11 ms·

> Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a v

> Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so. And the Federal Government, just as inarguably, does not have this right.

croes 6y ago
That's a clever trick. Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I doubt the US Government has any hand in this, other than not wanting to be the ones running social media.
- huntertwo 6y ago
  I don't think it's a question of the medium but a question of the actor doing the censoring. If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal. I think one difference is the enforcement, Google can't censor an individual universally, just on their platform, whereas the government can enforce it universally with force/jail/etc.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal FCC regulation of TV broadcast comes close, but apparently obscenity isn't protected under the First Amendment (perhaps you can tell I'm not a lawyer, or for that matter an American). https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
    - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
      Yeah, there is this vague idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to certain categories of speech (yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is the classic example) that get stretched to fit this sort of thing.
      - lukifer 6y ago
        And of course, the infamous fire in a crowded theater argument was first coined as a rationale for punishing pamphleteering against the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
      - skissane 6y ago
        It's a problem with the drafting – the original authors always meant for there to be exceptions, but decided not to specify explicitly in the text what those exceptions were going to be – thus leaving it up to the courts to decide in practice what exceptions are allowed and what are not. The obscenity exception was largely non-controversial until the 20th century, because there was a broad societal consensus, among both popular and elite opinion, that obscenity and pornography did not deserve First Amendment protection. It was only in the 20th century that societal consensus broke down, and it was in that context the US Supreme Court decided to reduce the scope of that exception. (It still exists, and is still occasionally enforced.) The original authors and ratifiers of the First Amendment supported laws against obscenity, and didn't believe the First Amendment prohibited them. Ultimately the courts have to decide what laws mean, even constitutional laws – but they could always have given them more guidance, by being more explicit in the text about which exceptions are valid and which are not
        selestify 6y ago
        How did that shift in attitudes about obscenity happen?
        _jal 6y ago
  - electrograv 6y ago
    Unfortunately, it becomes virtually universal when a small set of massive companies (with similar censorship ideas) control 99% of all our communications and social media. I think this evades the spirit of the legal protections here, at least. Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, and don't really have a solution here. Just pointing out how the current situation feels like dangerous territory.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Ironically, I think one promising solution is the Fediverse. Or, more generally: given how subjective ideas about acceptable speech are, the only real solution is to break up giant gatekeepers like Google.
- stinkytaco 6y ago
  It's the side effect of allowing a small number of largely unregulated companies to control so much of our communications. TV and radio using public right-of-ways like radio bands are much more tightly regulated to ensure "equal time". That's not the case for social media or mobile platforms and I suspect any attempt to regulate those would be met with a great deal of resistance. Not the least complaint would be that regulation has a history of keeping small players out, potentially further cementing the monopoly of a few companies. I don't know the answer to any of this, but I think it's something that will need to have an answer if our democracy is to survive.
  - nescoiquid 6y ago
    The equal time doctrine was eliminated in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine >> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      And for good reason. It doesn't make sense to mandate equal time for mainstream and fringe positions, rational proposals and ones riddled with contradictions. Either some government censor is responsible for deciding which positions are "serious" enough to warrant equal time or the media eventually gets overwhelmed with nonsense and conspiracy theories. If you want to see where the "fairness doctrine" leads, just have a look at some of the less discriminating social media sites.
      - jounker 6y ago
        Evidence suggests that the fairness doctrine worked really well until we ended it. Until it’s elimination mass media news in the US was pretty middle of the road.
- IntelMiner 6y ago
  And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways Private companies can't censor "bad opinions" But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake" How is this disconnect rationalized?
  - colpabar 6y ago
    doesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.
    - SkyBelow 6y ago
      I have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).
      - colpabar 6y ago
        >generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement couldn't agree more. it's so frustrating seeing this everywhere online. this isn't twitter, you can write as much as you want. I read comments online to try and understand other viewpoints, and I can't do that without substance.
    - ivanbakel 6y ago
      How so? The first hypocrisy is the defense of the right of a business to make arbitrary decisions w.r.t. service (not bake the cake), while simultaneously demanding that the business not have the power to refuse service (condemning private censorship). The reverse position is not hypocritical in the same way, because condemning discrimination against customers on LGBT grounds is not at odds with censoring discriminatory speech - in fact, the two positions are aligned. You could try to argue that private censorship is itself a form of discrimination, but most people who hold the second position would not concede that the people who practice hate speech are a minority worthy of protection - so for them, no discrimination is occurring.
