12 ms·

Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?

87 points by arctux 8y ago

davidcbc 8y ago
> Do Facebook and YouTube constitute quasi-governmental actors that should be held to constitutional standards when regulating their vast marketplaces of ideas? Mr Tribe says that under current law, they aren’t. Betteridge's Law wins again
- kingbirdy 8y ago
  It seems the point here is to ask if they should be considered as such (potentially via changing the law), not how they are viewed under the current legal framework (where as they said, the answer is no).
21 8y ago
What if power companies "de-platformed" you? After all you use that power to spew hate, so they are morally responsible. And there is no constitutional right to have electrical power. You can just get yourself a generator, right. And of course, Apple is under no obligation to sell you a MacBook. After all, being a hateful person is not a protected class. I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  No but there are many many laws restricting their ability to do so as part of regulating their natural monopolies. I'm not sure the network effects of Facebook, Youtube, etc. rise to requiring the same protections vs the monopolies of power companies.
  - oarsinsync 8y ago
    I think that a better comparison to power companies is ISPs. Your ISP is a utility and natural monopoly, much like the power company. They shouldn’t be allowed to boot you for this (nor for alleged infringements by copyright groups but that’s a different matter) Unless we want to start considering platforms like Facebook public spaces subject to all generalised government regulations for those spaces.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      Yeah the comparison between Facebook/Youtube and power companies is painfully broken. If a power company won't sell to me there's no (practical) way to power my own home where Jones can peddle his lunacy all he want on his own site or one of the hundreds of other hosting opportunities. People have to be oh so slightly more active in seeking out his content now.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  This is a hyperbolic analogy and not useful. Sale of electricity and of general purpose computers are wildly less direct than providing a purpose-built platform for speech dissemination. Now, I don't think that banishment from those platforms for anything they define as "hate-speech" is guaranteed to be right for all definitions of "right", and it deserves real scrutiny, but your argument doesn't illuminate anything.
  - shawn 8y ago
    It was refreshingly insightful. It clearly illustrates the problem with “no platforming,” a concept that is inherently censorship.
    - happytoexplain 8y ago
      It's a common and obvious rhetorical tactic to manufacture an analogy that scales up the points you want to make and/or scales down the points you don't agree with. It's the same spirit as a strawman. I'm genuinely sad to see that called "refreshingly insightful" on HN.
      - shawn 8y ago
        Mm, a fair critique. This is one of the classic arguments where people feel strongly in one direction or another, and it takes very little effort to essentially set up a yay/nay vote. We can find common ground, but I wish it were possible without restricting what people can say.
  - reader5000 8y ago
    I would disagree. I think selling a person a computer/electricity which they use to make a podcast is as "wildly direct" as selling server hosting (social media platform) for the podcast.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      What about grocery stores that sell food to the same person allowing them to exist and make those said podscasts? Are they as "wildly direct" as well?
- rglover 8y ago
  > I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_execution_list_of_July_26,_1938 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_execution_list_of_J...
- ggggtez 8y ago
  But power companies can refuse you service. So what is your point? In the US, it's pretty well established that the corporation has a right of free-speech too, which usually translates into the right to not to business with someone. See recent supreme court rulings.
  - jlarocco 8y ago
    That's not entirely true. Power companies in some states can't refuse service, or they have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do so. I had an ex who would go 6-9 months without paying her utility bill, simply because there was nothing the power company could do about it. She was abusing the system, but the rules are setup that way so that people who really can't afford to pay their bill don't freeze to death in the winter.
    - ggggtez 8y ago
      > in some states Look, power companies can cut power. Sure there are rules, but the point still stands that they can do it. But it's not even relevant because getting your power cut can affect your ability to remain alive. Not posting on Facebook is not going to kill anyone.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    That's a bit of a misconception. In the US, there are plenty of laws that state a company must do business with you in various circumstances. See all the public accommodation laws. Beyond that, actually read the SC ruling on the whole cake thing and see its implications are not quite what the hype said.
    - ggggtez 8y ago
      It's not even relevant because electricity is not an ISP and an ISP is not a social network, and net neutrality doesn't exist. And power companies can cut your power!
      - protomyth 8y ago
- k__ 8y ago
  "there is no constitutional right to have electrical power" In Germany it isn't an explicit right, but some judges ruled that your existential minimum to live includes heat and power.
  - 21 8y ago
    And in Italy: > Stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime, Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36190557 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36190557
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance. Who gets to decide on who goes on that list? This is a very dangerous predicament that could shut out legitimate voices and dissenters. The list itself would likely be against first amendment rights.
  - shawn 8y ago
    It was sarcasm (I think), but it’s what social media has been clamoring for for years. And yes, it’s a terrible idea. It’s only favored by those who want to curtail what people can say.
- golemiprague 8y ago
  There are certain regulations imposed on electric companies that don't exist on youtube. It is much harder for them to disconnect a client or not to give service. Same goes for other monopolised and critical service like water and phone. I think these days youtube or facebook should be treated no different to a an electric company, they are the virtual equivalent of what used to be the city square or speech corner and it is not a good idea to ban people from there. The government should put on them the same regulation as other critical and monopolised services.
- hyperdunc 8y ago
  I nominate yourself to be the first person on that list and your "hateful" post is my justification. I know being barred from the networks that most people use will be an inconvenience for you, but it's for the good of society that people like yourself aren't able to easily disseminate these sorts of ideas. In fact, I know a guy with power and influence that can expedite your blacklisting, so I think I'll mention your name to him. Please do not resist, comrade. If you behave we may remove you from the list after a suitable number of years.
- Reedx 8y ago
  It's sad/scary that a lot of people would think that's a good idea. That is, until they find themselves on said list.
  - tmaly 8y ago
    And if this list is anything like the no fly list, its tough to get off of even of you were placed on the list in error
- prawn 8y ago
  (I'm curious more than trying to make a point with the following.) Any thoughts on the MacBook vs a MacBook with automated engraving offered by the company? Where do cake decorators fit into this? Is the situation different if the decorating process is automated?
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    This is a tangent. But no, I doubt it would matter. A company can refuse to put your initials as "KKK" on the product they sell you, regardless of the method by which they do it.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > we can social media mob them into compliance. But isn't the problem with the social media actors in the first place...
