15 ms·

YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules

123 points by LinuxBender 7y ago

gregd 7y ago
Since the First Amendment acts as a constraint on Government, yeah, it makes sense that YouTube is under no obligation to protect your freedom of speech. This isn't a hard concept.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Well, it's not a hard concept if you believe in rule of law and have read a few Wikipedia pages. But a surprisingly large number of people seem to start from the position, "My actions should never have consequences I don't like," and then backfill from there.
  - gregd 7y ago
    It never ceases to amaze me how many people cry, "BUT MA FREEDOMS OF SPEECH" and actually have no concept of what that means.
    - nostromo 7y ago
      The First Amendment is not the same thing as Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is an ideal from Ancient Greece and obviously predates the US Constitution. It’s also much broader in scope. So, yes, people can have their freedom of speech infringed by a private company or employer, even if it’s not protected by the First Amendment.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Ideals from ancient Greece also included how to treat one's slaves and how to tell whether a person was naturally suited for the life of slavery or freedom, so it's important to put more consideration into the nuances of the virtue of such ideals than just "The Greek philosophers were into it."
        _mdpn 7y ago
        Margaret Sanger unapologetically supported eugenics and sterilizing 'inferior' people. Does that make Planned Parenthood a bad idea?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        It makes Planned Parenthood an organization one should judge in modern context separable from its origins, much like freedom of speech and ownership of other people from Greek philosophy.
        foolinaround 7y ago
        It should certainly make you stop and think... Would'nt you be suspicious if Hitler came up with some sort of program?
        Zuider 7y ago
        This kind of reasoning opens you up to the genetic fallacy. If you believe the moral status of the origin of a thing is necessarily transmitted to the thing itself, then you are liable to consider Hitler's pernicious concept of Der Volk and the Volkswagen to be equally evil.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Did you know that the guy who wrote the First Amendment also owned slaves? It seems like a nuance we might want to consider!
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        ...and was a man. And guaranteed freedom only to men.
        foolinaround 7y ago
        great reply - calling out another strawman.....
      - themagician 7y ago
        This is the standard response when people find out they are wrong. It is somewhat ironic too, because the actual violation of freedom of speech occurs when a person or company is forced, by the government, to publish someone else’s content that they may not agree with. If you write a letter to the New York Times and they don’t publish it that’s not a violation of freedom of speech. If the government forces them to, it is.
      - wpietri 7y ago
        Well, sort of. The ancient Greeks actually had two concepts, and people confuse them all the time. [1] But people harkening back to the ancient Greek tradition of isegoria are a very small percentage of the "BUT MUH FREEDOMZ" outcry. What they want is not freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of their speech. And often they want it in ways that include suppressing other people's rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of association. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-con...
        thu2111 7y ago
        Obviously people want freedom from consequences of their speech. That's what freedom of speech means. What kind of "freedom of speech" would it be if you were instantly killed upon uttering any criticism of the great leader? Obviously you wouldn't have freedom of speech in that situation because the consequences would be so dire nobody would speak up. Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? Is PragerU trying to get liberal channels shut down? I don't believe they are; this is a non-sequiteur used try and cast victims of oppression as oppressors themselves.
        rodgerd 7y ago
        > Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? The case is trying to force YouTube to associate with PraegerU.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        It doesn't take a lot of consideration to conclude that total freedom from consequences of speech is akin to all parties pretending that the offending speech was simply never said, which defeats the purpose of speech itself in the first place. So we can conclude that people want freedom from specific consequences of speech, not all consequences. Once that distinction is made, one can argue about which consequences one should be free of. US law, for example, strictly ties the government's right to censor (i.e. being killed upon uttering any criticism of great leader is out-of-bounds) but the also-present freedom of the press and freedom of association implies private individuals' rights to refrain from sharing information or associating with various entities, and there is a, perhaps questionable, expedient that extends those rights from individuals to corporations in the US (being fired upon uttering public criticism of dear CEO is, except for specific carve-outs mostly paid for in blood during union strikes, acceptable; a corporation is not the government and has no obligation to continue to serve an employee at odds with the corporation and what it stands for, while governments have no such luxury and must serve even their "malcontents").
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - themagician 7y ago
      It’s worse than that. They go on to sue—to try use the government to force someone else to publish their content—and fail to see the irony.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Well, there is a different way of looking at it. As real flesh and bones individuals, the first amendment protections should apply. For companies (aka: fictitious entities), are granted corporate charters by the government. They are extensions of the government allowing a bubble of state/federal government of what we call a company. Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? In that light, companies should have a requirement to uphold the bill of rights. They are created legal entities, not at all like a person. ------------------------ The glaring problem with not applying 1FA to a company means the mega-companies that wish to deplatform you leads you to no recourse. Do you have a right to use a monopolistic service? The issue with that course of actions is that the rules to the megacorps (FAANG) also apply to the small companies with 1 or more. More regulation does tend to kill tiny companies.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      > Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But this decision is absolutely consistent with applying the First Amendment to corporations. Compulsory speech is not free speech. Why should YouTube be forced to spend their time and money to disseminate PragerU's content on their platform — i.e. to "speak" against their will?
      - _-david-_ 7y ago
        If a video on YouTube constitutes YouTube's speech then does that mean if somebody posts a video containing something illegal YouTube should be held responsible?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        It's not the video that YouTube creates; it's the metadata of recommendations, classification, and advertising association. PragerU attempted to argue YouTube infringed PragerU's freedom by arranging that metadata in a way PragerU didn't like.
  - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
    See Marsh V Alabama. I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh.
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      It's true they would have a more favorable shot in the SC than in the 9th circuit.
      - xxpor 7y ago
        One of the judges on the panel was Jay Bybee. You might know him from signing the Torture Memos authored by John Yoo. If they can't convince that level of hack, they don't have a chance in the SC.
    - magicalist 7y ago
      > I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh. Or as pointed out in the article, probably not: > Appeals court judges were not convinced. They pointed to a Supreme Court case[1] from last year in which plaintiffs unsuccessfully "tested a theory that resembled PragerU's approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its 'operation' of the private property as 'a public forum for speech.'" The case involved public access channels on a cable TV system. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-commun...
      - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
        "Manhattan Community Access Corp" doesn't seem to have the same market power as Google/Youtube. I still think this will be a novel SC case. Interestingly Manhattan Community Access Corp is definitely in some regards closer to a state actor, being authorized by NYC to operate.
  - cvwright 7y ago
    This is a fascinating example, particularly in comparison to the "wedding cake" cases from a couple of years ago. The question of trading off between the customer's speech and the service provider's freedom seems to be nearly the same in both cases. But the people following along at home have almost all traded sides! Those who were for the customer before are now cheering for the provider. Those who supported the old provider are now supporting the new customer. And they're using many of the same arguments to do it. People are weird.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      The problem with that comparison is that we eat cakes. I think a better example would be that of the long-lamented "Fairness Doctrine". The explosion of right-wing AM radio would never have occurred without Reagan's repeal of that FCC policy in 1987. So naturally conservatives think the Fairness Doctrine was terrible. Imagine, having to play the same number of liberal radio programs as conservative radio programs on your AM station! Online, it's different, for reasons. Of course, no one remembers what happened in the 1980s, although Limbaugh is still around.