- MiroF 6y ago
  Capitalism rests on a negative conception of freedom, so yes.
- masukomi 6y ago
  not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agree that that's a reasonable approach. just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense. It's a very private piece of software that is NOT open source and is very obviously owned and managed by a single entity. just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. side note: monopoly is a separate issue.
  - Proven 6y ago
    > side note: monopoly is a separate issue. I upvoted you but regarding this last sentence - monopoly shouldn't be a separate issue. The same private property rights should apply.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. The first instance is property rights. The second is copyright, a privilege granted by the government at the expense of others' property rights. When a private party leverages copyright to conduct censorship it's ultimately the government that is responsible for violating the victim's freedom of speech. Google certainly has the right to grant or deny access to their services as they please, but that is not the same as having a natural right to decide how the software they develop is used after it has already been released to the public.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act. If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users. If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually policing content that is brought to their attention afterwards.
- Causality1 6y ago
  That's the problem of the all-private internet. There is no virtual street corner at which to protest. There is no internet post office to handle your mail. There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. There is only profit. The moment you become unprofitable for whatever reason you will lose everything. If tomorrow 51% of the world decided they hated left-handed people they would all find their accounts disabled, their website registrations suspended, their entire online presence forced into secrecy. So far that's only happened, to my knowledge, to terrorists and white supremacists, but there is absolutely no legal reason why it can't happen to anyone else.
  - jerkstate 6y ago
    >There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. speaking of shutting off water, this is happening in meatspace too: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-001106201.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-g...
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    Yep, and this is the core problem that I think much of the debate around social networks and online services in general is missing - the debate typically centers around these entities' legal rights, and completely forgets the fact that the online scenario actually has very little equivalent in the real world. The real world contains public spaces. It contains within it the recognition that some part of all of this around us, belongs to everyone. And while that has been the center of much of the rhetoric about the internet since its inception, that rhetoric has never actually been true IN FACT. It's a mishmash of private entities controlling their piece of the puzzle. I think, as another poster mentioned, if democracy is to survive, the concept of "some part of the internet and its services are a public good" must take hold. Now, that's a scary-ass thing to say because unlike a piece of land, or drinking water, these things don't just "exist". They exist only as long as some entity pays for them, which means that such a statement implies things about who pays (government? subsidies? you pay but it isn't yours? special kinds of taxes?). And yet I think avoiding dystopia requires going that way. I have no idea what it would look like. Of course, there's an alternative. Google/Twitter/FB/etc. can agree that they don't censor anyone unless that person breaks the law. That puts the discussion right back where it should have been in the first place: In the public, political sphere, where The People have the ability to influence the outcome. But then, why would Google etc. do that? Too enticing, all that power.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Actually, this doesn't work. There's a specific court doctrine called the State Actors Rule. If a private entity is working on behalf of the government, then all of the constitutional protections applied to the government also apply to that private entity within the scope of them being a state actor. For example, this is why it is unconstitutional for Donald Trump to block you on Twitter, or for the Air Force's esports team to block you from their Twitch streams. This also extends to physical venues and company towns.
- mindslight 6y ago
  It's not a deliberate trick on anyone's part, but rather complexity induced contradiction. Similar destruction has happened to other rights - jury trial via plea bargains, equal representation via forced arbitration clauses, "papers please" via driving and flying, unreasonable search and seizure via web services, double jeopardy via overlapping jurisdictions, and of course federated government via pervasive commerce.
- vertis 6y ago
  Or another trick, just place it in another country and then you don't have to worry about the 1st amendment at all, and no I'm not talking about China. UK or Australia will do just fine.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    This is not true at all, and neither is the comment you responded to. The constitution doesn't apply to a location or a medium, it applies to an actor: the US government (and state/local subdivisions). The US government has to follow it everywhere, and nobody else has to follow it anywhere.
    - vertis 6y ago