- nostromo 8y ago
  The crazy thing about social media mobs is how few people engage in them. A few hundred or thousand people angrily tweet about something -- who cares, right? Wrong. Cable media cares. They pick up a few of the most inflamitory examples from Twitter (it's easier to find quotes on Twitter than it is to go outside and report) and they present these tweets as if they represent a mainstream movement involving millions. And these angry (but tiny) mobs are having an enormous impact on private companies and public policy. The tail is wagging the dog.
  - 21 8y ago
    See this account which is used to organize mobs. The current target is Breitbart, and apparently the campaign is quite successful (they are listing 4000 advertisers which supposedly dropped support): https://twitter.com/slpng_giants https://twitter.com/slpng_giants
    - JustMatthew 8y ago
      Wow. That account has over 180,000 unpaid followers. That's quite literally a small army (for reference, it appears the number of active duty US marines is around 200k). Without commenting on the causes this (or any other) army of followers believes in, it's staggering to imagine what kind of impact monetary incentives, dispersed, for example, by way of an autonomous smart contract that is funded by anonymous donors via 'x' cryptocurrency that relies on some simple proof of action for payout, could have on the frequency and magnitude of actions such groups carry out. We really are at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of humanity.
- slivym 8y ago
  Let's be real here, there are big differences in what you're saying. The power company, or Apple for that matter can't know what you're using their products for. You could be smearing shit on twitter at work, or on the public wifi. There's no connection there. Whereas twitter, facebook, insta etc. the literal process is you send a message to the platform saying "Put X on you're website on my behalf". A second big difference is facebook decides to de-platform groups on facebook for what they do on facebook, they aren't banning people on a shared bad people list. That would be a kind of cartel/collusion which breaches other restraints on a company's behaviour.
  - 21 8y ago
    You are behind the times. Behavior outside Twitch can now lead to an indefinite ban: > In a blog post on Twitch’s community board, the company said that if a streamer uses other mediums to send targeted harassment or hate toward another streamer, it will consider those actions a violation of Twitch’s policies — even though the activity didn’t happen directly on the platform. https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/8/16988424/twitch-rules-harassment-toxicity-ban-policy https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/8/16988424/twitch-rules-haras...
    - tmaly 8y ago
      This sounds a lot like how students in the US are treated with respect to first amendment rights in public schools
  - Perceval 8y ago
    > Apple for that matter can't know what you're using their products for Yet, Apple imperiously employs a EULA to prevent me from using iTunes to make nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons https://www.cultofmac.com/140224/itunes-eula-wtf/ https://www.cultofmac.com/140224/itunes-eula-wtf/
- yellowcherry 8y ago
  Sounds in the same ballpark as China's "social credit score." Don't think this is satire that can't happen.
- wsinks 8y ago
  So, like an extension of the BBB?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SllX 8y ago
  Ooh ooh I love building lists of dissenters! That's like crack and baseball and baseball on crack rolled into one! Shall we get started? First: anyone that seriously advocates we the people build a list of dissenters among our own citizenry. Second: anyone that wants to gut core provisions of the Bill of Rights and US Constitution. That's about it. We don't really need to go any further. So, ready to sign yourself up for that list? I think it is such a fantastic idea that you really can't allow this opportunity to go to waste, and well, you know, you'll go down in history! That's even better than 15 minutes of fame on TV!
- nine_k 8y ago
  I can't help but notice how Poe's Law [1] is at work here, and many commenters downthread differ in opinion whether this post is satirical or serious. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
draw_down 8y ago
When they ban someone you don't like: hey, it's their platform and I respect that. When they ban someone you do like: free speech! Let every voice be heard! Tolerance! et cetera
- m1sta_ 8y ago
  Each platform has a tos. All of the tos need to be applied.
  - insickness 8y ago
    But it should be applied equally, not just at whim.
    - badlucklottery 8y ago
      Assuming it can be applied in an automated fashion, sure. But if there's a person in the loop, there's always going to be a priority queue so some are going to slip through the cracks longer than others.
    - shekelstien 8y ago
      That is the root of the issue here. These TOS are being applied arbitrarily - there needs to be some form of punitive measure for companies that do this.
      - dlp211 8y ago
        It's impractical for the same reasons it's impractical to prosecute every crime. This also means it's less than ideal, but with limited resources you apply them to those who are the most egregious.
  - hyperdunc 8y ago
    TOS should be precise and applied uniformly, but that's not what usually happens. Instead, TOS are intentionally vague so they can be applied selectively according to a company's whims, which are often politically motivated.
MrMember 8y ago
It is kind of scary how someone can be "blackballed" from the internet. All of your social media accounts get deleted so you move to your own website. Until the hosting company decides they don't want to do business with you so you start hosting it yourself. Until the domain registrar you used decides they don't like you so now you have to give people an IP address to reach your site. Until your ISP terminates your contract because they don't like people hosting websites on their network. So many services controlled by private companies that can choose to not do business with someone.
- m1sta_ 8y ago
  There are no signs of that being a risk for anyone. Stop with the FUD.
  - huntie 8y ago
    Didn't all of this happen with that website "The Daily Stormer"? Cloudflare removed them: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
    - influx 8y ago
      That's ok though because they are Nazis.
      - tomp 8y ago
        How can you say something like that? Like, how many people have they killed? Less that any of the last 5 US government administrations I suppose...
        balls187 8y ago
        You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty here. "Nazi" is closely associated to the Holocaust, but you don't have to have killed someone to be a Nazi. From Wikipedia: Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed. From that definition, Daily Stormer certainly was home to Nazi's, perhaps more appropriately "Neo-Nazi"
m1sta_ 8y ago
No they aren't.
golemiprague 8y ago
They certainly got the power, they are not a cake shop that you can bully in court, that's for sure. It seems like they can ban service and decide their own "terms of use", even though it is clear that nobody is going to think that they support their users content. But someone who doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, which is not even a judgment about the people but rather that he doesn't want to participate in something he opposed religiously, this is not allowed by the courts. It is clear there are two laws in America, one for lefties and one for right wing people and it is very sad.
shiburizu 8y ago
Problem: social networks are increasingly building themselves around "journalistic" or "media" companies. These companies can lean on their political alignment to vindicate themselves when things go sour with the network. Easy to turn this into a campaign against "mainstream" media AKA whoever isn't getting banned. Solution: No idea, but it's interesting to see this play out around media orgs instead of like, actual users who might have an opinion. Alex Jones is a strong face for InfoWars, but the whole thing is a media company.