    - jaywalk 7y ago
      I don't see how this case and the wedding cake case are even remotely similar beyond the fact that both of the defendants are businesses.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Not at all. One important difference here is that people are free to discriminate on almost any grounds except a narrow set that have proven to be irrational and historically devastating. Race, gender, religion, and a few other things depending on jurisdiction. The same rules apply to YouTube. If they had been arbitrarily banning the accounts of black people, they would have lost.
      - cvwright 7y ago
        Ok, I did some digging. The wedding cake case in Oregon was much closer to what you describe. The one in Colorado was more like the Youtube case. He offered to sell them a cake off the shelf, but refused to create a custom cake for something he didn't support.
- saterHater 7y ago
  Judging by their content, it seems like anything that isn't self-serving is difficult for PragerU to understand.
- prostheticvamp 7y ago
  I think it’s a little more nuanced than that, in a way the bill of rights never had reason to consider. The freedom of speech prohibits government control of speech in government (read: public) spaces, in order to conserve public right of criticism of the government. These massive platforms, as a matter of business, attempt to replace and own “the public square.” Google/YouTube, directly or indirectly, controls an enormous fraction of the public conversation. Their interests, as corporations constantly lobbying for favorable regulatory treatment, tend to align along the “appease the government as long as it doesn’t hurt our revenue” axis. You can with some validity argue that an entity that monopolizes control of the public square is obligated to protect the rights intrinsic in that square, all the more so when their interests align with the government’s. You can, with some validity, argue that a company doesn’t have to have a monopoly on the public square to be forced to recognize those rights, but as a continuous function, as they subsume more of the public square they should undergo increasing burden for conserving the functions of that square. It used to be “the public square” was a distinct geographic entity. We are now faced with the fact that it was, maybe, a set of functions attached to that geographic entity, and it’s those functions that must be protected.
  - themagician 7y ago
    These platforms don’t replace the public square. The internet is the “public square” and you can buy your own domain and do whatever you want. These platforms are the giant retail shops that line the square in a capitalist world. They come and go. You don’t have to go into them and they can kick you out whenever they want.
    - vanniv 7y ago
      Well, you could, except that if cloudflare doesn't like your content, your site isn't actually on the internet.
      - themagician 7y ago
        Never used Cloudflare. The internet has existed without it for quite some time. I’m not even sure what they do, to be honest. Aren’t they just another CDN? I’ve used AWS and Cloudfront for years, never had a problem. And that’s only for high traffic applications.
- zoonosis 7y ago
  And the 14th Amendment was meant to act as a constraint on the general government but that hasn't stopped it from being used to constrain state governments.
- lanternslight 7y ago
  Thought experiment: what would happen if Alphabet banned homosexual positive speech on all it's platforms?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
creaghpatr 7y ago
Seems like a pretty weak argument they made regarding the first amendment. Google censorship being considered a "state action"? Yeah right. A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session: https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-video-removed-fcbeb035-c486-4aa1-a563-44deb10dd0be.html https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-v...
- jjuel 7y ago
  I still don't think that would be a First Amendment issue.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session... Why is that any more interesting? Is google compelled to host and preserve any and all content?
- anon73044 7y ago
  It's Google's platform, they're not the stewards of reality and are free to censor whatever they want.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    Freedom to censor being a legal right?
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Yes because some people don't actually care about freedom, they just think it's important that the people that reduce it weren't elected.
    - 0xffff2 7y ago
      Yes. Free speech is just as much about your right to keep your mouth shut as it is the right to open it.
    - 7y ago
kgwxd 7y ago
Was that not already well established?
Mathnerd314 7y ago
A more interesting case would be the federal government pressuring YouTube to remove some videos, similar to the Wiki leaks payment blockade a few years back.
rkapsoro 7y ago
I wonder, why did they use a First Amendment claim rather than something to do with safe harbour considerations (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... My understanding in this area is thin, but from what I understand the big tech media companies often claim limited or no liability for user generated content because of the above legal considerations. If so, and they then go on curate content, that would seem to be allowing them to accept the upside of being a publisher (a curated experience they can sell to customers and other stakeholders) without accepting the downside (liability for copyright infringement, slander and libel, etc.). I'm not sure why PragerU's legal team didn't push in this area rather than the admittedly dodgy First Amendment claim. edit: grammar.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  This is exactly backwards. 230 does not say "you are safe if you moderate nothing but expose yourself to trouble if you moderate". It says "if you moderate, but not perfectly consistently, you are still protected from garbage on your platform".
  - rkapsoro 7y ago
    Haha well that explains that then. Thanks.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  Because that's not a requirement of the law as written. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-c... It would have even less chance of flying in court than the first amendment claim, which at least has some precedent due to lawsuits about protests in malls.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Possibly because PragerU isn't actually good at this sort of thing. It's not like we should assume they understand law or how to hire lawyers who do. It turns out there's no law against attaching "University" as a title to your organization without any kind of vetting, bona fides, or accreditation.
bilekas 7y ago
In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.
vumgl 7y ago
YouTube is really silly to ban PragerU. Although I disagree with maybe 70% of PragerU's content (I listen to their podcast), I find it very informative of the conservative POV. It also exposes me to ideas that makes me do my own further research. I listen to them regularly; there is much worse content on other places in YouTube.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  They haven't banned it; their channel is the first search result on YouTube for the keyword 'PragerU'. They've flagged it as restricted content so that advertising isn't attached to it, organizations who specifically ask Google "Don't show me restricted content" (such as schools) can't reach it from the networks they control, and auto-recommendation engines are down-sampled on it. Essentially, PragerU is trying to argue that they should have the right to force YouTube to classify their content into the same bucket as "baby shark" videos. It's a very silly argument from PragerU's side.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    And at the same time, Google claiming that prageru is "sensitive content" is kind of ridiculous too.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      I believe it falls under "Incendiary or demeaning content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en). Edit: other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-what-videos-youtube-restricted-46351812d4ef https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note that it may very well simply fall under "Mature Subjects" (terror, war, crime, politics).
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        All of those "Mature Subjects" sound like things that kids in schools should very definitely be allowed to access, IMO. And somehow I'd imagine that CNN's YouTube channel isn't limited in the same way. (Or Fox News, for that matter)
nostromo 7y ago
While I agree with the ruling, we could use some new laws governing fairness on the Facebook and Google monopolies. These two companies have tremendous political power and I don’t think ignoring that and hoping for the best is a great option for an open society. The other solution could be to break up FB/Instagram/WhatsApp and Google/YouTube to inject some competition back into these markets.
- pcj-github 7y ago
  If YouTube had to survive independently of Google/Alphabet it would look vastly different. Not sure if that is good or bad.
- downerending 7y ago
  Indeed. Having a corporation as an Orwellian overlord isn't noticeably better than having a government as one.
- Traster 7y ago