      My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I think the parent was as well. Americans do tend to run around quoting their first amendment rights like the whole world has them. As you say, it's strictly a US government thing. While Australia for the most part enjoys free speech, it is not enshrined in the (AU) constitution. The government will occasionally order censorship[1], usually around whistle-blowing, investigations and court cases. There was a protest in the major Australian papers last year about the erosion of press freedoms[2]. [1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/world/australia/australia-gag-order-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/world/australia/australia... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50119559 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50119559
Retric 6y ago
Censorship is allowed under the first amendment on obscenity or national security grounds. Private organizations just have more freedom in this area. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation
- felipeko 6y ago
  Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.
  - SkyBelow 6y ago
    >under some interpretation This would imply there are interpretations where it isn't allowed even in the cases of the worst most extreme content. Does any organization/group advocate such an interpretation? As far as I'm aware all groups either support an interpretation that allows the government to censor some speech or supports considering some speech as not counting as speech so it can be censored without censoring speech (using sophistry to hide censorship of speech).
    - felipeko 6y ago
      There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation. I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.
      - SkyBelow 6y ago
        I'm not trying to claim any one group is authoritative. I'm saying that I'm not aware of any group, regardless of their level of authority, who uses an interpretation that includes the worst material. Everyone (that I'm aware of) makes an exception for at least one form of material, even the ACLU or similar organizations. Even the Libertarian party, one of the groups most in favor of limiting government, is not against censorship of the worst sort of material.
stillbourne 6y ago
> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. It's not censorship, its moderation and editorial discretion.
- notyourday 6y ago
  Great. Google should become liable for all the illegal content that slips through, all the way to the officers and directors of the company. I think we as the society agree that child porn and child sexual abuse is a criminally punishable offense. A platform in a possession of it clearly is in a possession and distribution of child pornography, hence officers and directors should be charged under those statues.
  - antoinealb 6y ago
    Isn't that why we have safe harbor laws to encourage platforms to self regulate and collaborate with law enforcement in exchange for not being sued for those violations ? Without those provisions no website could allow user created content, as they would instantly be sued to oblivion. (Standard disclaimer of working for Google)
    - kikokikokiko 6y ago
      If Google wants to be viewed as a safe harbor, so Google should behave as one and stop deciding what is "hateful". What you/Google/government consider hateful can be what I or the people in Belarus consider the truth. This trend of "censorship for your own good" needs to stop.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        I believe all platforms do moderation of some sort. It sounds like what you are proposing is that nobody be allowed to do any moderation. How do you think that would work?
kanox 6y ago
This definition of censorship is bad and must be changed. Large general-purpose platforms should be forced do distribute all content which is not otherwise illegal, and only perform removal based through the standard legal system.
- bumbledraven 6y ago
  It’s hard to make a free speech site whose content guidelines follow the First Amendment, because the credit card networks will ban you. Gab, for example, can only accept checks and crypto.
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    Even they doesn't actually strive to allow everything that's legal.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    ban credit card network ban you by law. if it can't be done(yes it can't be done) so is forcing platforms be fair(that can't happen as well).
- ziddoap 6y ago
  I'm not on Googles side here, but... As nice as your sentiment is, there are plenty of real problems which have to be addressed. Who defines, and what are the definitions of "Large" and "General Purpose" in this context? Am I allowed to moderate content as fits with my ToS at X number of users, but at X+1 users I become forced to publish all content which is "not otherwise illegal"? In regards to what is "not otherwise illegal", which laws from which country apply? How does one combat things such as excessive spam? If I am forced to allow any content which is "otherwise not illegal", and my service becomes literally unusable because of someone posting 10,000 cat pictures per second (cats aren't illegal, I'm forced to distribute the cats), what is my recourse? Am I still allowed to rate limit? Because that, boiled down, is censoring a users ability to post "otherwise not illegal" content.
  - benibela 6y ago
xienze 6y ago
> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. You're technically right, but in practice it really doesn't matter that the "government" can't censor you when the modern "public square" is held almost entirely by private companies. The government doesn't really hold any power in shaping modern public discourse anymore, tech companies do! Now the fact that said private company's ideals line up closely with one certain political party is just a coincidence, I'm sure. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-uzz5VsAEA2Go?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-uzz5VsAEA2Go?format=jpg
- hinkley 6y ago