djtriptych 8y ago
Free speech does not and has never meant “say whatever you want to anyone without repercussions”. Alex Jones isn’t in jail; that’s about the extent of the privilege his free speech rights afford him, and he still may be succesfully sued.
- syrrim 8y ago
  You're thinking of the first amendment and other legal institutions. Free speech is a much broader concept than this. Ask yourself what a right to bodily autonomy would be if the government only promised that its officers wouldn't bring harm to you, but any private citizen could: it would be anarchy. The reason there is no legal commentary limiting censorship is because it is difficult to discern in the general case when censorship is itself a speech act. This does not limit you or I from making this distinction as private citizens in the particular case, as here.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Free speech is a much broader concept than this. Free speech is exactly and specifically the right to control what expression you and your property are deployed to support. Private censorship isn't merely consistent with it, it is the core of it.
    - syrrim 8y ago
      Free speech is, in fact, primarily the right to say what you want, not the right to stop others from saying what they want. I admitted that the latter form is sometimes important, but that imparts no requirement on the rest of us to always agree with it. >you and your property are deployed to support In particular: "you and your property" is a much more general concept here then it might normally be. If I lend out my printing press to people then I should be able to say what they print with it. If I sell printing presses at a fair market rate, ie I am satisfied with my side of the transaction, then I shouldn't turn around and impose terms on the use of that press. These two things are qualitatively different, even though they both involve limiting the use of printing presses that were at one point mine.
throw2016 8y ago
The ad economy incentivizes poor quality content, clickbait and more and more extremist and divisive content. This won't stop, it will keep becoming more and more extreme and more and more divisive. You can confirm this on facebook and youtube at any time. The interim solution is to demonetize any non-original content, political content, news and opinion based content and disable personalized political or social advertising on all platforms. Because at the moment the large social media companies are profiting from incentivizing extremism and division and are basically poisoning the well.
hyperdunc 8y ago
It's time to improve the law and guarantee the right of all citizens to use monopoly services. Any large private platform or network should be subject to the First Amendment, because most of them don't operate primarily in a free market. Instead they are monopolies that enjoy network effects and as a consequence are easily strong-armed by governments. If Facebook's stock keeps declining and it ends up a shadow of its current self then it can be released from this obligation.
- lozaning 8y ago
  How would any of these sites then be moderated? If removing a comment is now a violation of the first amendment how do you keep sites true to the niche they where founded to serve? If I run the most popular website for people who like chili do I now have to allow posts related to all types of soups? Can my really popular chili site remove posts about your dog you keep making?
  - hyperdunc 8y ago
    If your chili site reaches the status of de facto town square where most public political discourse occurs, then yes you need to let everyone participate. Silicon Valley social media companies are effectively public forums on private land.
Bucephalus355 8y ago
Yes. The term that is popular in Europe is “Quangos” or “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization”. Quangos doesn’t technically apply here, but I think it’s a good frame of mind / reference to use. The fact that government power, has in the West, declined extensively since the 1970’s, means the power went elsewhere. The corporate / finance sector, with rock bottom interest rates provided from capital across the globe have received most of it. Of course this did all provide some benefits via the many innovations we’ve seen. But there are also many, probably more, downsides that we are seeing now.
reilly3000 8y ago
Most of these comments fail to appreciate the highly extreme nature of Alex Jones' rhetoric. Its obscene, flagrant garbage. There are dozens of lines he crossed thousands of times. He isn't banned from speech, but there isn't a place for that kind of conduct on platforms with any kind of standards.
- maratd 8y ago
  > Its obscene, flagrant garbage. It is. So what? > there isn't a place for that kind of conduct on platforms with any kind of standards. Flag it as "obscene, flagrant garbage" and hide it. Allow the user to decide. If they want to switch their account to "allow all", that's their choice. Google does this with search. They can easily do this on YouTube. They choose not to, which is unfortunate.
  - reilly3000 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... The tradition of American law certainly flies a different way than the approach you suggest. I sincerely respect your position, but feel that wisdom and tradition have found value in taking a more nuanced approach.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - maratd 8y ago
      That’s a list of speech that can be justifiably repressed by the government. It doesn’t apply here. We’re talking about private parties and about speech that doesn’t meet those thresholds, but is nevertheless reprehensible.
      - reilly3000 8y ago
        I assert that this threshold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... was broken by this incident: "The Pizzagate incident, like Jade Helm before it, illustrates Jones’s ability to influence his followers to take action in the real world, no matter how far-fetched or unrealistic his claims might be. The Pizzagate “story” emerged in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, and thanks in part to active promotion by Michael G. Flynn, the son of former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn (who also appeared to endorse the story on social media), was still going strong a full month after Election Day, when Edgar Welch appeared at Comet Ping Pong with an assault rifle, ready to “rescue” the children he was convinced were being held in the basement. Welch fired several shots and spent close to an hour inside the restaurant before apparently determining that there were not, in fact, any signs of any criminal activity anywhere in the building. He surrendered to police, and later pleaded guilty to assault and weapons charges. Welch was sentenced in June 2017 to four years in prison." Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-things-to-know https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-... It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous. The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law > It doesn’t apply here. <- doesn't hold up for me. One could argue that ironically, in exercising editorial discretion on content, social platforms demonstrate their ability to censure content, and thus open themselves up to liability for all of the content they chose not to take editorial action against. If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit. Snarky disclaimer: I give money to the ACLU, I believe in free speech deeply, and though every fiber in my being is opposed to their cause I will fight for the right for Westboro Baptist Church to be able to assemble peacefully in public space. But even Alex Jones' site acknowledges the need for limits: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-delete-infowars-content-not-according-infowars/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-...
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Trying to figure out how a cake baker with 1 store front is NOT allowed to discriminate, but multi billion dollar multinational companies are allowed to... ? BTW Facebook and Google have both received large amounts of government tax rebates etc. for their datacenters, so there is some government involvement. e.g. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebook-apple-and-amazon-get-2b-in-data-center-tax-breaks-economic-benefit-unclear/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebo...
