36 ms·

There's a paradox, though. If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's

by lmkg 6y ago

There's a paradox, though. If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech. I'm not generally in favor of taking corporate personhood to logical extremes, but I'm kind of OK with companies having values and being able promote those values. Being able to promote some speech over others is part of that. The First Amendment applies to the government because the government is a privileged party. Its role in society is dislike that of any private citizen or enterprise, and the restrictions we place on it reflect that uniqueness. It only makes sense to extend the First Amendment to other parties that have a unique role. Which we do, e.g. Common Carrier restrictions on the movement of goods, and a variety of special requirements on telecommunications companies. If we want to say that social media platforms have become a core aspect of modern democracy and need to be regulated as such, there's an argument to be made. But applying it to private businesses in general is overreach in my opinion. There's another line of reasoning that "First Amendment" is a stand-in for the societal value of freedom of speech. While it doesn't legally apply, we invoke it to mean that freedom of speech is the first-est of amendments, i.e. is the freedom that we rank more highly than any others. This still gets into the same paradox though. A company shouldn't be forced to equally support all viewpoints because then it's not a freedom, but we can certainly express dissatisfaction that a private party is acting in a way counter to the values of our society.

dexen 6y ago
>If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech. This is not quite right, legally speaking. Currently Youtube and other platforms enjoy the protection of Communication Decency Act Section 230 [1]. In particular, the passage "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". This passage has two side effects. One is, those platforms enjoy a liability protection - they cannot be sued for the content published on them, as they are not 'speaker/publisher' of the content (the original poster is). The other is, those platforms should not enjoy the freedom of speech protection - as they are not, legally speaking, the 'speaker/publisher' of the content. The 'freedom of speech of Youtube' argument runs counter to Youtube's best interest - immunity from civil liability, as granted through the Section 230. -- [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- sdoering 6y ago
  I am not firm with US law, and there is something I just do not understand - but would like to. If YT is just some form of medium, not the "speaker"/provider and by that not allowed to remove content under its own freedom of speech, why is it then allowed (even forced) to block my content under copyright laws if it infringes someone's copyright. Why not just route the DMCA request to me and I would need to react. Isn't YT treated as provider/publisher, when forced to react to DMCA requests on my behalf, if I infringe on some copyright?
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    My understanding is that the DMCA contains specific provisions requiring hosts to remove content upon request, and stripping them of their protections if they do not do so.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  This is not correct. Section 230 does not restrict or amend a sites freedom of speech, nor does it make a distinction between a platform or publisher. The effect of the law is that sites have less civil liability for user generated content, even if they make some decisions about what content is acceptable. Those decisions can't get limited under the first amendment, and the content still has 3rd party speech protection. So the government asking YouTube to remove a video would be a 1a violation, by controlling it's moderation decisions.
- jamie_ca 6y ago
  Youtube already has guidelines on the content you're not allowed to post (spam, nudity, violence, harassment, hate speech...) and that hasn't impacted their CDA or copyright-safe-harbor exceptions.
- triceratops 6y ago
  I think you need to re-read that law yourself. Section 230 holds Internet platforms not liable for illegal or libelous speech because they aren't the publisher of that speech. If you read on it also says explicitly they can't be held accountable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" Any Internet platform can moderate to their heart's content, even if it goes beyond the extent demanded by the law. There are no constitutional free speech protections on the Internet. The "publisher/platform" thing is pure horseshit spread by people who cry about "online censorship". Unfortunately that tactic seems to be working.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> There's a paradox, though. If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech. Putting aside whether or not this is nonsense to begin with, it certainly doesn't apply to China, which is a government. A law requiring companies serving the US market to not comply with censorship by China is restricting what China can do, not what those companies can do. The companies then have a problem if they exist in two jurisdictions which now have conflicting laws, but they can solve it by moving out of whichever jurisdiction they please.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? If the CEO of TikTok says he doesn't want "free Tibet" on his platform because he wants to be on good terms with China, not because China specifically told him to censor it, is that his freedom?
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    actions speak louder than words here.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I have at least two options: comply or exit the jurisdiction. It is my choice to do the former.
    - jimothyhalpert7 6y ago
      > The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. Wouldn't the reverse be true in the US? Assume that actually supported China's radical opinions, while being subject to US jurisdiction - wouldn't they be forced out of business? Isn't that what's going on now? > You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_cases
RandoHolmes 6y ago
> I'm kind of OK with companies having values and being able promote those values. As long as those values don't conflict with things like freedom of speech, I agree. But the second they do, there needs to be repercussions. For example. I as a consumer want to use Amazon because I've never had a bad experience with them. But I really really really don't want to be complicit in forced child labor because somewhere in their supply line is a company using it. Think of it like the Overton window. Everything inside the window is fair game, but the second you step outside of that window you pretty much get destroyed or very nearly. Basically put the fear of god in them the same way the IRS puts the fear of god in citizens for not paying taxes. I'm ok with you valuing your religion or women's rights. I'm not ok with you banning accounts of activists who are critical of the chinese government (zoom).