  You could look at this like private citizens trying to block access to public lands (beaches) in order to make them de facto private. Federated apps are trying to establish a commons, right? If Google can block access, then there is no commons. If the government can force easements on private land owners, I suspect the EFF could make a case for the same for App stores. Nobody would be making Google host the Commons, just access. This is a much simpler case IMO than forcing Twitter or Facebook to carry messages they don’t want.
graeme 6y ago
Google is global. First amendment is purely an american concept. Not really helpful for global content moderation discussions.
- mc32 6y ago
  They can have and do have regional app stores.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Did google remove fediverse apps only from the US app store? If not, it’s not clear to me how the first amendment is relevant to this discussion.
raxxorrax 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech This is actually still a good Wikipedia article to educate yourself.
dalbasal 6y ago
Constitutions are squishy things, ultimately. They evolve over the years. I take your point about legality. But, I'd make the point that we don't have a clear moral or legal concept of free speech that relates to the current world. "We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so." At some point, the distinction between legal and moral breaks down. In theory, google could legally do quite a lot. Say google decides to censor all mentions of the tiananmen square rising. They could remove it from search, youtube, android phones, chrome. Gmail could spam filter emails mentioning it. They could exert influence outside of companies/services that they own directly. None of that is illegal (at least not unconstitutional). In practice, this is very close to what China does with the great firewall. It also wouldn't stand. Something like this would be too contradictory to the moral concept of free speech. Constitutions are interpreted, and the supreme court is not the only interpreter. It's a cultural construct as well as a legal one. We are effectively at this point now. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc... These aren't platforms in the way newspapers were. They're not platforms at all. They're the level ground, in terms of speech, press, the right to petition the government or practice religion. The reasons that amendment was written runs through google.
- Animats 6y ago
  It also wouldn't stand. Something like this would be too contradictory to the moral concept of free speech. I don't know. If Google decided to censor "hate speech" in GMail, could anyone stop them? Some people would applaud. Machine learning is good enough now that misspellings and euphemisms can be caught. So topic-based censorship could really work. Especially for Google, which has so much history on each sender, and so much experience with spam filtering.
  - intended 6y ago
    Hey! I'm fiddling around with this right now for a submission. What I've found so far makes it look like hate speech is not easy to catch: 1) Slang evolves. 2) Combining two languages, especially under-resourced languages, mean that a chunk of words fall outside the range of a hate-speech lexicon. So maybe in languages which have huge resources devoted to it (English), its easy to figure out, but I don't know how well covered the evolving edge, and the code-mixed (language mixed) edges are.
bastardoperator 6y ago
We don't even have to argue about it. Folks agree to a legal binding contract that can likely be altered at any time for any reason and I'm willing to bet verbiage about yanking apps for any reason is well defined too. Decided to look, pretty clear. "Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time with notice to Developer" and "Google may terminate this Agreement with You immediately upon written notice"
- birdboy2000 6y ago
  Corporate monopolies can easily force one-sided contracts on users, but that's just a reflection of their market power. In a perfect world judges would rule them unenforceable, in our world corporations fund the people who appoint judges.
  - bastardoperator 6y ago
    I don't see anyone be forced to engage with Google, and it's not as if the play store doesn't provide value back to developers. It's enforceable because it isn't one sided. In a perfect would we hold the legislators accountable for this mess since they're the ones writing these laws.
jimbokun 6y ago
"but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights." True. But while technically correct, it is becoming a more and more academic distinction. Facebook-Apple-Google-Twitter, and maybe a few other tech behemoths, probably have greater ability to censor people and content than most governments throughout history. It's also true, in theory, democratically elected governments could reign them in. But it's also true they have unprecedented power to manipulate public opinion, if they chose to do so, to get people elected or legislation passed or blocked.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
eanzenberg 6y ago
Then Google should be held liable for the content they choose to publish, including under libel and slanderous laws.
birdboy2000 6y ago
It's quite disputable that google even has the right to a platform of anywhere near their current power and influence (waiting for antitrust law to be enforced) and the distinction in any case seems quite artificial when google buys politicians and receives significant public funding and such.
- fightingascript 6y ago
  Google does not receive public funding. By your logic, a $2-off a $10 item coupon is me receiving $2 from the store. Strange how I don't have a new $2 in my wallet - in fact I seem to be missing 8.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24305473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24305473)
cm2187 6y ago
I am sure the local water or electricity company can’t refuse to provide you the service because they don’t like your politics. And the gay wedding cake controversy. Those platforms that operate like a quasi monopoly (search, social network, mobile services, internet service providers) could very well be treated like utility companies or something intermediate with a similar obligation not to use their dominant position to control speech in the country.