- dlp211 8y ago
  The cake shop is free to discriminate against Alex Jones for the sane reason the YT, FB, AAPL, and Spotify are.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    So, undecided then? The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision didn't really resolve the issue either way, just punted.
- pulisse 8y ago
  > Trying to figure out how a cake baker with 1 store front is NOT allowed to discriminate, but multi billion dollar multinational companies are allowed to... ? In the US legal context, what determines the permissibility of discrimination is the grounds on which one discriminates.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
- ikeyany 8y ago
  Are you making up your own facts regarding the cake baker reference? I understand that it was ruled within their right to discriminate.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    It was not ruled either way - instead 'the Court held that penalizing the baker for this refusal to violate his religious convictions violated the principle that the government "cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." The Court emphasized the fact that the State of Colorado had permitted three other bakers to refuse to provide cakes that expressed sentiments opposed to same-sex marriage, condemning this disparity in treatment as demonstrating hostility to religious views.' [0] 0: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/17/more-on-masterpiece-cakeshop-from-prof-m https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/17/more-on-masterpiece-cak...
pithic 8y ago
> He has suggested that America’s government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1993 and the September 11th terrorist attacks. He says that vaccinating children will give them autism. There is always a two-way relationship between the regulated and the regulator. Therefore, all regulated companies are, in a sense, merged with government. The greater the regulatory regime, the more deeply society becomes impressed with the features of fascism. Do the stakeholders of the banking, pharmaceutical, media, and war cartels, forged in government agencies (whose charters they themselves drafted) and nurtured through regulation, hold sway over Alphabet and Facebook? It's a simple enough question to research and answer.
- aiyodev 8y ago
  He also was one of few people who was right about the NSA pre-Snowden. People seen to forget this. When I read the Snowen story my first thought was that, unfortunately, more people would take InfoWars seriously. I do not support censorship, though.
  - downvotetarget 8y ago
    He also predicted 9/11 three months before it happened, I don't believe everyone commenting here for his removal is acting in good faith, outrage is such an effective method to manipulate forums.
happyrock 8y ago
There seems to be a tremendous opportunity brewing for censorship-free service providers. If the Terms of Service were such that they only prevented illegal activity, spam, and other automated abuse being conducted on their platform, and left content alone, is there a way to make that feasible?
- dgut 8y ago
  If there was a moment to create an alternative that specifically "left content alone" to FB and Youtube, it'd be now. I wish I had the resources/time to do that, but I don't. I hope somebody finds the time, though.
- gdulli 8y ago
  You're essentially describing where we started out. We know what happens without rules, online and off. There's a reason we converge towards having standards of behavior above basic legality. We have to stop conflating the importance to speak without threat of imprisonment with a right to publish anything anywhere.
  - hkai 8y ago
    I'd argue that there is no significant difference in the way that totalitarian governments silence democracy activists, Muslims or just random people protesting against government actions, and the actions of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify. Yes Alex Jones is horrible. Problem is, if crazy people don't have freedom of speech, you don't have it either.
mirimir 8y ago
It's pretty clear that they are. And so it is arguable that the First Amendment should apply. However, it's also arguable that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights had not even a shred of a clue about the power of social media on the Internet. News spread slowly then, and there was time for considered debate. I mean, they were concerned about restraining democratic will to protect against populist extremism. For example, US senators were initially elected by state legislatures. And the Electoral College wasn't just an accounting system. But damn, I don't have an answer. One could argue that Alex Jones is basically yelling "fire", and so has no expectation of free speech. But what about the antiwar.com people? What's so horrible about advocating the rights of Palestinians, or opposing sanctions against Iran?
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > One could argue that Alex Jones is basically yelling "fire", and so has no expectation of free speech. Of all the things you could argue, I think this is explicitly not one of them. All the crazy and ridiculous things Alex says are in no way comporable to a direct call to violence or endangering Public safety with knowingly false statements. In other words, Facebook is silencing free speech in a way that is definitely not covered if they must comply with the bill of rights.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I meant "fire" in a political sense. OK, hypothetically, if he were part of a Russian operation to destabilize the United States, would the US government be justified in prosecuting him? I mean, consider Mariia Butina , who "face[s] charges related to interference in the presidential election."[0] 0) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/politics/trump-russia-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/politics/trump-russia-...
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      > OK, hypothetically, if he were part of a Russian operation to destabilize the United States, would the US government be justified in prosecuting him? Sedition is a different charge than censored speech. > I meant "fire" in a political sense. When you are talking about free speech, there is no other sense other than the literal in-a-movie-theater sense.
tbabb 8y ago
Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers. As a society, we did not have qualms before the internet about publishers declining to amplify the views of people like Alex Jones. Even in the absence of YouTube's support, he arguably has far more of a voice now than he did in the pre-internet days, before he could host his own website. He has that on top of all the traditional means of communication he always had, which includes passing out flyers and yelling in the street. It is the responsibility of information disseminators to curate their content. Nobody is going to jail over these editorial choices, so the notion that this is a constitutional issue is pure hysteria. YouTube and Facebook are finally stepping up to the responsibility they have long owed us from the beginning.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers. If they are publishers then they should be held responsible for the content they publish. Just like a newspaper would be.
  - tbabb 8y ago
    Agree. I think we are waking up to that, and this is a sign that we are beginning to move in that direction.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      Facebook etc want to have the best of both worlds. For example if a reporter at the NYT slanders me then I can hold the NYT responsible. Facebook wants to say "oh no no no we are just a platform - you have to find and sue the poster" while at the same time heavily curating content.
      - tbabb 8y ago
        Sure. They would like their liability be zero in both cases. I think it should be more than zero in both cases.
- 8y ago
wpdev_63 8y ago
yes
noarchy 8y ago
To the extent that they are strong-armed by governments to carry out government mandates, they are. In some nations, governments may require companies to regulate speech, and in those cases it is hard to argue that these companies are not acting on behalf of the state.

