4 ms·

Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse of govern

Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse of government power. Many YouTubers and many Twitter users would say more conservative things, but Google and Twitter actively discourage and ban users in a way which is pointedly biased. Some of those so targeted deserve such treatment. However, not all of them do. Many of them are simply in ideological disagreement. It's a dilemma. If monopolies and near-monopolies are allowed to use corporate power to police speech, then this is allowed in the letter of the law, but it stinks to high heaven as far as the spirit of free speech goes. On the other hand, the government shouldn't be in the business of policing speech. The way out of this dilemma is to break up near-monopoly power where it exists. Right now, there really isn't a good alternative to YouTube, and this near monopoly power lets them effectively police speech across the entirety of a certain kind of widespread culturally relevant media: That of personal video commentary.

tbabb 8y ago
There is a big philosophical and legal difference between a population of companies each executing editorial/moderating power over content published on their own platforms and a central government doing the same thing over arbitrary content on arbitrary platforms. Who is doing the editing is extremely important. If a newspaper declines to publish a white supremacist screed in their op-ed column, that is not censorship. The screeching racist can always try and publish somewhere else, or publish themselves (online or in print), or yell in the streets. But if the government intervenes and tries to force/prevent any of those things from happening, that's censorship and it's unconstitutional. Completely different ballgame. It drives me up the wall that people think those cases are "equivalent".
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Not the right word I think. Of course it censorship Its just not government censorship, and thus not a protected mode of free speech. Not equivalent of course, but still censorship all the same. Free speech is an American value, not just a few words in the Constitution. I'm sympathetic when folks object to private censors. As an American, I'm offended as well.
  - tbabb 8y ago
    In your view, is a newspaper obligated to publish a racist screed every time someone sends one in?
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      A newspaper has editors and a viewpoint. An online platform for folks to post their own articles does not. Its akin to the post office having an editorial board?
      - GW150914 8y ago
        All of these self-styled platforms have already taken editorial actions under the guise of enforcing their TOS, it’s called moderation. Unless what you’re sending is illegal, the post office doesn’t get to pick and choose what it sends; Twitter, Facebook, Google and the rest do. If you want to send porn through the USPS, you can, but try that with FB. The “platform” excuse is dead on the first real legal challenge. It’s past time for these publishers to be held to the standards other publishers have been held to for decades or longer. They can’t cry “free speech” on one hand while acting like publishers on the other. When it was just galling hypocrisy fair enough, but they’re big enough and have supplanted enough “traditional media” that their time has come.
      - tbabb 8y ago
        Unlike the post office, both a newspaper and Google's primary competitive service is organizing and prioritizing information. Would you suggest that the government mandate how they do that? The post office is more analogous to the transport layer, in which case you'd be making a solid case for net neutrality, and I'd agree with you there. The post office having an editorial board would be like Comcast having an editorial board.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      If the new media and the tech companies were controlled by right wingers, you would be singing an entirely different tune. Namely the "Free Speech" tune, exactly as performed in Berkeley in the 60's. The problem isn't with excluding "X" screeds. The problem is with dishonest actors who happen to have corporate power who label everything they disagree with as "X." The problem is with arbitrary corporate media power which can have an effect commensurate with government violation of the 1st amendment, but which skirts the law because it's "private." In the 1960's the government sought to suppress the speech of students and large segments of the populace, then that populace sought to fight back using Free Speech. Now, in the 21st century, corporate media and tech power seeks to suppress the speech of large segments of the populace online. The question isn't whether or not it's the government. It's the question of whether or not coercive power is going against the will of a segment of the populace. It's the question of force vs. argument.
jayd16 8y ago
It really blows my mind that people can think Google would spend the time to do this when they automate literally everything else. They don't even have humans looking at app submissions,let alone some liberal censorship team. How is this not just more conservative persecution syndrome?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It really blows my mind that people can think Google would spend the time to do this when they automate literally everything else. Fact: Google has hired humans to moderate. They've even spoken to the press about how it went a bit wrong at first. How is this not just more conservative persecution syndrome? Note that it's you who has the facts wrong here.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
You're gonna have to show some evidence for your accusations, and show how those examples are not against the ToS of those services.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Is simply being a mainstream Republican against the ToS? Since those things are worded so they can mean anything, it's probably technically correct to say so. However, it's petty and dishonest to use that to suppress speech on what's supposedly just a media publishing platform.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    You were asked to provide evidence for your assertion, and you have failed to do so. Please do so, otherwise everyone will have to conclude that you are not discussing the topic in good faith.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Using logic based on a ToS isn't good faith.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Again, you've been asked to show the examples that support your point, and you have failed. Either you actually link the examples, or I have to conclude that you don't actually have any, or you know that none of the people you're talking about were banned for "mainstream conservative views". Put up or shut up. Show what you were referring to, or admit that you don't have anything to complain about.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Again, you've been asked to show the examples that support your point, and you have failed. There is no failure. I reject your premise that logic on a ToS is empty and idiotic, as most other people would.