croes 6y ago

That's a clever trick. Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.

judge2020 6y ago
I doubt the US Government has any hand in this, other than not wanting to be the ones running social media.
huntertwo 6y ago
I don't think it's a question of the medium but a question of the actor doing the censoring. If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal. I think one difference is the enforcement, Google can't censor an individual universally, just on their platform, whereas the government can enforce it universally with force/jail/etc.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal FCC regulation of TV broadcast comes close, but apparently obscenity isn't protected under the First Amendment (perhaps you can tell I'm not a lawyer, or for that matter an American). https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
  - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
    Yeah, there is this vague idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to certain categories of speech (yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is the classic example) that get stretched to fit this sort of thing.
    - lukifer 6y ago
      And of course, the infamous fire in a crowded theater argument was first coined as a rationale for punishing pamphleteering against the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
    - skissane 6y ago
      It's a problem with the drafting – the original authors always meant for there to be exceptions, but decided not to specify explicitly in the text what those exceptions were going to be – thus leaving it up to the courts to decide in practice what exceptions are allowed and what are not. The obscenity exception was largely non-controversial until the 20th century, because there was a broad societal consensus, among both popular and elite opinion, that obscenity and pornography did not deserve First Amendment protection. It was only in the 20th century that societal consensus broke down, and it was in that context the US Supreme Court decided to reduce the scope of that exception. (It still exists, and is still occasionally enforced.) The original authors and ratifiers of the First Amendment supported laws against obscenity, and didn't believe the First Amendment prohibited them. Ultimately the courts have to decide what laws mean, even constitutional laws – but they could always have given them more guidance, by being more explicit in the text about which exceptions are valid and which are not
      - selestify 6y ago
        How did that shift in attitudes about obscenity happen?
        _jal 6y ago
- electrograv 6y ago
  Unfortunately, it becomes virtually universal when a small set of massive companies (with similar censorship ideas) control 99% of all our communications and social media. I think this evades the spirit of the legal protections here, at least. Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, and don't really have a solution here. Just pointing out how the current situation feels like dangerous territory.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Ironically, I think one promising solution is the Fediverse. Or, more generally: given how subjective ideas about acceptable speech are, the only real solution is to break up giant gatekeepers like Google.
stinkytaco 6y ago
It's the side effect of allowing a small number of largely unregulated companies to control so much of our communications. TV and radio using public right-of-ways like radio bands are much more tightly regulated to ensure "equal time". That's not the case for social media or mobile platforms and I suspect any attempt to regulate those would be met with a great deal of resistance. Not the least complaint would be that regulation has a history of keeping small players out, potentially further cementing the monopoly of a few companies. I don't know the answer to any of this, but I think it's something that will need to have an answer if our democracy is to survive.
- nescoiquid 6y ago
  The equal time doctrine was eliminated in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine >> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    And for good reason. It doesn't make sense to mandate equal time for mainstream and fringe positions, rational proposals and ones riddled with contradictions. Either some government censor is responsible for deciding which positions are "serious" enough to warrant equal time or the media eventually gets overwhelmed with nonsense and conspiracy theories. If you want to see where the "fairness doctrine" leads, just have a look at some of the less discriminating social media sites.
    - jounker 6y ago
      Evidence suggests that the fairness doctrine worked really well until we ended it. Until it’s elimination mass media news in the US was pretty middle of the road.
IntelMiner 6y ago
And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways Private companies can't censor "bad opinions" But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake" How is this disconnect rationalized?
- colpabar 6y ago
  doesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.
  - SkyBelow 6y ago
    I have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).
    - colpabar 6y ago
      >generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement couldn't agree more. it's so frustrating seeing this everywhere online. this isn't twitter, you can write as much as you want. I read comments online to try and understand other viewpoints, and I can't do that without substance.
  - ivanbakel 6y ago
    How so? The first hypocrisy is the defense of the right of a business to make arbitrary decisions w.r.t. service (not bake the cake), while simultaneously demanding that the business not have the power to refuse service (condemning private censorship). The reverse position is not hypocritical in the same way, because condemning discrimination against customers on LGBT grounds is not at odds with censoring discriminatory speech - in fact, the two positions are aligned. You could try to argue that private censorship is itself a form of discrimination, but most people who hold the second position would not concede that the people who practice hate speech are a minority worthy of protection - so for them, no discrimination is occurring.
MiroF 6y ago
Capitalism rests on a negative conception of freedom, so yes.
masukomi 6y ago