87 points by arctux 8y ago

> Do Facebook and YouTube constitute quasi-governmental actors that should be held to constitutional standards when regulating their vast marketplaces of ideas? Mr Tribe says that under current law, they aren’t. Betteridge's Law wins again

kingbirdy 8y ago
It seems the point here is to ask if they should be considered as such (potentially via changing the law), not how they are viewed under the current legal framework (where as they said, the answer is no).

21 8y ago

What if power companies "de-platformed" you? After all you use that power to spew hate, so they are morally responsible. And there is no constitutional right to have electrical power. You can just get yourself a generator, right. And of course, Apple is under no obligation to sell you a MacBook. After all, being a hateful person is not a protected class. I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance.

rtkwe 8y ago
No but there are many many laws restricting their ability to do so as part of regulating their natural monopolies. I'm not sure the network effects of Facebook, Youtube, etc. rise to requiring the same protections vs the monopolies of power companies.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  I think that a better comparison to power companies is ISPs. Your ISP is a utility and natural monopoly, much like the power company. They shouldn’t be allowed to boot you for this (nor for alleged infringements by copyright groups but that’s a different matter) Unless we want to start considering platforms like Facebook public spaces subject to all generalised government regulations for those spaces.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    Yeah the comparison between Facebook/Youtube and power companies is painfully broken. If a power company won't sell to me there's no (practical) way to power my own home where Jones can peddle his lunacy all he want on his own site or one of the hundreds of other hosting opportunities. People have to be oh so slightly more active in seeking out his content now.
happytoexplain 8y ago
This is a hyperbolic analogy and not useful. Sale of electricity and of general purpose computers are wildly less direct than providing a purpose-built platform for speech dissemination. Now, I don't think that banishment from those platforms for anything they define as "hate-speech" is guaranteed to be right for all definitions of "right", and it deserves real scrutiny, but your argument doesn't illuminate anything.
- shawn 8y ago
  It was refreshingly insightful. It clearly illustrates the problem with “no platforming,” a concept that is inherently censorship.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    It's a common and obvious rhetorical tactic to manufacture an analogy that scales up the points you want to make and/or scales down the points you don't agree with. It's the same spirit as a strawman. I'm genuinely sad to see that called "refreshingly insightful" on HN.
    - shawn 8y ago
      Mm, a fair critique. This is one of the classic arguments where people feel strongly in one direction or another, and it takes very little effort to essentially set up a yay/nay vote. We can find common ground, but I wish it were possible without restricting what people can say.
- reader5000 8y ago
  I would disagree. I think selling a person a computer/electricity which they use to make a podcast is as "wildly direct" as selling server hosting (social media platform) for the podcast.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    What about grocery stores that sell food to the same person allowing them to exist and make those said podscasts? Are they as "wildly direct" as well?
rglover 8y ago
> I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_execution_list_of_July_26,_1938 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_execution_list_of_J...
ggggtez 8y ago
But power companies can refuse you service. So what is your point? In the US, it's pretty well established that the corporation has a right of free-speech too, which usually translates into the right to not to business with someone. See recent supreme court rulings.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  That's not entirely true. Power companies in some states can't refuse service, or they have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do so. I had an ex who would go 6-9 months without paying her utility bill, simply because there was nothing the power company could do about it. She was abusing the system, but the rules are setup that way so that people who really can't afford to pay their bill don't freeze to death in the winter.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    > in some states Look, power companies can cut power. Sure there are rules, but the point still stands that they can do it. But it's not even relevant because getting your power cut can affect your ability to remain alive. Not posting on Facebook is not going to kill anyone.
- protomyth 8y ago
  That's a bit of a misconception. In the US, there are plenty of laws that state a company must do business with you in various circumstances. See all the public accommodation laws. Beyond that, actually read the SC ruling on the whole cake thing and see its implications are not quite what the hype said.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    It's not even relevant because electricity is not an ISP and an ISP is not a social network, and net neutrality doesn't exist. And power companies can cut your power!
    - protomyth 8y ago
k__ 8y ago
"there is no constitutional right to have electrical power" In Germany it isn't an explicit right, but some judges ruled that your existential minimum to live includes heat and power.
- 21 8y ago
  And in Italy: > Stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime, Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36190557 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36190557
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance. Who gets to decide on who goes on that list? This is a very dangerous predicament that could shut out legitimate voices and dissenters. The list itself would likely be against first amendment rights.
- shawn 8y ago
  It was sarcasm (I think), but it’s what social media has been clamoring for for years. And yes, it’s a terrible idea. It’s only favored by those who want to curtail what people can say.
golemiprague 8y ago
There are certain regulations imposed on electric companies that don't exist on youtube. It is much harder for them to disconnect a client or not to give service. Same goes for other monopolised and critical service like water and phone. I think these days youtube or facebook should be treated no different to a an electric company, they are the virtual equivalent of what used to be the city square or speech corner and it is not a good idea to ban people from there. The government should put on them the same regulation as other critical and monopolised services.
hyperdunc 8y ago
I nominate yourself to be the first person on that list and your "hateful" post is my justification. I know being barred from the networks that most people use will be an inconvenience for you, but it's for the good of society that people like yourself aren't able to easily disseminate these sorts of ideas. In fact, I know a guy with power and influence that can expedite your blacklisting, so I think I'll mention your name to him. Please do not resist, comrade. If you behave we may remove you from the list after a suitable number of years.
Reedx 8y ago
It's sad/scary that a lot of people would think that's a good idea. That is, until they find themselves on said list.
- tmaly 8y ago
  And if this list is anything like the no fly list, its tough to get off of even of you were placed on the list in error
prawn 8y ago
(I'm curious more than trying to make a point with the following.) Any thoughts on the MacBook vs a MacBook with automated engraving offered by the company? Where do cake decorators fit into this? Is the situation different if the decorating process is automated?
- paulddraper 8y ago
  This is a tangent. But no, I doubt it would matter. A company can refuse to put your initials as "KKK" on the product they sell you, regardless of the method by which they do it.
paulddraper 8y ago
> we can social media mob them into compliance. But isn't the problem with the social media actors in the first place...
nostromo 8y ago
The crazy thing about social media mobs is how few people engage in them. A few hundred or thousand people angrily tweet about something -- who cares, right? Wrong. Cable media cares. They pick up a few of the most inflamitory examples from Twitter (it's easier to find quotes on Twitter than it is to go outside and report) and they present these tweets as if they represent a mainstream movement involving millions. And these angry (but tiny) mobs are having an enormous impact on private companies and public policy. The tail is wagging the dog.
- 21 8y ago
  See this account which is used to organize mobs. The current target is Breitbart, and apparently the campaign is quite successful (they are listing 4000 advertisers which supposedly dropped support): https://twitter.com/slpng_giants https://twitter.com/slpng_giants
  - JustMatthew 8y ago
    Wow. That account has over 180,000 unpaid followers. That's quite literally a small army (for reference, it appears the number of active duty US marines is around 200k). Without commenting on the causes this (or any other) army of followers believes in, it's staggering to imagine what kind of impact monetary incentives, dispersed, for example, by way of an autonomous smart contract that is funded by anonymous donors via 'x' cryptocurrency that relies on some simple proof of action for payout, could have on the frequency and magnitude of actions such groups carry out. We really are at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of humanity.
slivym 8y ago
Let's be real here, there are big differences in what you're saying. The power company, or Apple for that matter can't know what you're using their products for. You could be smearing shit on twitter at work, or on the public wifi. There's no connection there. Whereas twitter, facebook, insta etc. the literal process is you send a message to the platform saying "Put X on you're website on my behalf". A second big difference is facebook decides to de-platform groups on facebook for what they do on facebook, they aren't banning people on a shared bad people list. That would be a kind of cartel/collusion which breaches other restraints on a company's behaviour.
- 21 8y ago
  You are behind the times. Behavior outside Twitch can now lead to an indefinite ban: > In a blog post on Twitch’s community board, the company said that if a streamer uses other mediums to send targeted harassment or hate toward another streamer, it will consider those actions a violation of Twitch’s policies — even though the activity didn’t happen directly on the platform. https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/8/16988424/twitch-rules-harassment-toxicity-ban-policy https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/8/16988424/twitch-rules-haras...
  - tmaly 8y ago
    This sounds a lot like how students in the US are treated with respect to first amendment rights in public schools
- Perceval 8y ago
  > Apple for that matter can't know what you're using their products for Yet, Apple imperiously employs a EULA to prevent me from using iTunes to make nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons https://www.cultofmac.com/140224/itunes-eula-wtf/ https://www.cultofmac.com/140224/itunes-eula-wtf/
yellowcherry 8y ago
Sounds in the same ballpark as China's "social credit score." Don't think this is satire that can't happen.
wsinks 8y ago
So, like an extension of the BBB?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SllX 8y ago
Ooh ooh I love building lists of dissenters! That's like crack and baseball and baseball on crack rolled into one! Shall we get started? First: anyone that seriously advocates we the people build a list of dissenters among our own citizenry. Second: anyone that wants to gut core provisions of the Bill of Rights and US Constitution. That's about it. We don't really need to go any further. So, ready to sign yourself up for that list? I think it is such a fantastic idea that you really can't allow this opportunity to go to waste, and well, you know, you'll go down in history! That's even better than 15 minutes of fame on TV!
nine_k 8y ago
I can't help but notice how Poe's Law [1] is at work here, and many commenters downthread differ in opinion whether this post is satirical or serious. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