  The problem we have is that whilst lots of people think that there should be new regulation, no one can agree on what it is and in the mean time you have to contend with: * Both partisans pushing for legislation they can use to beat the other side with * Monopolistic entities such as facebook that intend to use 'regulation' as a moat - writing legislation that only restricts them from doing things they already don't do * Incompetent legislators who don't understand the issues - since they were born before colour tv was invented, let alone smart phones and the internet. And that's before even considering the obvious anti-competitive mergers that have been happening. You talk about breaking up Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp. Why were they allowed to be sold in the first place.
tombert 7y ago
Putting on my tinfoil hat on for a bit, I think PragerU did this lawsuit largely for marketing value, knowing full-well it wouldn't win, since their actual argument was bizarre and had implications that literally no one would get behind. It puts the right-wing entity "PragerU" into the public consciousness, and they get to wear some badge of "We're the real defenders of free speech!" I'm sure that Dennis Prager and his ilk will go on Fox News and use this to talk about how the evil leftist court systems don't believe in open discourse, and it'll probably end up with more people watching the videos overall.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Agreed. PragerU doesn't appear to understand many things, but I think they understand Streisand Effect.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted, the theory makes sense.
yters 7y ago
Is every commercial content platform free to censor the content however they want? Can Verizon censor the CNN and Fox News that is delivered by cable? Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like? Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with? The former cases seem unlikely, so what is the difference with YouTube?
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  > Can Verizon censor the CNN and Fox News that is delivered by cable? Yes, and they already set standards for the channels they accept on their cable platform. > Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like? No, your phone carrier is a common carrier. > Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with? Yes, but they might hit issues with advertising guidelines depending on intent
  - ryanmarsh 7y ago
    Would it be feasible (legally) to build a website which hosts user generated content and be considered a common carrier therefore not responsible for what users post? Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here. People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest. In the case of particularly gruesome combat footage or violent crime I don’t see how in some jurisdictions those sites could operate with the content NOT taken down. For instance, you recall how 8chan was taken down over the Christchurch NZ shooters manifesto and video.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      > Would it be feasible (legally) to build a website which hosts user generated content and be considered a common carrier therefore not responsible for what users post? This is already the case per the safe harbor. > Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here. Note that being not liable is not the same as being immune to takedown. Youtube isn't legally liable for what you post, but they still have to comply with the law (and they are liable if they fail to comply). > People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest. Youtube isn't censoring material because of legal liability. Youtube censors material because their investors and advertisers don't want some materials on Youtube which they perceive to negatively affect is, such as combat footage, material seen to be preying on children and anything with nudity.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Or rather, First Amendment applies to YouTube, but they have freedom of the press; they are not obligated to be a medium for other people to exercise their freedom of speech.
- ng12 7y ago
  That's the core issue in my mind -- YouTube et al. are publishers when it benefits them and platforms when it doesn't. They can't simultaneously identify as press but then not be responsible for user-uploaded content.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    When they're acting as a hosting medium, they're conduit. When they add features atop the content they host to curate and surface it or down-signal it, they're press. The two functions seem to be acceptable within one organization. Probably worth noting there's a hefty dose of practicality in the interpretations as they currently stand. Even this forum, without safe harbor protection, could be on the hook for user-provided content if someone linked to child pornography here, yet it seems most users here are in agreement that Hacker News shouldn't lose safe harbor protections because it has moderators and community-driven karma.
wnevets 7y ago
am I the only one who finds the irony of a right wing org wanting the government to force a private company to create a safe space for their content funny?
bgschulman31 7y ago
As a private company, I don’t believe YouTube should be obligated to be a platform to host people’s free speech. However, they do advertise themselves as a public forum so by restricting viewpoints that they disagree with they really aren’t the public forum they claim to be.
neuland 7y ago
Everyone here is saying 1A doesn't constrain private parties. But that's missing the heart of PragerU's claim. Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for what users post. But at the same time, platforms want to moderate their content selecting which views are acceptable and which are not. These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines. We have common carrier provisions for other communication mediums with no liability (ex. TV, ISP's). And we have liability for communication mediums with editorial control (ie. Newspapers, Magazines). Tech companies are running up the center and making huge profits with an unfair legal advantage that no other communication medium gets. Newspapers have to vet their classifieds and editorials. Facebook/YouTube/etc doesn't. And that is inherently unfair. So either Congress or the Courts need to fix the law. And it's fair game for the courts, because the law is not being applied correctly to these platforms, given their abuses.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rhcom2 7y ago
  > Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. I don't believe that is true. There is nothing in the law that says the platforms can't select or edit what their users post. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    I don' believe your interpretation is correct. I believe the law assumes that platforms are treating all content equally. But they're not. Even if the content was originally provided by someone else, the platform is making the decision to promote some content and demote other content. In other words, they are making active decisions about what content they'd like to have appear on their supposedly neutral platform.
jknoepfler 7y ago
There are a lot of comments here suggesting that this case is cut-and-dried obvious. YouTube is a private entity, QED. This case is more nuanced than that, and part of an ongoing, evolving understanding of the purview of the First Amendment in the United States. (NOTE: IANAL, much less a constitutional law scholar, I'm just digging into some news over coffee as an interested citizen) Poking around the case materials a little bit: PragerU lawyers reference a decision (here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html) in which a corporate entity tried to remove street preachers from grounds (the Rose Garden) partially leased from a public entity (the City of Portland). The court found in favor of the preachers, holding that the corporation effectively was a state actor over which the court had jurisdiction. If you read the reasoning in that case, you'll find reference to other cases in which the courts tried (unsuccessfully) to hammer down what counts as a state actor. From a very cursory reading there's substantial jurisprudential churn around the notion of "state actor" - there are commonly accepted "tests" (which are sort of like thought experiments in philosophy), a substantial amount of common sense, and a large margin of error involved in determining whether or not a private entity is behaving in a way that might run afoul of restrictions placed on public actors. It's clear that there are cases where publicly owned resources are leased to private entities, and that "speech" happens over these resources (broadcast frequencies, ISP rights, publicly-owned domains, etc.). There certainly are private actors in this space that do fall under the purview of the First Ammendment. Again, I don't think YouTube is such an entity - and the courts agree - but this is a space where limits are evolving and being tested all the time. edit: I enjoy the court's somewhat punchy decision: Both sides say that the sky will fall if we do not adopt their position. PragerU prophesizes living under the tyranny of big-tech, possessing the power to censor any speech it does not like. YouTube and several amicus curiae, on the other hand, foretell the undoing of the Internet if online speech is regulated. While these arguments have interesting and important roles to play in policy discussions concerning the future of the Internet, they do not figure into our straightforward application of the First Amendment. Because the state action doctrine precludes constitutional scrutiny of YouTube's content moderation pursuant to its Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, we affirm the district court's dismissal of PragerU's First Amendment claim.
- 7y ago
shaneprrlt 7y ago