not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agree that that's a reasonable approach. just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense. It's a very private piece of software that is NOT open source and is very obviously owned and managed by a single entity. just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. side note: monopoly is a separate issue.
- Proven 6y ago
  > side note: monopoly is a separate issue. I upvoted you but regarding this last sentence - monopoly shouldn't be a separate issue. The same private property rights should apply.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. The first instance is property rights. The second is copyright, a privilege granted by the government at the expense of others' property rights. When a private party leverages copyright to conduct censorship it's ultimately the government that is responsible for violating the victim's freedom of speech. Google certainly has the right to grant or deny access to their services as they please, but that is not the same as having a natural right to decide how the software they develop is used after it has already been released to the public.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act. If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users. If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually policing content that is brought to their attention afterwards.
Causality1 6y ago
That's the problem of the all-private internet. There is no virtual street corner at which to protest. There is no internet post office to handle your mail. There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. There is only profit. The moment you become unprofitable for whatever reason you will lose everything. If tomorrow 51% of the world decided they hated left-handed people they would all find their accounts disabled, their website registrations suspended, their entire online presence forced into secrecy. So far that's only happened, to my knowledge, to terrorists and white supremacists, but there is absolutely no legal reason why it can't happen to anyone else.
- jerkstate 6y ago
  >There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. speaking of shutting off water, this is happening in meatspace too: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-001106201.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-g...
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  Yep, and this is the core problem that I think much of the debate around social networks and online services in general is missing - the debate typically centers around these entities' legal rights, and completely forgets the fact that the online scenario actually has very little equivalent in the real world. The real world contains public spaces. It contains within it the recognition that some part of all of this around us, belongs to everyone. And while that has been the center of much of the rhetoric about the internet since its inception, that rhetoric has never actually been true IN FACT. It's a mishmash of private entities controlling their piece of the puzzle. I think, as another poster mentioned, if democracy is to survive, the concept of "some part of the internet and its services are a public good" must take hold. Now, that's a scary-ass thing to say because unlike a piece of land, or drinking water, these things don't just "exist". They exist only as long as some entity pays for them, which means that such a statement implies things about who pays (government? subsidies? you pay but it isn't yours? special kinds of taxes?). And yet I think avoiding dystopia requires going that way. I have no idea what it would look like. Of course, there's an alternative. Google/Twitter/FB/etc. can agree that they don't censor anyone unless that person breaks the law. That puts the discussion right back where it should have been in the first place: In the public, political sphere, where The People have the ability to influence the outcome. But then, why would Google etc. do that? Too enticing, all that power.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Actually, this doesn't work. There's a specific court doctrine called the State Actors Rule. If a private entity is working on behalf of the government, then all of the constitutional protections applied to the government also apply to that private entity within the scope of them being a state actor. For example, this is why it is unconstitutional for Donald Trump to block you on Twitter, or for the Air Force's esports team to block you from their Twitch streams. This also extends to physical venues and company towns.
mindslight 6y ago
It's not a deliberate trick on anyone's part, but rather complexity induced contradiction. Similar destruction has happened to other rights - jury trial via plea bargains, equal representation via forced arbitration clauses, "papers please" via driving and flying, unreasonable search and seizure via web services, double jeopardy via overlapping jurisdictions, and of course federated government via pervasive commerce.
vertis 6y ago
Or another trick, just place it in another country and then you don't have to worry about the 1st amendment at all, and no I'm not talking about China. UK or Australia will do just fine.
- kube-system 6y ago
  This is not true at all, and neither is the comment you responded to. The constitution doesn't apply to a location or a medium, it applies to an actor: the US government (and state/local subdivisions). The US government has to follow it everywhere, and nobody else has to follow it anywhere.
  - vertis 6y ago
    My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I think the parent was as well. Americans do tend to run around quoting their first amendment rights like the whole world has them. As you say, it's strictly a US government thing. While Australia for the most part enjoys free speech, it is not enshrined in the (AU) constitution. The government will occasionally order censorship[1], usually around whistle-blowing, investigations and court cases. There was a protest in the major Australian papers last year about the erosion of press freedoms[2]. [1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/world/australia/australia-gag-order-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/world/australia/australia... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50119559 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50119559