draw_down 8y ago

When they ban someone you don't like: hey, it's their platform and I respect that. When they ban someone you do like: free speech! Let every voice be heard! Tolerance! et cetera

m1sta_ 8y ago
Each platform has a tos. All of the tos need to be applied.
- insickness 8y ago
  But it should be applied equally, not just at whim.
  - badlucklottery 8y ago
    Assuming it can be applied in an automated fashion, sure. But if there's a person in the loop, there's always going to be a priority queue so some are going to slip through the cracks longer than others.
  - shekelstien 8y ago
    That is the root of the issue here. These TOS are being applied arbitrarily - there needs to be some form of punitive measure for companies that do this.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      It's impractical for the same reasons it's impractical to prosecute every crime. This also means it's less than ideal, but with limited resources you apply them to those who are the most egregious.
- hyperdunc 8y ago
  TOS should be precise and applied uniformly, but that's not what usually happens. Instead, TOS are intentionally vague so they can be applied selectively according to a company's whims, which are often politically motivated.

MrMember 8y ago

It is kind of scary how someone can be "blackballed" from the internet. All of your social media accounts get deleted so you move to your own website. Until the hosting company decides they don't want to do business with you so you start hosting it yourself. Until the domain registrar you used decides they don't like you so now you have to give people an IP address to reach your site. Until your ISP terminates your contract because they don't like people hosting websites on their network. So many services controlled by private companies that can choose to not do business with someone.

m1sta_ 8y ago
There are no signs of that being a risk for anyone. Stop with the FUD.
- huntie 8y ago
  Didn't all of this happen with that website "The Daily Stormer"? Cloudflare removed them: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
  - influx 8y ago
    That's ok though because they are Nazis.
    - tomp 8y ago
      How can you say something like that? Like, how many people have they killed? Less that any of the last 5 US government administrations I suppose...
      - balls187 8y ago
        You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty here. "Nazi" is closely associated to the Holocaust, but you don't have to have killed someone to be a Nazi. From Wikipedia: Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed. From that definition, Daily Stormer certainly was home to Nazi's, perhaps more appropriately "Neo-Nazi"

m1sta_ 8y ago

No they aren't.

golemiprague 8y ago

They certainly got the power, they are not a cake shop that you can bully in court, that's for sure. It seems like they can ban service and decide their own "terms of use", even though it is clear that nobody is going to think that they support their users content. But someone who doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, which is not even a judgment about the people but rather that he doesn't want to participate in something he opposed religiously, this is not allowed by the courts. It is clear there are two laws in America, one for lefties and one for right wing people and it is very sad.