Awesome! Since the YouTube staff predominantly aligns with me ideologically (coastal progressive), it makes me so happy that they can shut down the people who I intellectually disagree with! I mean, they're all actual literal nazis anyways, right?! Yay legal technicalities, boo foundational values that make this country a haven for freedom and liberty.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I think this is a really poor-faith strawman and doesn't contribute anything positive to the conversation. Please reconsider how you approach people you disagree with.
  - gjs278 7y ago
    I think this is a really poor-faith response and doesn’t contribute anyone positive to the conversation.
  - shaneprrlt 7y ago
    I wasn't argumentative or profane. I think how I approached it was appropriate, so I will not be reconsidering, thank you. I also wasn't setting up a strawman. First amendment doesn't apply to private companies, thanks supreme court, but we already knew that. I'm saying it's a damn shame that this company (that supposedly operates as a neutral platform) doesn't itself elect to follow the values of free speech.
gfodor 7y ago
mark my words: this will get to the supreme court, and youtube will lose. sites like youtube, facebook, twitter ultimately need to be recognized as some kind of semi-public forum. once they are, the rules change.
mech1234 7y ago
The world is a better world when reasonable opinions are well-considered on all sides. Prager U's videos are not hate speech. They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner. It is sad that YouTube chooses to de-promote Prager's content. But it is not illegal.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Do you consider it "sad" that Fox doesn't have 50% left leaning contributors, too? If not, why not?
  - mech1234 7y ago
    Yes, it is sad that Fox doesn't have enough left-leaning commentators. Media producers have realized that consumers self-select into viewing distribution channels that appeal to their existing beliefs. It creates a feedback loop where media market segmentation by political affiliation drives people further apart. PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion; I like it for that. I also like it when liberal entities try to penetrate conservative bastions. From my subjective survey of the media landscape, it seems that the left-leaning bastions currently dominate. To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels, they encourage conservatives to bifurcate: either join them, or retreat to far-right positions.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion > To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels PragerU is classified as "extreme right" by media bias groups. And it scores "Low" (on a scale of Very Low to Very High) on Factual Reporting. I know reasonable conservatives exist. I'm not entirely sure that PragerU is a representation thereof.
  - downerending 7y ago
    It would be extremely sad, if they dominated their market to the degree that YouTube does.
brightball 7y ago
It’s interesting that the article lists PragerU as a conservative outlet. The stuff I’ve seen of theirs in the past gave me the opposite impression.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Citation needed -- link me to something that isn't conservative.
  - brightball 7y ago
    I’d have to find it. They put out one on the causes of the civil war that went viral years ago that was so misleading it was embarrassing. ( Civil War history is a hobby of mine because it’s really interesting )
    - mrguyorama 7y ago
      The only civil war cause related video of theirs I've seen is them explaining that, "No, really, the civil war was because states wanted slavery and not anything about states rights unless you think states should have the right to allow slavery" This is an odd position to take since the typical conservative angle is to pretend slavery wasn't directly called out in like 50% of the seceding state's documents of secession, and instead claim some nebulous "states rights" claim
      - brightball 7y ago
        IIRC they circulated a video along those lines in the wake of the Charleston church shooting to capitalize on the topic for marketing purposes. It was a very oversimplified video designed for the quick "FACT! In your face!" social media argument. If they are a conservative outlet then that video was specifically designed to engage non-conservatives so that they could reach them and that would make sense if that was the mission. As for the the actual causes, there really is a lot of complexity to it. The short version: - 11 states seceded - There were only 4 declarations of causes (SC, Georgia, Miss, Texas) - Secession happened slowly over the course of many months, from November to May - The border states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seceded in direct response to Lincoln's requisition for troops. The request bypassed Congress. Virginia legislature in particular took it as an abuse of executive power. The viral video put out by Prager quickly listed off the states that seceded and oversimplified by saying "all the declarations of causes" which insinuated that each state produced such a declaration. It gave the appearance that the secessions were something of a quick and unified action. It hit all of the necessary points for a viral share though. Gave the appearance of an educational entity delivering a quick video to support the "everybody in the south was evil" rhetoric. If you ever really deep dive into the history, there was a lot going on, so seeing something like that from an "educational" institution immediately put them on my propaganda radar. I haven't seen much else from them since.
throwGuardian 7y ago
Does anyone else find it ironic that Google (rightly) led the net neutrality fight against ISPs/carriers, with one of the complaints being potential censorship from these entities. And then they turn around and censor conservative content disproportionately, with no self awareness on perceptions of bias that it creates. It doesn't matter if section 203 requires neutrality, a giant megacorp with a monopoly on internet video needs to stay neutral. We cannot have a "rules for thee, not for me" attitude from Google. If they won't stay neutral, they need to be regulated. Section 203 needs to be scrapped, and something that guarantees 1A, while shielding platforms from culpability, needs to emerge.
- tzs 7y ago
  > Does anyone else find it ironic that Google (rightly) led the net neutrality fight against ISPs/carriers, with one of the complaints being potential censorship from these entities. No, because to use a transportation analogy ISPs are like buses or light rail, while websites are like the stores and offices and gathering places that you take the buses or light rail too. There would be nothing ironic about believing that a city's bus or light rail systems should be required to accept all passengers who have the fare and are not an actual danger to other passengers, while simultaneously believing that a private store or office that one might reach by bus does not have to accept everyone.
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    Why does Google feel the need to censor any conservative content? The right to censor doesn't have to culminate in actual censorship without cause. Double speak is on full display here: self certified ethical, moral, freedom loving, anti authoritarians are the first to indulge in thought policing. Moreover, this kind of censorship plays out on the daily across tech, while the companies involved lie about not being biased, with a straight face. It's all too Orwellian
blaser-waffle 7y ago
Man there are an awful lot of accounts that are <6 months old posting about how maybe PragerU isn't that bad, or "I don't agree with it but I think they should be allowed to do whatever" Make of that what you will.
- BiteCode_dev 7y ago
  Startup idea: use machine learning to scan social networks and detect PR campaigns, submarine pieces, fake reviews, etc.
- viridian 7y ago
  There was a reddit /r/unpopularopinion thread about 'looking through people's profiles for something to attack them with' recently, but I missed the boat by a few hours, so this seems like a good place to ask folks who do this: Why do you look through other people's profiles? I just don't understand the appeal in the first place. I like Hacker News' 14 day newbie green text, but even if it didn't exist I have never cared enough about someone's posts to try and gather any kind of intel on them, or see if they are fresh accounts, or what have you. The only time I've used people's profile info here is to find contact info to send them something, usually on request. The whole <6 months thing just seems like old school SomethingAwful style behavior, where regdates operate on a punch-down style system.
  - asheroth 7y ago
    At the very least on Reddit it would give me context on whether someone is asking a question in good faith or not. I live in a relatively liberal city, so there's regularly people who drop in to try to ask pointed questions in an attempt to bait people into responding a certain way, so I can know whether to ignore or try to respond in a helpful manner.
- Wistar 7y ago
  "… an awful lot of accounts that are <6 months old …" For clarity, where are you seeing these accounts, here?
- Anon1096 7y ago
teh_klev 7y ago
Leonard French (an actual lawyer) who runs the Lawful Masses YouTube channel has quite a good analysis of the failed appeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz5u8Yygys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz5u8Yygys
ghgdynb1 7y ago
What a deceptive headline
downerending 7y ago
The court could not have ruled otherwise. Still, a society where a dominant corporation has this much power to squelch voices it doesn't like is not what we ought to hope for.
godelzilla 7y ago
Wow a fake university that promotes pseudo-science doesn't understand the first amendment? Shocker.