tbabb 8y ago

There is a big philosophical and legal difference between a population of companies each executing editorial/moderating power over content published on their own platforms and a central government doing the same thing over arbitrary content on arbitrary platforms. Who is doing the editing is extremely important. If a newspaper declines to publish a white supremacist screed in their op-ed column, that is not censorship. The screeching racist can always try and publish somewhere else, or publish themselves (online or in print), or yell in the streets. But if the government intervenes and tries to force/prevent any of those things from happening, that's censorship and it's unconstitutional. Completely different ballgame. It drives me up the wall that people think those cases are "equivalent".

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Not the right word I think. Of course it censorship Its just not government censorship, and thus not a protected mode of free speech. Not equivalent of course, but still censorship all the same. Free speech is an American value, not just a few words in the Constitution. I'm sympathetic when folks object to private censors. As an American, I'm offended as well.
- tbabb 8y ago
  In your view, is a newspaper obligated to publish a racist screed every time someone sends one in?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    A newspaper has editors and a viewpoint. An online platform for folks to post their own articles does not. Its akin to the post office having an editorial board?
    - GW150914 8y ago
      All of these self-styled platforms have already taken editorial actions under the guise of enforcing their TOS, it’s called moderation. Unless what you’re sending is illegal, the post office doesn’t get to pick and choose what it sends; Twitter, Facebook, Google and the rest do. If you want to send porn through the USPS, you can, but try that with FB. The “platform” excuse is dead on the first real legal challenge. It’s past time for these publishers to be held to the standards other publishers have been held to for decades or longer. They can’t cry “free speech” on one hand while acting like publishers on the other. When it was just galling hypocrisy fair enough, but they’re big enough and have supplanted enough “traditional media” that their time has come.
    - tbabb 8y ago
      Unlike the post office, both a newspaper and Google's primary competitive service is organizing and prioritizing information. Would you suggest that the government mandate how they do that? The post office is more analogous to the transport layer, in which case you'd be making a solid case for net neutrality, and I'd agree with you there. The post office having an editorial board would be like Comcast having an editorial board.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    If the new media and the tech companies were controlled by right wingers, you would be singing an entirely different tune. Namely the "Free Speech" tune, exactly as performed in Berkeley in the 60's. The problem isn't with excluding "X" screeds. The problem is with dishonest actors who happen to have corporate power who label everything they disagree with as "X." The problem is with arbitrary corporate media power which can have an effect commensurate with government violation of the 1st amendment, but which skirts the law because it's "private." In the 1960's the government sought to suppress the speech of students and large segments of the populace, then that populace sought to fight back using Free Speech. Now, in the 21st century, corporate media and tech power seeks to suppress the speech of large segments of the populace online. The question isn't whether or not it's the government. It's the question of whether or not coercive power is going against the will of a segment of the populace. It's the question of force vs. argument.

jayd16 8y ago

It really blows my mind that people can think Google would spend the time to do this when they automate literally everything else. They don't even have humans looking at app submissions,let alone some liberal censorship team. How is this not just more conservative persecution syndrome?

stcredzero 8y ago
It really blows my mind that people can think Google would spend the time to do this when they automate literally everything else. Fact: Google has hired humans to moderate. They've even spoken to the press about how it went a bit wrong at first. How is this not just more conservative persecution syndrome? Note that it's you who has the facts wrong here.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

You're gonna have to show some evidence for your accusations, and show how those examples are not against the ToS of those services.

stcredzero 8y ago
Is simply being a mainstream Republican against the ToS? Since those things are worded so they can mean anything, it's probably technically correct to say so. However, it's petty and dishonest to use that to suppress speech on what's supposedly just a media publishing platform.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  You were asked to provide evidence for your assertion, and you have failed to do so. Please do so, otherwise everyone will have to conclude that you are not discussing the topic in good faith.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Using logic based on a ToS isn't good faith.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Again, you've been asked to show the examples that support your point, and you have failed. Either you actually link the examples, or I have to conclude that you don't actually have any, or you know that none of the people you're talking about were banned for "mainstream conservative views". Put up or shut up. Show what you were referring to, or admit that you don't have anything to complain about.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Again, you've been asked to show the examples that support your point, and you have failed. There is no failure. I reject your premise that logic on a ToS is empty and idiotic, as most other people would.