shiburizu 8y ago

Problem: social networks are increasingly building themselves around "journalistic" or "media" companies. These companies can lean on their political alignment to vindicate themselves when things go sour with the network. Easy to turn this into a campaign against "mainstream" media AKA whoever isn't getting banned. Solution: No idea, but it's interesting to see this play out around media orgs instead of like, actual users who might have an opinion. Alex Jones is a strong face for InfoWars, but the whole thing is a media company.

djtriptych 8y ago

Free speech does not and has never meant “say whatever you want to anyone without repercussions”. Alex Jones isn’t in jail; that’s about the extent of the privilege his free speech rights afford him, and he still may be succesfully sued.

syrrim 8y ago
You're thinking of the first amendment and other legal institutions. Free speech is a much broader concept than this. Ask yourself what a right to bodily autonomy would be if the government only promised that its officers wouldn't bring harm to you, but any private citizen could: it would be anarchy. The reason there is no legal commentary limiting censorship is because it is difficult to discern in the general case when censorship is itself a speech act. This does not limit you or I from making this distinction as private citizens in the particular case, as here.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Free speech is a much broader concept than this. Free speech is exactly and specifically the right to control what expression you and your property are deployed to support. Private censorship isn't merely consistent with it, it is the core of it.
  - syrrim 8y ago
    Free speech is, in fact, primarily the right to say what you want, not the right to stop others from saying what they want. I admitted that the latter form is sometimes important, but that imparts no requirement on the rest of us to always agree with it. >you and your property are deployed to support In particular: "you and your property" is a much more general concept here then it might normally be. If I lend out my printing press to people then I should be able to say what they print with it. If I sell printing presses at a fair market rate, ie I am satisfied with my side of the transaction, then I shouldn't turn around and impose terms on the use of that press. These two things are qualitatively different, even though they both involve limiting the use of printing presses that were at one point mine.

throw2016 8y ago

The ad economy incentivizes poor quality content, clickbait and more and more extremist and divisive content. This won't stop, it will keep becoming more and more extreme and more and more divisive. You can confirm this on facebook and youtube at any time. The interim solution is to demonetize any non-original content, political content, news and opinion based content and disable personalized political or social advertising on all platforms. Because at the moment the large social media companies are profiting from incentivizing extremism and division and are basically poisoning the well.

hyperdunc 8y ago

It's time to improve the law and guarantee the right of all citizens to use monopoly services. Any large private platform or network should be subject to the First Amendment, because most of them don't operate primarily in a free market. Instead they are monopolies that enjoy network effects and as a consequence are easily strong-armed by governments. If Facebook's stock keeps declining and it ends up a shadow of its current self then it can be released from this obligation.

lozaning 8y ago
How would any of these sites then be moderated? If removing a comment is now a violation of the first amendment how do you keep sites true to the niche they where founded to serve? If I run the most popular website for people who like chili do I now have to allow posts related to all types of soups? Can my really popular chili site remove posts about your dog you keep making?
- hyperdunc 8y ago
  If your chili site reaches the status of de facto town square where most public political discourse occurs, then yes you need to let everyone participate. Silicon Valley social media companies are effectively public forums on private land.

Bucephalus355 8y ago

Yes. The term that is popular in Europe is “Quangos” or “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization”. Quangos doesn’t technically apply here, but I think it’s a good frame of mind / reference to use. The fact that government power, has in the West, declined extensively since the 1970’s, means the power went elsewhere. The corporate / finance sector, with rock bottom interest rates provided from capital across the globe have received most of it. Of course this did all provide some benefits via the many innovations we’ve seen. But there are also many, probably more, downsides that we are seeing now.

reilly3000 8y ago

Most of these comments fail to appreciate the highly extreme nature of Alex Jones' rhetoric. Its obscene, flagrant garbage. There are dozens of lines he crossed thousands of times. He isn't banned from speech, but there isn't a place for that kind of conduct on platforms with any kind of standards.

maratd 8y ago
> Its obscene, flagrant garbage. It is. So what? > there isn't a place for that kind of conduct on platforms with any kind of standards. Flag it as "obscene, flagrant garbage" and hide it. Allow the user to decide. If they want to switch their account to "allow all", that's their choice. Google does this with search. They can easily do this on YouTube. They choose not to, which is unfortunate.
- reilly3000 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... The tradition of American law certainly flies a different way than the approach you suggest. I sincerely respect your position, but feel that wisdom and tradition have found value in taking a more nuanced approach.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - maratd 8y ago
    That’s a list of speech that can be justifiably repressed by the government. It doesn’t apply here. We’re talking about private parties and about speech that doesn’t meet those thresholds, but is nevertheless reprehensible.
    - reilly3000 8y ago
      I assert that this threshold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... was broken by this incident: "The Pizzagate incident, like Jade Helm before it, illustrates Jones’s ability to influence his followers to take action in the real world, no matter how far-fetched or unrealistic his claims might be. The Pizzagate “story” emerged in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, and thanks in part to active promotion by Michael G. Flynn, the son of former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn (who also appeared to endorse the story on social media), was still going strong a full month after Election Day, when Edgar Welch appeared at Comet Ping Pong with an assault rifle, ready to “rescue” the children he was convinced were being held in the basement. Welch fired several shots and spent close to an hour inside the restaurant before apparently determining that there were not, in fact, any signs of any criminal activity anywhere in the building. He surrendered to police, and later pleaded guilty to assault and weapons charges. Welch was sentenced in June 2017 to four years in prison." Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-things-to-know https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-... It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous. The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law > It doesn’t apply here. <- doesn't hold up for me. One could argue that ironically, in exercising editorial discretion on content, social platforms demonstrate their ability to censure content, and thus open themselves up to liability for all of the content they chose not to take editorial action against. If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit. Snarky disclaimer: I give money to the ACLU, I believe in free speech deeply, and though every fiber in my being is opposed to their cause I will fight for the right for Westboro Baptist Church to be able to assemble peacefully in public space. But even Alex Jones' site acknowledges the need for limits: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-delete-infowars-content-not-according-infowars/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/07/censorship-platforms-...