123 points by LinuxBender 7y ago

Since the First Amendment acts as a constraint on Government, yeah, it makes sense that YouTube is under no obligation to protect your freedom of speech. This isn't a hard concept.

wpietri 7y ago
Well, it's not a hard concept if you believe in rule of law and have read a few Wikipedia pages. But a surprisingly large number of people seem to start from the position, "My actions should never have consequences I don't like," and then backfill from there.
- gregd 7y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me how many people cry, "BUT MA FREEDOMS OF SPEECH" and actually have no concept of what that means.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    The First Amendment is not the same thing as Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is an ideal from Ancient Greece and obviously predates the US Constitution. It’s also much broader in scope. So, yes, people can have their freedom of speech infringed by a private company or employer, even if it’s not protected by the First Amendment.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Ideals from ancient Greece also included how to treat one's slaves and how to tell whether a person was naturally suited for the life of slavery or freedom, so it's important to put more consideration into the nuances of the virtue of such ideals than just "The Greek philosophers were into it."
      - _mdpn 7y ago
        Margaret Sanger unapologetically supported eugenics and sterilizing 'inferior' people. Does that make Planned Parenthood a bad idea?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        It makes Planned Parenthood an organization one should judge in modern context separable from its origins, much like freedom of speech and ownership of other people from Greek philosophy.
        foolinaround 7y ago
        It should certainly make you stop and think... Would'nt you be suspicious if Hitler came up with some sort of program?
        Zuider 7y ago
        This kind of reasoning opens you up to the genetic fallacy. If you believe the moral status of the origin of a thing is necessarily transmitted to the thing itself, then you are liable to consider Hitler's pernicious concept of Der Volk and the Volkswagen to be equally evil.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Did you know that the guy who wrote the First Amendment also owned slaves? It seems like a nuance we might want to consider!
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        ...and was a man. And guaranteed freedom only to men.
        foolinaround 7y ago
        great reply - calling out another strawman.....
    - themagician 7y ago
      This is the standard response when people find out they are wrong. It is somewhat ironic too, because the actual violation of freedom of speech occurs when a person or company is forced, by the government, to publish someone else’s content that they may not agree with. If you write a letter to the New York Times and they don’t publish it that’s not a violation of freedom of speech. If the government forces them to, it is.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Well, sort of. The ancient Greeks actually had two concepts, and people confuse them all the time. [1] But people harkening back to the ancient Greek tradition of isegoria are a very small percentage of the "BUT MUH FREEDOMZ" outcry. What they want is not freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of their speech. And often they want it in ways that include suppressing other people's rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of association. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-con...
      - thu2111 7y ago
        Obviously people want freedom from consequences of their speech. That's what freedom of speech means. What kind of "freedom of speech" would it be if you were instantly killed upon uttering any criticism of the great leader? Obviously you wouldn't have freedom of speech in that situation because the consequences would be so dire nobody would speak up. Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? Is PragerU trying to get liberal channels shut down? I don't believe they are; this is a non-sequiteur used try and cast victims of oppression as oppressors themselves.
        rodgerd 7y ago
        > Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? The case is trying to force YouTube to associate with PraegerU.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        It doesn't take a lot of consideration to conclude that total freedom from consequences of speech is akin to all parties pretending that the offending speech was simply never said, which defeats the purpose of speech itself in the first place. So we can conclude that people want freedom from specific consequences of speech, not all consequences. Once that distinction is made, one can argue about which consequences one should be free of. US law, for example, strictly ties the government's right to censor (i.e. being killed upon uttering any criticism of great leader is out-of-bounds) but the also-present freedom of the press and freedom of association implies private individuals' rights to refrain from sharing information or associating with various entities, and there is a, perhaps questionable, expedient that extends those rights from individuals to corporations in the US (being fired upon uttering public criticism of dear CEO is, except for specific carve-outs mostly paid for in blood during union strikes, acceptable; a corporation is not the government and has no obligation to continue to serve an employee at odds with the corporation and what it stands for, while governments have no such luxury and must serve even their "malcontents").
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - themagician 7y ago
    It’s worse than that. They go on to sue—to try use the government to force someone else to publish their content—and fail to see the irony.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Well, there is a different way of looking at it. As real flesh and bones individuals, the first amendment protections should apply. For companies (aka: fictitious entities), are granted corporate charters by the government. They are extensions of the government allowing a bubble of state/federal government of what we call a company. Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? In that light, companies should have a requirement to uphold the bill of rights. They are created legal entities, not at all like a person. ------------------------ The glaring problem with not applying 1FA to a company means the mega-companies that wish to deplatform you leads you to no recourse. Do you have a right to use a monopolistic service? The issue with that course of actions is that the rules to the megacorps (FAANG) also apply to the small companies with 1 or more. More regulation does tend to kill tiny companies.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    > Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But this decision is absolutely consistent with applying the First Amendment to corporations. Compulsory speech is not free speech. Why should YouTube be forced to spend their time and money to disseminate PragerU's content on their platform — i.e. to "speak" against their will?
    - _-david-_ 7y ago
      If a video on YouTube constitutes YouTube's speech then does that mean if somebody posts a video containing something illegal YouTube should be held responsible?
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        It's not the video that YouTube creates; it's the metadata of recommendations, classification, and advertising association. PragerU attempted to argue YouTube infringed PragerU's freedom by arranging that metadata in a way PragerU didn't like.
- AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
  See Marsh V Alabama. I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    It's true they would have a more favorable shot in the SC than in the 9th circuit.
    - xxpor 7y ago
      One of the judges on the panel was Jay Bybee. You might know him from signing the Torture Memos authored by John Yoo. If they can't convince that level of hack, they don't have a chance in the SC.
  - magicalist 7y ago
    > I hope Prager appeals, this could easily reach the SC and potentially be an even more influential case than Marsh. Or as pointed out in the article, probably not: > Appeals court judges were not convinced. They pointed to a Supreme Court case[1] from last year in which plaintiffs unsuccessfully "tested a theory that resembled PragerU's approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its 'operation' of the private property as 'a public forum for speech.'" The case involved public access channels on a cable TV system. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-commun...
    - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
      "Manhattan Community Access Corp" doesn't seem to have the same market power as Google/Youtube. I still think this will be a novel SC case. Interestingly Manhattan Community Access Corp is definitely in some regards closer to a state actor, being authorized by NYC to operate.
- cvwright 7y ago
  This is a fascinating example, particularly in comparison to the "wedding cake" cases from a couple of years ago. The question of trading off between the customer's speech and the service provider's freedom seems to be nearly the same in both cases. But the people following along at home have almost all traded sides! Those who were for the customer before are now cheering for the provider. Those who supported the old provider are now supporting the new customer. And they're using many of the same arguments to do it. People are weird.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    The problem with that comparison is that we eat cakes. I think a better example would be that of the long-lamented "Fairness Doctrine". The explosion of right-wing AM radio would never have occurred without Reagan's repeal of that FCC policy in 1987. So naturally conservatives think the Fairness Doctrine was terrible. Imagine, having to play the same number of liberal radio programs as conservative radio programs on your AM station! Online, it's different, for reasons. Of course, no one remembers what happened in the 1980s, although Limbaugh is still around.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    I don't see how this case and the wedding cake case are even remotely similar beyond the fact that both of the defendants are businesses.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Not at all. One important difference here is that people are free to discriminate on almost any grounds except a narrow set that have proven to be irrational and historically devastating. Race, gender, religion, and a few other things depending on jurisdiction. The same rules apply to YouTube. If they had been arbitrarily banning the accounts of black people, they would have lost.
    - cvwright 7y ago
      Ok, I did some digging. The wedding cake case in Oregon was much closer to what you describe. The one in Colorado was more like the Youtube case. He offered to sell them a cake off the shelf, but refused to create a custom cake for something he didn't support.
saterHater 7y ago
Judging by their content, it seems like anything that isn't self-serving is difficult for PragerU to understand.
prostheticvamp 7y ago
I think it’s a little more nuanced than that, in a way the bill of rights never had reason to consider. The freedom of speech prohibits government control of speech in government (read: public) spaces, in order to conserve public right of criticism of the government. These massive platforms, as a matter of business, attempt to replace and own “the public square.” Google/YouTube, directly or indirectly, controls an enormous fraction of the public conversation. Their interests, as corporations constantly lobbying for favorable regulatory treatment, tend to align along the “appease the government as long as it doesn’t hurt our revenue” axis. You can with some validity argue that an entity that monopolizes control of the public square is obligated to protect the rights intrinsic in that square, all the more so when their interests align with the government’s. You can, with some validity, argue that a company doesn’t have to have a monopoly on the public square to be forced to recognize those rights, but as a continuous function, as they subsume more of the public square they should undergo increasing burden for conserving the functions of that square. It used to be “the public square” was a distinct geographic entity. We are now faced with the fact that it was, maybe, a set of functions attached to that geographic entity, and it’s those functions that must be protected.
- themagician 7y ago
  These platforms don’t replace the public square. The internet is the “public square” and you can buy your own domain and do whatever you want. These platforms are the giant retail shops that line the square in a capitalist world. They come and go. You don’t have to go into them and they can kick you out whenever they want.
  - vanniv 7y ago
    Well, you could, except that if cloudflare doesn't like your content, your site isn't actually on the internet.
    - themagician 7y ago
      Never used Cloudflare. The internet has existed without it for quite some time. I’m not even sure what they do, to be honest. Aren’t they just another CDN? I’ve used AWS and Cloudfront for years, never had a problem. And that’s only for high traffic applications.
zoonosis 7y ago
And the 14th Amendment was meant to act as a constraint on the general government but that hasn't stopped it from being used to constrain state governments.
lanternslight 7y ago
Thought experiment: what would happen if Alphabet banned homosexual positive speech on all it's platforms?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

