3 ms·

Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Policing ideological speech: Laws against incitement. Fact: There ar

Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Policing ideological speech: Laws against incitement. Fact: There are also laws about curbing private monopoly control of certain kinds of media in a given area. Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment. When the actions of both powerful government organizations and powerful companies start to infringe on the speech of constituents, then the representatives elected to that government have taken action in the past. Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. This has already happened. I don't think the first amendment would necessarily protect them. There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media. They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" If "they" is Google, then the bird has already flown the coop in this case. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to fcking do."* Should other companies start saying the same? Maybe having far less government would be far better across the board. When one concentrates power, someone figures out a way to abuse it. This applies as much to Google as it does to government. EDIT: No such thing as "Hate speech laws."

woofyman 8y ago
>Policing ideological speech: Hate speech laws. Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Corrected. Thanks. I fell into the linguistic trap.
khuey 8y ago
Hate speech is more or less legal in the United States.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Corrected.
magicalist 8y ago
> There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media. Can you be specific? Because unless there's a tv or radio station involved, there's not a lot to stand on here in the last 50 years.
- DenisM 8y ago
  Hence why the meeting with lawmakers. They can make laws, and it seems they to intend to, perhaps after consulting the parties affected.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Because unless there's a tv or radio station involved, there's not a lot to stand on here in the last 50 years. Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. Time for new laws.
  - magicalist 8y ago
    > Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. It's not technological specificity, it has to do with the root of each technology's ability to broadcast media. > Time for new laws. I was talking about the Supreme Court recognizing wider application of the First Amendment, like in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson. New laws won't help there.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. The public didn't own that spectrum in 1812. Or at least no one knew. Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update.
      - 8y ago
thrmsforbfast 8y ago
> Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment. There's a large difference between political/religious bias and racial bias in employment/commerce. The former is explicitly constitutionally protected. The latter is not.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Both are government doing things about bias.

woofyman 8y ago

>Policing ideological speech: Hate speech laws. Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment.

stcredzero 8y ago
Corrected. Thanks. I fell into the linguistic trap.

khuey 8y ago

Hate speech is more or less legal in the United States.

stcredzero 8y ago
Corrected.

magicalist 8y ago

> There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media. Can you be specific? Because unless there's a tv or radio station involved, there's not a lot to stand on here in the last 50 years.

DenisM 8y ago
Hence why the meeting with lawmakers. They can make laws, and it seems they to intend to, perhaps after consulting the parties affected.
stcredzero 8y ago
Because unless there's a tv or radio station involved, there's not a lot to stand on here in the last 50 years. Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. Time for new laws.
- magicalist 8y ago
  > Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. It's not technological specificity, it has to do with the root of each technology's ability to broadcast media. > Time for new laws. I was talking about the Supreme Court recognizing wider application of the First Amendment, like in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson. New laws won't help there.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. The public didn't own that spectrum in 1812. Or at least no one knew. Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update.
    - 8y ago

thrmsforbfast 8y ago

> Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment. There's a large difference between political/religious bias and racial bias in employment/commerce. The former is explicitly constitutionally protected. The latter is not.

stcredzero 8y ago
Both are government doing things about bias.