5 ms·

> 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 cen

> 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?
      - kikokikokiko 6y ago
        It would work as the internet is supposed to work. Like it worked about until 2015. Slander and libel is punishable under law. This is the way to punish lies and excesses. For the rest, lets just talk, freely, and let the best ideas win.
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        The only moderate for removal of illegal content. The rest is up to the users.
  - notyourday 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. I want to make it clear that I do not have a problem with a safe harbor what so ever. If Google wants to prevent its users who ask it from being able to access some portion of internet, Google absolutely can do that. That portion of the internet should not be able to go after Google for acting on behalf of the users. What Google is doing is preventing users that did not ask for that from being able to access that portion of the internet. It is akin to Verizon deciding "that content is bad so we are going to block it in our pipe". If Google wants to do that, then fine it is providing the "clean internet experience" and it should absolutely be punished when it fails at doing that (hosting child porn)
- richiebful1 6y ago
  Are you saying that a platform (be it Facebook, Twitter, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to moderate content at all if they want safe harbor protections?
  - notyourday 6y ago
    Blacklisting apps for content that the app might access is not moderating content on a platform based on a user's request.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    Yes. They want it both ways and what we're seeing is the outcome. The solution is simple - don't have it both ways.
dtech 6y ago
Moderation or editorial discretion that censors a certain piece of information or opinion is still censoring.
- stillbourne 6y ago
  Historically, the position of the censor has always been as the governmental authority. Censorship is a threat from a governmental perspective. The assertion that moderation of hate speech on private platforms is censorship is a form of moral panic. As the owner of private property if someone were to graffiti my walls without permission it would be absolutely absurd to suggest that the person who vandalized my goods without consent has more rights than I do to display the building in a manner I don't agree with. Tell me how that is any different from moderating a site to remove content that I consider contrary to my interests.
  - dtech 6y ago
    > Historically, the position of the censor has always been as the governmental authority This is just plain false. The dictionary definition [1] disagress with you, Wikipedia explicitly mentions private private organisations [2]. Religion institutions have censored a lot of things in the past [3]. If what you said were true, government censorship would not be a phrase people used as it would be a pleonasm. > As the owner of private property if someone were to graffiti my walls without permission This is a false equivalence. You're not allowing anyone to paint on your walls, so it's not a place where expression is allowed. Censorships is selectively suppressing expression. If you would open your walls for public painting, and then remove a few of them you don't like, you're indeed censoring those artists. That doesn't mean it wrong/illegal, it's just the definition of censorship. [1] "censor - a person who supervises conduct and morals" from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring [2] "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship [3] https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-fig-leaf-story-sin-censorship-catholic-church https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-fig-leaf-story...
hkt 6y ago
The play store is as near as makes no difference a utility to people with Android phones. Try using one without it.

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?
    - kikokikokiko 6y ago
      It would work as the internet is supposed to work. Like it worked about until 2015. Slander and libel is punishable under law. This is the way to punish lies and excesses. For the rest, lets just talk, freely, and let the best ideas win.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      The only moderate for removal of illegal content. The rest is up to the users.
- notyourday 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. I want to make it clear that I do not have a problem with a safe harbor what so ever. If Google wants to prevent its users who ask it from being able to access some portion of internet, Google absolutely can do that. That portion of the internet should not be able to go after Google for acting on behalf of the users. What Google is doing is preventing users that did not ask for that from being able to access that portion of the internet. It is akin to Verizon deciding "that content is bad so we are going to block it in our pipe". If Google wants to do that, then fine it is providing the "clean internet experience" and it should absolutely be punished when it fails at doing that (hosting child porn)
richiebful1 6y ago
Are you saying that a platform (be it Facebook, Twitter, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to moderate content at all if they want safe harbor protections?
- notyourday 6y ago
  Blacklisting apps for content that the app might access is not moderating content on a platform based on a user's request.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  Yes. They want it both ways and what we're seeing is the outcome. The solution is simple - don't have it both ways.

dtech 6y ago

Moderation or editorial discretion that censors a certain piece of information or opinion is still censoring.

stillbourne 6y ago
Historically, the position of the censor has always been as the governmental authority. Censorship is a threat from a governmental perspective. The assertion that moderation of hate speech on private platforms is censorship is a form of moral panic. As the owner of private property if someone were to graffiti my walls without permission it would be absolutely absurd to suggest that the person who vandalized my goods without consent has more rights than I do to display the building in a manner I don't agree with. Tell me how that is any different from moderating a site to remove content that I consider contrary to my interests.
- dtech 6y ago
  > Historically, the position of the censor has always been as the governmental authority This is just plain false. The dictionary definition [1] disagress with you, Wikipedia explicitly mentions private private organisations [2]. Religion institutions have censored a lot of things in the past [3]. If what you said were true, government censorship would not be a phrase people used as it would be a pleonasm. > As the owner of private property if someone were to graffiti my walls without permission This is a false equivalence. You're not allowing anyone to paint on your walls, so it's not a place where expression is allowed. Censorships is selectively suppressing expression. If you would open your walls for public painting, and then remove a few of them you don't like, you're indeed censoring those artists. That doesn't mean it wrong/illegal, it's just the definition of censorship. [1] "censor - a person who supervises conduct and morals" from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring [2] "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship [3] https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-fig-leaf-story-sin-censorship-catholic-church https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-fig-leaf-story...

hkt 6y ago

The play store is as near as makes no difference a utility to people with Android phones. Try using one without it.