creaghpatr 7y ago

Seems like a pretty weak argument they made regarding the first amendment. Google censorship being considered a "state action"? Yeah right. A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session: https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-video-removed-fcbeb035-c486-4aa1-a563-44deb10dd0be.html https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-v...

jjuel 7y ago
I still don't think that would be a First Amendment issue.
klyrs 7y ago
> A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session... Why is that any more interesting? Is google compelled to host and preserve any and all content?
anon73044 7y ago
It's Google's platform, they're not the stewards of reality and are free to censor whatever they want.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Freedom to censor being a legal right?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Yes because some people don't actually care about freedom, they just think it's important that the people that reduce it weren't elected.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Yes. Free speech is just as much about your right to keep your mouth shut as it is the right to open it.
  - 7y ago

kgwxd 7y ago

Was that not already well established?

Mathnerd314 7y ago

A more interesting case would be the federal government pressuring YouTube to remove some videos, similar to the Wiki leaks payment blockade a few years back.

rkapsoro 7y ago

I wonder, why did they use a First Amendment claim rather than something to do with safe harbour considerations (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... My understanding in this area is thin, but from what I understand the big tech media companies often claim limited or no liability for user generated content because of the above legal considerations. If so, and they then go on curate content, that would seem to be allowing them to accept the upside of being a publisher (a curated experience they can sell to customers and other stakeholders) without accepting the downside (liability for copyright infringement, slander and libel, etc.). I'm not sure why PragerU's legal team didn't push in this area rather than the admittedly dodgy First Amendment claim. edit: grammar.

UncleMeat 7y ago
This is exactly backwards. 230 does not say "you are safe if you moderate nothing but expose yourself to trouble if you moderate". It says "if you moderate, but not perfectly consistently, you are still protected from garbage on your platform".
- rkapsoro 7y ago
  Haha well that explains that then. Thanks.
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Because that's not a requirement of the law as written. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-c... It would have even less chance of flying in court than the first amendment claim, which at least has some precedent due to lawsuits about protests in malls.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Possibly because PragerU isn't actually good at this sort of thing. It's not like we should assume they understand law or how to hire lawyers who do. It turns out there's no law against attaching "University" as a title to your organization without any kind of vetting, bona fides, or accreditation.

bilekas 7y ago

In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.

vumgl 7y ago

YouTube is really silly to ban PragerU. Although I disagree with maybe 70% of PragerU's content (I listen to their podcast), I find it very informative of the conservative POV. It also exposes me to ideas that makes me do my own further research. I listen to them regularly; there is much worse content on other places in YouTube.

shadowgovt 7y ago
They haven't banned it; their channel is the first search result on YouTube for the keyword 'PragerU'. They've flagged it as restricted content so that advertising isn't attached to it, organizations who specifically ask Google "Don't show me restricted content" (such as schools) can't reach it from the networks they control, and auto-recommendation engines are down-sampled on it. Essentially, PragerU is trying to argue that they should have the right to force YouTube to classify their content into the same bucket as "baby shark" videos. It's a very silly argument from PragerU's side.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  And at the same time, Google claiming that prageru is "sensitive content" is kind of ridiculous too.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I believe it falls under "Incendiary or demeaning content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en). Edit: other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-what-videos-youtube-restricted-46351812d4ef https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note that it may very well simply fall under "Mature Subjects" (terror, war, crime, politics).
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      All of those "Mature Subjects" sound like things that kids in schools should very definitely be allowed to access, IMO. And somehow I'd imagine that CNN's YouTube channel isn't limited in the same way. (Or Fox News, for that matter)

nostromo 7y ago

While I agree with the ruling, we could use some new laws governing fairness on the Facebook and Google monopolies. These two companies have tremendous political power and I don’t think ignoring that and hoping for the best is a great option for an open society. The other solution could be to break up FB/Instagram/WhatsApp and Google/YouTube to inject some competition back into these markets.

pcj-github 7y ago
If YouTube had to survive independently of Google/Alphabet it would look vastly different. Not sure if that is good or bad.
downerending 7y ago
Indeed. Having a corporation as an Orwellian overlord isn't noticeably better than having a government as one.
Traster 7y ago
The problem we have is that whilst lots of people think that there should be new regulation, no one can agree on what it is and in the mean time you have to contend with: * Both partisans pushing for legislation they can use to beat the other side with * Monopolistic entities such as facebook that intend to use 'regulation' as a moat - writing legislation that only restricts them from doing things they already don't do * Incompetent legislators who don't understand the issues - since they were born before colour tv was invented, let alone smart phones and the internet. And that's before even considering the obvious anti-competitive mergers that have been happening. You talk about breaking up Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp. Why were they allowed to be sold in the first place.