Retric 6y ago

Censorship is allowed under the first amendment on obscenity or national security grounds. Private organizations just have more freedom in this area. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

felipeko 6y ago
Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  >under some interpretation This would imply there are interpretations where it isn't allowed even in the cases of the worst most extreme content. Does any organization/group advocate such an interpretation? As far as I'm aware all groups either support an interpretation that allows the government to censor some speech or supports considering some speech as not counting as speech so it can be censored without censoring speech (using sophistry to hide censorship of speech).
  - felipeko 6y ago
    There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation. I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.
    - SkyBelow 6y ago
      I'm not trying to claim any one group is authoritative. I'm saying that I'm not aware of any group, regardless of their level of authority, who uses an interpretation that includes the worst material. Everyone (that I'm aware of) makes an exception for at least one form of material, even the ACLU or similar organizations. Even the Libertarian party, one of the groups most in favor of limiting government, is not against censorship of the worst sort of material.

stillbourne 6y ago

> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. It's not censorship, its moderation and editorial discretion.

notyourday 6y ago
Great. Google should become liable for all the illegal content that slips through, all the way to the officers and directors of the company. I think we as the society agree that child porn and child sexual abuse is a criminally punishable offense. A platform in a possession of it clearly is in a possession and distribution of child pornography, hence officers and directors should be charged under those statues.
- antoinealb 6y ago
  Isn't that why we have safe harbor laws to encourage platforms to self regulate and collaborate with law enforcement in exchange for not being sued for those violations ? Without those provisions no website could allow user created content, as they would instantly be sued to oblivion. (Standard disclaimer of working for Google)
  - kikokikokiko 6y ago
    If Google wants to be viewed as a safe harbor, so Google should behave as one and stop deciding what is "hateful". What you/Google/government consider hateful can be what I or the people in Belarus consider the truth. This trend of "censorship for your own good" needs to stop.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I believe all platforms do moderation of some sort. It sounds like what you are proposing is that nobody be allowed to do any moderation. How do you think that would work?

kanox 6y ago

This definition of censorship is bad and must be changed. Large general-purpose platforms should be forced do distribute all content which is not otherwise illegal, and only perform removal based through the standard legal system.

bumbledraven 6y ago
It’s hard to make a free speech site whose content guidelines follow the First Amendment, because the credit card networks will ban you. Gab, for example, can only accept checks and crypto.
- Natanael_L 6y ago
  Even they doesn't actually strive to allow everything that's legal.
- numpad0 6y ago
  ban credit card network ban you by law. if it can't be done(yes it can't be done) so is forcing platforms be fair(that can't happen as well).
ziddoap 6y ago
I'm not on Googles side here, but... As nice as your sentiment is, there are plenty of real problems which have to be addressed. Who defines, and what are the definitions of "Large" and "General Purpose" in this context? Am I allowed to moderate content as fits with my ToS at X number of users, but at X+1 users I become forced to publish all content which is "not otherwise illegal"? In regards to what is "not otherwise illegal", which laws from which country apply? How does one combat things such as excessive spam? If I am forced to allow any content which is "otherwise not illegal", and my service becomes literally unusable because of someone posting 10,000 cat pictures per second (cats aren't illegal, I'm forced to distribute the cats), what is my recourse? Am I still allowed to rate limit? Because that, boiled down, is censoring a users ability to post "otherwise not illegal" content.
- benibela 6y ago

xienze 6y ago

> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. You're technically right, but in practice it really doesn't matter that the "government" can't censor you when the modern "public square" is held almost entirely by private companies. The government doesn't really hold any power in shaping modern public discourse anymore, tech companies do! Now the fact that said private company's ideals line up closely with one certain political party is just a coincidence, I'm sure. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-uzz5VsAEA2Go?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-uzz5VsAEA2Go?format=jpg

hinkley 6y ago
You could look at this like private citizens trying to block access to public lands (beaches) in order to make them de facto private. Federated apps are trying to establish a commons, right? If Google can block access, then there is no commons. If the government can force easements on private land owners, I suspect the EFF could make a case for the same for App stores. Nobody would be making Google host the Commons, just access. This is a much simpler case IMO than forcing Twitter or Facebook to carry messages they don’t want.