by lmkg 6y ago

dexen 6y ago

>If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech. This is not quite right, legally speaking. Currently Youtube and other platforms enjoy the protection of Communication Decency Act Section 230 [1]. In particular, the passage "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". This passage has two side effects. One is, those platforms enjoy a liability protection - they cannot be sued for the content published on them, as they are not 'speaker/publisher' of the content (the original poster is). The other is, those platforms should not enjoy the freedom of speech protection - as they are not, legally speaking, the 'speaker/publisher' of the content. The 'freedom of speech of Youtube' argument runs counter to Youtube's best interest - immunity from civil liability, as granted through the Section 230. -- [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

sdoering 6y ago
I am not firm with US law, and there is something I just do not understand - but would like to. If YT is just some form of medium, not the "speaker"/provider and by that not allowed to remove content under its own freedom of speech, why is it then allowed (even forced) to block my content under copyright laws if it infringes someone's copyright. Why not just route the DMCA request to me and I would need to react. Isn't YT treated as provider/publisher, when forced to react to DMCA requests on my behalf, if I infringe on some copyright?
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  My understanding is that the DMCA contains specific provisions requiring hosts to remove content upon request, and stripping them of their protections if they do not do so.
joshuamorton 6y ago
This is not correct. Section 230 does not restrict or amend a sites freedom of speech, nor does it make a distinction between a platform or publisher. The effect of the law is that sites have less civil liability for user generated content, even if they make some decisions about what content is acceptable. Those decisions can't get limited under the first amendment, and the content still has 3rd party speech protection. So the government asking YouTube to remove a video would be a 1a violation, by controlling it's moderation decisions.
jamie_ca 6y ago
Youtube already has guidelines on the content you're not allowed to post (spam, nudity, violence, harassment, hate speech...) and that hasn't impacted their CDA or copyright-safe-harbor exceptions.
triceratops 6y ago
I think you need to re-read that law yourself. Section 230 holds Internet platforms not liable for illegal or libelous speech because they aren't the publisher of that speech. If you read on it also says explicitly they can't be held accountable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" Any Internet platform can moderate to their heart's content, even if it goes beyond the extent demanded by the law. There are no constitutional free speech protections on the Internet. The "publisher/platform" thing is pure horseshit spread by people who cry about "online censorship". Unfortunately that tactic seems to be working.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> There's a paradox, though. If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech. Putting aside whether or not this is nonsense to begin with, it certainly doesn't apply to China, which is a government. A law requiring companies serving the US market to not comply with censorship by China is restricting what China can do, not what those companies can do. The companies then have a problem if they exist in two jurisdictions which now have conflicting laws, but they can solve it by moving out of whichever jurisdiction they please.

Imnimo 6y ago
What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? If the CEO of TikTok says he doesn't want "free Tibet" on his platform because he wants to be on good terms with China, not because China specifically told him to censor it, is that his freedom?
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  actions speak louder than words here.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I have at least two options: comply or exit the jurisdiction. It is my choice to do the former.
  - jimothyhalpert7 6y ago
    > The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. Wouldn't the reverse be true in the US? Assume that actually supported China's radical opinions, while being subject to US jurisdiction - wouldn't they be forced out of business? Isn't that what's going on now? > You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_cases

RandoHolmes 6y ago

> I'm kind of OK with companies having values and being able promote those values. As long as those values don't conflict with things like freedom of speech, I agree. But the second they do, there needs to be repercussions. For example. I as a consumer want to use Amazon because I've never had a bad experience with them. But I really really really don't want to be complicit in forced child labor because somewhere in their supply line is a company using it. Think of it like the Overton window. Everything inside the window is fair game, but the second you step outside of that window you pretty much get destroyed or very nearly. Basically put the fear of god in them the same way the IRS puts the fear of god in citizens for not paying taxes. I'm ok with you valuing your religion or women's rights. I'm not ok with you banning accounts of activists who are critical of the chinese government (zoom).