tombert 7y ago

Putting on my tinfoil hat on for a bit, I think PragerU did this lawsuit largely for marketing value, knowing full-well it wouldn't win, since their actual argument was bizarre and had implications that literally no one would get behind. It puts the right-wing entity "PragerU" into the public consciousness, and they get to wear some badge of "We're the real defenders of free speech!" I'm sure that Dennis Prager and his ilk will go on Fox News and use this to talk about how the evil leftist court systems don't believe in open discourse, and it'll probably end up with more people watching the videos overall.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Agreed. PragerU doesn't appear to understand many things, but I think they understand Streisand Effect.
creaghpatr 7y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted, the theory makes sense.

yters 7y ago

Is every commercial content platform free to censor the content however they want? Can Verizon censor the CNN and Fox News that is delivered by cable? Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like? Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with? The former cases seem unlikely, so what is the difference with YouTube?

vorpalhex 7y ago
> Can Verizon censor the CNN and Fox News that is delivered by cable? Yes, and they already set standards for the channels they accept on their cable platform. > Can my cell phone carrier censor whatever conversations I have that they don't like? No, your phone carrier is a common carrier. > Can Google skew and eliminate searches they don't agree with? Yes, but they might hit issues with advertising guidelines depending on intent
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  Would it be feasible (legally) to build a website which hosts user generated content and be considered a common carrier therefore not responsible for what users post? Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here. People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest. In the case of particularly gruesome combat footage or violent crime I don’t see how in some jurisdictions those sites could operate with the content NOT taken down. For instance, you recall how 8chan was taken down over the Christchurch NZ shooters manifesto and video.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    > Would it be feasible (legally) to build a website which hosts user generated content and be considered a common carrier therefore not responsible for what users post? This is already the case per the safe harbor. > Illegal forms of pornography would have to be the litmus test here. Note that being not liable is not the same as being immune to takedown. Youtube isn't legally liable for what you post, but they still have to comply with the law (and they are liable if they fail to comply). > People get upset when content is censored which they view to be vital to the public interest. Youtube isn't censoring material because of legal liability. Youtube censors material because their investors and advertisers don't want some materials on Youtube which they perceive to negatively affect is, such as combat footage, material seen to be preying on children and anything with nudity.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Or rather, First Amendment applies to YouTube, but they have freedom of the press; they are not obligated to be a medium for other people to exercise their freedom of speech.

ng12 7y ago
That's the core issue in my mind -- YouTube et al. are publishers when it benefits them and platforms when it doesn't. They can't simultaneously identify as press but then not be responsible for user-uploaded content.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  When they're acting as a hosting medium, they're conduit. When they add features atop the content they host to curate and surface it or down-signal it, they're press. The two functions seem to be acceptable within one organization. Probably worth noting there's a hefty dose of practicality in the interpretations as they currently stand. Even this forum, without safe harbor protection, could be on the hook for user-provided content if someone linked to child pornography here, yet it seems most users here are in agreement that Hacker News shouldn't lose safe harbor protections because it has moderators and community-driven karma.

wnevets 7y ago

am I the only one who finds the irony of a right wing org wanting the government to force a private company to create a safe space for their content funny?

bgschulman31 7y ago

As a private company, I don’t believe YouTube should be obligated to be a platform to host people’s free speech. However, they do advertise themselves as a public forum so by restricting viewpoints that they disagree with they really aren’t the public forum they claim to be.

neuland 7y ago

Everyone here is saying 1A doesn't constrain private parties. But that's missing the heart of PragerU's claim. Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for what users post. But at the same time, platforms want to moderate their content selecting which views are acceptable and which are not. These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines. We have common carrier provisions for other communication mediums with no liability (ex. TV, ISP's). And we have liability for communication mediums with editorial control (ie. Newspapers, Magazines). Tech companies are running up the center and making huge profits with an unfair legal advantage that no other communication medium gets. Newspapers have to vet their classifieds and editorials. Facebook/YouTube/etc doesn't. And that is inherently unfair. So either Congress or the Courts need to fix the law. And it's fair game for the courts, because the law is not being applied correctly to these platforms, given their abuses.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhcom2 7y ago
> Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. I don't believe that is true. There is nothing in the law that says the platforms can't select or edit what their users post. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  I don' believe your interpretation is correct. I believe the law assumes that platforms are treating all content equally. But they're not. Even if the content was originally provided by someone else, the platform is making the decision to promote some content and demote other content. In other words, they are making active decisions about what content they'd like to have appear on their supposedly neutral platform.

jknoepfler 7y ago

There are a lot of comments here suggesting that this case is cut-and-dried obvious. YouTube is a private entity, QED. This case is more nuanced than that, and part of an ongoing, evolving understanding of the purview of the First Amendment in the United States. (NOTE: IANAL, much less a constitutional law scholar, I'm just digging into some news over coffee as an interested citizen) Poking around the case materials a little bit: PragerU lawyers reference a decision (here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html) in which a corporate entity tried to remove street preachers from grounds (the Rose Garden) partially leased from a public entity (the City of Portland). The court found in favor of the preachers, holding that the corporation effectively was a state actor over which the court had jurisdiction. If you read the reasoning in that case, you'll find reference to other cases in which the courts tried (unsuccessfully) to hammer down what counts as a state actor. From a very cursory reading there's substantial jurisprudential churn around the notion of "state actor" - there are commonly accepted "tests" (which are sort of like thought experiments in philosophy), a substantial amount of common sense, and a large margin of error involved in determining whether or not a private entity is behaving in a way that might run afoul of restrictions placed on public actors. It's clear that there are cases where publicly owned resources are leased to private entities, and that "speech" happens over these resources (broadcast frequencies, ISP rights, publicly-owned domains, etc.). There certainly are private actors in this space that do fall under the purview of the First Ammendment. Again, I don't think YouTube is such an entity - and the courts agree - but this is a space where limits are evolving and being tested all the time. edit: I enjoy the court's somewhat punchy decision: Both sides say that the sky will fall if we do not adopt their position. PragerU prophesizes living under the tyranny of big-tech, possessing the power to censor any speech it does not like. YouTube and several amicus curiae, on the other hand, foretell the undoing of the Internet if online speech is regulated. While these arguments have interesting and important roles to play in policy discussions concerning the future of the Internet, they do not figure into our straightforward application of the First Amendment. Because the state action doctrine precludes constitutional scrutiny of YouTube's content moderation pursuant to its Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, we affirm the district court's dismissal of PragerU's First Amendment claim.