patrickg_zill 8y ago

Trying to figure out how a cake baker with 1 store front is NOT allowed to discriminate, but multi billion dollar multinational companies are allowed to... ? BTW Facebook and Google have both received large amounts of government tax rebates etc. for their datacenters, so there is some government involvement. e.g. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebook-apple-and-amazon-get-2b-in-data-center-tax-breaks-economic-benefit-unclear/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebo...

dlp211 8y ago
The cake shop is free to discriminate against Alex Jones for the sane reason the YT, FB, AAPL, and Spotify are.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  So, undecided then? The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision didn't really resolve the issue either way, just punted.
pulisse 8y ago
> Trying to figure out how a cake baker with 1 store front is NOT allowed to discriminate, but multi billion dollar multinational companies are allowed to... ? In the US legal context, what determines the permissibility of discrimination is the grounds on which one discriminates.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
ikeyany 8y ago
Are you making up your own facts regarding the cake baker reference? I understand that it was ruled within their right to discriminate.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  It was not ruled either way - instead 'the Court held that penalizing the baker for this refusal to violate his religious convictions violated the principle that the government "cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." The Court emphasized the fact that the State of Colorado had permitted three other bakers to refuse to provide cakes that expressed sentiments opposed to same-sex marriage, condemning this disparity in treatment as demonstrating hostility to religious views.' [0] 0: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/17/more-on-masterpiece-cakeshop-from-prof-m https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/17/more-on-masterpiece-cak...

pithic 8y ago

> He has suggested that America’s government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1993 and the September 11th terrorist attacks. He says that vaccinating children will give them autism. There is always a two-way relationship between the regulated and the regulator. Therefore, all regulated companies are, in a sense, merged with government. The greater the regulatory regime, the more deeply society becomes impressed with the features of fascism. Do the stakeholders of the banking, pharmaceutical, media, and war cartels, forged in government agencies (whose charters they themselves drafted) and nurtured through regulation, hold sway over Alphabet and Facebook? It's a simple enough question to research and answer.

aiyodev 8y ago
He also was one of few people who was right about the NSA pre-Snowden. People seen to forget this. When I read the Snowen story my first thought was that, unfortunately, more people would take InfoWars seriously. I do not support censorship, though.
- downvotetarget 8y ago
  He also predicted 9/11 three months before it happened, I don't believe everyone commenting here for his removal is acting in good faith, outrage is such an effective method to manipulate forums.

happyrock 8y ago

There seems to be a tremendous opportunity brewing for censorship-free service providers. If the Terms of Service were such that they only prevented illegal activity, spam, and other automated abuse being conducted on their platform, and left content alone, is there a way to make that feasible?

dgut 8y ago
If there was a moment to create an alternative that specifically "left content alone" to FB and Youtube, it'd be now. I wish I had the resources/time to do that, but I don't. I hope somebody finds the time, though.
gdulli 8y ago
You're essentially describing where we started out. We know what happens without rules, online and off. There's a reason we converge towards having standards of behavior above basic legality. We have to stop conflating the importance to speak without threat of imprisonment with a right to publish anything anywhere.
- hkai 8y ago
  I'd argue that there is no significant difference in the way that totalitarian governments silence democracy activists, Muslims or just random people protesting against government actions, and the actions of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify. Yes Alex Jones is horrible. Problem is, if crazy people don't have freedom of speech, you don't have it either.

mirimir 8y ago

It's pretty clear that they are. And so it is arguable that the First Amendment should apply. However, it's also arguable that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights had not even a shred of a clue about the power of social media on the Internet. News spread slowly then, and there was time for considered debate. I mean, they were concerned about restraining democratic will to protect against populist extremism. For example, US senators were initially elected by state legislatures. And the Electoral College wasn't just an accounting system. But damn, I don't have an answer. One could argue that Alex Jones is basically yelling "fire", and so has no expectation of free speech. But what about the antiwar.com people? What's so horrible about advocating the rights of Palestinians, or opposing sanctions against Iran?

kryogen1c 8y ago
> One could argue that Alex Jones is basically yelling "fire", and so has no expectation of free speech. Of all the things you could argue, I think this is explicitly not one of them. All the crazy and ridiculous things Alex says are in no way comporable to a direct call to violence or endangering Public safety with knowingly false statements. In other words, Facebook is silencing free speech in a way that is definitely not covered if they must comply with the bill of rights.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I meant "fire" in a political sense. OK, hypothetically, if he were part of a Russian operation to destabilize the United States, would the US government be justified in prosecuting him? I mean, consider Mariia Butina , who "face[s] charges related to interference in the presidential election."[0] 0) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/politics/trump-russia-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/politics/trump-russia-...
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    > OK, hypothetically, if he were part of a Russian operation to destabilize the United States, would the US government be justified in prosecuting him? Sedition is a different charge than censored speech. > I meant "fire" in a political sense. When you are talking about free speech, there is no other sense other than the literal in-a-movie-theater sense.

tbabb 8y ago

Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers. As a society, we did not have qualms before the internet about publishers declining to amplify the views of people like Alex Jones. Even in the absence of YouTube's support, he arguably has far more of a voice now than he did in the pre-internet days, before he could host his own website. He has that on top of all the traditional means of communication he always had, which includes passing out flyers and yelling in the street. It is the responsibility of information disseminators to curate their content. Nobody is going to jail over these editorial choices, so the notion that this is a constitutional issue is pure hysteria. YouTube and Facebook are finally stepping up to the responsibility they have long owed us from the beginning.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers. If they are publishers then they should be held responsible for the content they publish. Just like a newspaper would be.
- tbabb 8y ago
  Agree. I think we are waking up to that, and this is a sign that we are beginning to move in that direction.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    Facebook etc want to have the best of both worlds. For example if a reporter at the NYT slanders me then I can hold the NYT responsible. Facebook wants to say "oh no no no we are just a platform - you have to find and sue the poster" while at the same time heavily curating content.
    - tbabb 8y ago
      Sure. They would like their liability be zero in both cases. I think it should be more than zero in both cases.
8y ago

wpdev_63 8y ago

yes

noarchy 8y ago

To the extent that they are strong-armed by governments to carry out government mandates, they are. In some nations, governments may require companies to regulate speech, and in those cases it is hard to argue that these companies are not acting on behalf of the state.