graeme 6y ago

Google is global. First amendment is purely an american concept. Not really helpful for global content moderation discussions.

mc32 6y ago
They can have and do have regional app stores.
- graeme 6y ago
  Did google remove fediverse apps only from the US app store? If not, it’s not clear to me how the first amendment is relevant to this discussion.

raxxorrax 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech This is actually still a good Wikipedia article to educate yourself.

dalbasal 6y ago

Constitutions are squishy things, ultimately. They evolve over the years. I take your point about legality. But, I'd make the point that we don't have a clear moral or legal concept of free speech that relates to the current world. "We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so." At some point, the distinction between legal and moral breaks down. In theory, google could legally do quite a lot. Say google decides to censor all mentions of the tiananmen square rising. They could remove it from search, youtube, android phones, chrome. Gmail could spam filter emails mentioning it. They could exert influence outside of companies/services that they own directly. None of that is illegal (at least not unconstitutional). In practice, this is very close to what China does with the great firewall. It also wouldn't stand. Something like this would be too contradictory to the moral concept of free speech. Constitutions are interpreted, and the supreme court is not the only interpreter. It's a cultural construct as well as a legal one. We are effectively at this point now. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc... These aren't platforms in the way newspapers were. They're not platforms at all. They're the level ground, in terms of speech, press, the right to petition the government or practice religion. The reasons that amendment was written runs through google.

Animats 6y ago
It also wouldn't stand. Something like this would be too contradictory to the moral concept of free speech. I don't know. If Google decided to censor "hate speech" in GMail, could anyone stop them? Some people would applaud. Machine learning is good enough now that misspellings and euphemisms can be caught. So topic-based censorship could really work. Especially for Google, which has so much history on each sender, and so much experience with spam filtering.
- intended 6y ago
  Hey! I'm fiddling around with this right now for a submission. What I've found so far makes it look like hate speech is not easy to catch: 1) Slang evolves. 2) Combining two languages, especially under-resourced languages, mean that a chunk of words fall outside the range of a hate-speech lexicon. So maybe in languages which have huge resources devoted to it (English), its easy to figure out, but I don't know how well covered the evolving edge, and the code-mixed (language mixed) edges are.

bastardoperator 6y ago

We don't even have to argue about it. Folks agree to a legal binding contract that can likely be altered at any time for any reason and I'm willing to bet verbiage about yanking apps for any reason is well defined too. Decided to look, pretty clear. "Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time with notice to Developer" and "Google may terminate this Agreement with You immediately upon written notice"

birdboy2000 6y ago
Corporate monopolies can easily force one-sided contracts on users, but that's just a reflection of their market power. In a perfect world judges would rule them unenforceable, in our world corporations fund the people who appoint judges.
- bastardoperator 6y ago
  I don't see anyone be forced to engage with Google, and it's not as if the play store doesn't provide value back to developers. It's enforceable because it isn't one sided. In a perfect would we hold the legislators accountable for this mess since they're the ones writing these laws.

jimbokun 6y ago

"but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights." True. But while technically correct, it is becoming a more and more academic distinction. Facebook-Apple-Google-Twitter, and maybe a few other tech behemoths, probably have greater ability to censor people and content than most governments throughout history. It's also true, in theory, democratically elected governments could reign them in. But it's also true they have unprecedented power to manipulate public opinion, if they chose to do so, to get people elected or legislation passed or blocked.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

eanzenberg 6y ago

Then Google should be held liable for the content they choose to publish, including under libel and slanderous laws.

birdboy2000 6y ago

It's quite disputable that google even has the right to a platform of anywhere near their current power and influence (waiting for antitrust law to be enforced) and the distinction in any case seems quite artificial when google buys politicians and receives significant public funding and such.

fightingascript 6y ago
Google does not receive public funding. By your logic, a $2-off a $10 item coupon is me receiving $2 from the store. Strange how I don't have a new $2 in my wallet - in fact I seem to be missing 8.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dang 6y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24305473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24305473)

cm2187 6y ago

I am sure the local water or electricity company can’t refuse to provide you the service because they don’t like your politics. And the gay wedding cake controversy. Those platforms that operate like a quasi monopoly (search, social network, mobile services, internet service providers) could very well be treated like utility companies or something intermediate with a similar obligation not to use their dominant position to control speech in the country.