7y ago

shaneprrlt 7y ago

Awesome! Since the YouTube staff predominantly aligns with me ideologically (coastal progressive), it makes me so happy that they can shut down the people who I intellectually disagree with! I mean, they're all actual literal nazis anyways, right?! Yay legal technicalities, boo foundational values that make this country a haven for freedom and liberty.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I think this is a really poor-faith strawman and doesn't contribute anything positive to the conversation. Please reconsider how you approach people you disagree with.
- gjs278 7y ago
  I think this is a really poor-faith response and doesn’t contribute anyone positive to the conversation.
- shaneprrlt 7y ago
  I wasn't argumentative or profane. I think how I approached it was appropriate, so I will not be reconsidering, thank you. I also wasn't setting up a strawman. First amendment doesn't apply to private companies, thanks supreme court, but we already knew that. I'm saying it's a damn shame that this company (that supposedly operates as a neutral platform) doesn't itself elect to follow the values of free speech.

gfodor 7y ago

mark my words: this will get to the supreme court, and youtube will lose. sites like youtube, facebook, twitter ultimately need to be recognized as some kind of semi-public forum. once they are, the rules change.

mech1234 7y ago

The world is a better world when reasonable opinions are well-considered on all sides. Prager U's videos are not hate speech. They are reasonable opinions voiced in a calm manner. It is sad that YouTube chooses to de-promote Prager's content. But it is not illegal.

FireBeyond 7y ago
Do you consider it "sad" that Fox doesn't have 50% left leaning contributors, too? If not, why not?
- mech1234 7y ago
  Yes, it is sad that Fox doesn't have enough left-leaning commentators. Media producers have realized that consumers self-select into viewing distribution channels that appeal to their existing beliefs. It creates a feedback loop where media market segmentation by political affiliation drives people further apart. PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion; I like it for that. I also like it when liberal entities try to penetrate conservative bastions. From my subjective survey of the media landscape, it seems that the left-leaning bastions currently dominate. To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels, they encourage conservatives to bifurcate: either join them, or retreat to far-right positions.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > PragerU is a conservative entity that tried to penetrate a liberal bastion > To the extent that they push reasonable conservatives off of their channels PragerU is classified as "extreme right" by media bias groups. And it scores "Low" (on a scale of Very Low to Very High) on Factual Reporting. I know reasonable conservatives exist. I'm not entirely sure that PragerU is a representation thereof.
- downerending 7y ago
  It would be extremely sad, if they dominated their market to the degree that YouTube does.

brightball 7y ago

It’s interesting that the article lists PragerU as a conservative outlet. The stuff I’ve seen of theirs in the past gave me the opposite impression.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
Citation needed -- link me to something that isn't conservative.
- brightball 7y ago
  I’d have to find it. They put out one on the causes of the civil war that went viral years ago that was so misleading it was embarrassing. ( Civil War history is a hobby of mine because it’s really interesting )
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    The only civil war cause related video of theirs I've seen is them explaining that, "No, really, the civil war was because states wanted slavery and not anything about states rights unless you think states should have the right to allow slavery" This is an odd position to take since the typical conservative angle is to pretend slavery wasn't directly called out in like 50% of the seceding state's documents of secession, and instead claim some nebulous "states rights" claim
    - brightball 7y ago
      IIRC they circulated a video along those lines in the wake of the Charleston church shooting to capitalize on the topic for marketing purposes. It was a very oversimplified video designed for the quick "FACT! In your face!" social media argument. If they are a conservative outlet then that video was specifically designed to engage non-conservatives so that they could reach them and that would make sense if that was the mission. As for the the actual causes, there really is a lot of complexity to it. The short version: - 11 states seceded - There were only 4 declarations of causes (SC, Georgia, Miss, Texas) - Secession happened slowly over the course of many months, from November to May - The border states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seceded in direct response to Lincoln's requisition for troops. The request bypassed Congress. Virginia legislature in particular took it as an abuse of executive power. The viral video put out by Prager quickly listed off the states that seceded and oversimplified by saying "all the declarations of causes" which insinuated that each state produced such a declaration. It gave the appearance that the secessions were something of a quick and unified action. It hit all of the necessary points for a viral share though. Gave the appearance of an educational entity delivering a quick video to support the "everybody in the south was evil" rhetoric. If you ever really deep dive into the history, there was a lot going on, so seeing something like that from an "educational" institution immediately put them on my propaganda radar. I haven't seen much else from them since.

throwGuardian 7y ago

Does anyone else find it ironic that Google (rightly) led the net neutrality fight against ISPs/carriers, with one of the complaints being potential censorship from these entities. And then they turn around and censor conservative content disproportionately, with no self awareness on perceptions of bias that it creates. It doesn't matter if section 203 requires neutrality, a giant megacorp with a monopoly on internet video needs to stay neutral. We cannot have a "rules for thee, not for me" attitude from Google. If they won't stay neutral, they need to be regulated. Section 203 needs to be scrapped, and something that guarantees 1A, while shielding platforms from culpability, needs to emerge.

tzs 7y ago
> Does anyone else find it ironic that Google (rightly) led the net neutrality fight against ISPs/carriers, with one of the complaints being potential censorship from these entities. No, because to use a transportation analogy ISPs are like buses or light rail, while websites are like the stores and offices and gathering places that you take the buses or light rail too. There would be nothing ironic about believing that a city's bus or light rail systems should be required to accept all passengers who have the fare and are not an actual danger to other passengers, while simultaneously believing that a private store or office that one might reach by bus does not have to accept everyone.
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  Why does Google feel the need to censor any conservative content? The right to censor doesn't have to culminate in actual censorship without cause. Double speak is on full display here: self certified ethical, moral, freedom loving, anti authoritarians are the first to indulge in thought policing. Moreover, this kind of censorship plays out on the daily across tech, while the companies involved lie about not being biased, with a straight face. It's all too Orwellian

blaser-waffle 7y ago

Man there are an awful lot of accounts that are <6 months old posting about how maybe PragerU isn't that bad, or "I don't agree with it but I think they should be allowed to do whatever" Make of that what you will.

BiteCode_dev 7y ago
Startup idea: use machine learning to scan social networks and detect PR campaigns, submarine pieces, fake reviews, etc.
viridian 7y ago
There was a reddit /r/unpopularopinion thread about 'looking through people's profiles for something to attack them with' recently, but I missed the boat by a few hours, so this seems like a good place to ask folks who do this: Why do you look through other people's profiles? I just don't understand the appeal in the first place. I like Hacker News' 14 day newbie green text, but even if it didn't exist I have never cared enough about someone's posts to try and gather any kind of intel on them, or see if they are fresh accounts, or what have you. The only time I've used people's profile info here is to find contact info to send them something, usually on request. The whole <6 months thing just seems like old school SomethingAwful style behavior, where regdates operate on a punch-down style system.
- asheroth 7y ago
  At the very least on Reddit it would give me context on whether someone is asking a question in good faith or not. I live in a relatively liberal city, so there's regularly people who drop in to try to ask pointed questions in an attempt to bait people into responding a certain way, so I can know whether to ignore or try to respond in a helpful manner.
Wistar 7y ago
"… an awful lot of accounts that are <6 months old …" For clarity, where are you seeing these accounts, here?
Anon1096 7y ago

teh_klev 7y ago

Leonard French (an actual lawyer) who runs the Lawful Masses YouTube channel has quite a good analysis of the failed appeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz5u8Yygys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz5u8Yygys

ghgdynb1 7y ago

What a deceptive headline

downerending 7y ago

The court could not have ruled otherwise. Still, a society where a dominant corporation has this much power to squelch voices it doesn't like is not what we ought to hope for.

godelzilla 7y ago

Wow a fake university that promotes pseudo-science doesn't understand the first amendment? Shocker.