an even more powerful tool than censorship, but most people are ok with this being done.
Of course you can. The government banning a platform from moderating content is a form of government censorship. Yet you believe that this would lead to more free speech.
Either a platform moderating is more free speech, or not moderating is more free speech. In either case, someone is being censored. So some form of censorship leads to more free speech.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
> First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.
Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.
Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory:
Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous!
Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous.
Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then?
Not all snakes are venomous.
So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
You misunderstand how wrong information, identified as such, is received.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news...
Pointing out something is false either has no effect, or makes people double down on wrong ideas / beliefs. Continuing to host said ideas will cause them to spread.
The responsible thing was removal, but perhaps with more transparency around how and why.
Its arguable just as important for the concept of America to let owners of private property not be deprived of their freedom and liberties.
Was it though? First Amendment says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want.
The bill of rights is a legal document, and it can only govern the actions of government. But I don't think that there's any debate that the first amendment came about because the founding fathers believed free speech was an inalienable human right. I don't think the founding fathers would say that inalienable rights are suddenly alienated because you put a corporation in charge of your communications platform.
Do you believe free speech is a human right? If so, then why do you care when it's violated by a government, but not care when it's violated by corporations who are arguably more powerful in the field of communication?
Are bookstores required to stock every book ever published?
Are fraud and defamation free speech?
Must newspapers post every classified ad submitted to them?
Is medical advice free speech?
Are government clerks required to serve verbally abusive clients?
No, no, no... there are plenty of examples where the right to free speech is found to have limits. Especially when that speech violates other freedoms.
You have the right to make videos and distribute them. You do not have the right to compel anybody to watch them, receive them or redistribute them. A platform such as youtube has the right to curate -- otherwise it would be a useless mass of SEO'd spam.
Again, the question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?".
If you don't understand that there might be reasons to do something beyond legal obligation or profit, you're not equipped to participate in this conversation.
> ... you're not equipped to participate in this conversation.
Please review the site guidelines and take a more charitable approach to this conversation. There's some irony that your argument around ideologically pure free speech is punctuated by insinuation that I should self-censor because I'm not ideologically pure enough.
I provided a handful of reasons where speech can do harm, and where forced publication impinges other rights. I'm saying that yes, "platforms" (which are also publishers / promoters / marketers due to features such search, recommendation, featured content etc.) have an obligation, ethical or legal, to take certain content down. In the case of spam, that content is taken down or shadowbanned for the greater good. That's a free ethical choice, not a legal obligation.
By all means, there are cases where publishers should resist external pressure to censor, and I fully agree that Congress shall make no law. But youtube isn't the government. They have a right to curate the content that they distribute that is just as important as your right to produce and self-publish your content.
I said, "[J]ust because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."
Sure, you're allowed to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean saying it was the right thing to do. Saying that you said the wrong thing isn't ironic: it's exactly what one would expect given what I actually said.
There can be no irony with regards to my argument around ideologically pure free speech, because I didn't make any such argument.
Additionally, there's a difference between me censoring you by force, and me asking you to say things that are relevant.
> I provided a handful of reasons where speech can do harm, and where forced publication impinges other rights.
I never suggested forced publication, so these cases are not a response to my post.
> They have a right to curate the content that they distribute that is just as important as your right to produce and self-publish your content.
I specifically said that YouTube has this right. I said, "It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform."
We’re going to need a Youtube clone that has a better charter for content creators, and viewers alike.
A decentralized video platform not under the control of a centralized company would bypass all the issues you mention. There are technological challenges, but we've made slow progress toward solutions over the past few decades.
Now that we've got that out of the way, care to discuss the question I asked?
I think it's reasonable to assume that the American government contains the same kind of people that are in governments the world over and throughout history. And governments have always attempted to suppress speech: that's why the First Amendment was written.
Given Snowden's revelations, can you be sure that Youtube's censoring is simply a business decision by executives and not a result of government influence? How would things be different if the government were pressuring the big platforms to squelch speech?
What did Snowden reveal about government influence over private sector censorship? I must have missed it.
The text of the amendment looks pretty clear to me. Pressuring big platforms is a world away from passing a law.
It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform. But just because it's your right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the right to censor, should they censor?".
Like it or not, these platforms make up a significant portion of how our society communicates, and if you believe that free speech is a human right that's important for a free society, I don't see how you can say that it suddenly doesn't matter because we put a corporation in charge of a huge portion of our communications.
I don't think that social media platforms should allow free speech because they're obligated to, I think that social media platforms should allow free speech because free speech has importance and inherent value.
> Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time. Why is this different?
Newspapers, TV, and radio didn't sell themselves as platforms for conversation. They've always created their content (or paid someone else to create it) and curated it. Op/eds and viewer/listener calls are only a small fraction of the service these media channels provide, and frankly, these are usually more valuable for the producers of the media than the consumers in most cases. And even op/eds and viewer/listener calls are curated, with no pretense of anything else.
Social media initially gained traction on the false idea that they were platforms where anyone could have a conversation. Many people (myself included) warned that we shouldn't be giving up so much of our communications to corporations, but here we are decades later and everyone is using these as communications platforms.