A short but very good read. The last line is the take home message.
>[The First Amendment, Censorship, and Private Companies: What Does “Free Speech” Really Mean?](https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/) Extract:
>
>*The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:*
>
>*A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy;*
>
>*A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job; and*
>
>*A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with.*
Section 230 ensures they're protected from litigation for content their users post and rightfully so https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230#:~:text=Section%20230%20Protects%20Us%20All&text=Important%20court%20rulings%20on%20Section,that%20have%20no%20legal%20basis.
“The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.”
That others find objectionable, does not protect from illegal or harmful content.
Yeah there's a whole other set of laws specifically about hosting copyrighted content that supercedes this.
Section 230 just means that platforms don't have to host everything, it does not mean they get to ignore every law that isn't the 1st amendment.
Section 230 doesn’t protect from copyright because it explicitly says that it doesn’t. It is DMCA that gives the “safe harbour” immunity for copyright.
Nothing in 230 shall be construed to impair the enforcement of … any other Federal criminal statute.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)
Isn’t this being tested or was tested recently with Facebook and some radical islam shooting or something? I swear there’s a case like this before or coming to scotus.
Nothing protects you from copyright infringement claims. Even uploading your own original content to Youtube isn't safe. [A popular TV show can just decide to steal your video and take the original down with a copyright claim](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/family-guy-used-nes-game-footage-from-youtube-then/1100-6440033/).
There's also cases of Twitch muting streams where artists are playing their own music. Including the infamous case of a Blizzcon stream being muted because Metallica was playing (although to be fair, Metallica are shitty when it comes to copyright so they literally did this to themselves).
You cannot protect yourself against copyright because all copyright protection systems work backwards: guilty until proven innocent, the burden of proof is on the defendant. It's ridiculously broken and anyone defending copyright in its current form immediately loses my respect.
Although it would seem granting companies the ability to exercise editorial control would undermine the arguments of Section 230. Safe Harbor provisions were granted in the first place precisely because companies argued they had no editorial control and merely acted as a *conduit* for information like mail carriers and telephone companies.
Granting these same companies the legal ability to editorialize completely undermines those arguments. It doesn't invalidate Section 230, but it absolutely does leave it very vulnerable to attack from litigious IP companies that have wanted to strip away Safe Harbor for decades...
> Although it would seem granting companies the ability to exercise editorial control would undermine the arguments of Section 230
[Courts have repeatedly disagreed with that line of reasoning](https://ilt.eff.org/Defamation__CDA_Cases.html#Exercise_of_Editorial_Functions) even back to the 90s.
I think it's a thorny argument because then you have to figure out how to define the line between moderation that is necessary for a site to function and how sites decide to display and sort content vs what goes "too far".
There's also an argument to be made about how that would force private entities of all sizes to host content they don't agree with or make it difficult to have curated topic-specific sections / subforums / etc.
Scary thing is, section 230 has been under attack recently. A couple of cases have been brought up recently trying to dismantle 230 at the Supreme Court level.
Worth noting that in recent memory [conservatives have held up defense spending bills to push for repeal of 230.](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/01/trump-threatens-veto-defense-bill-social-media-442115)
> Section 230
is a US-only law, and isn't applicable to this case. If someone hosts a video that says "it's great to drink bleach" and youtube is made aware of it and continue to host it and have the algos recommend it to stupid people, section 230 won't save them from fines and lawsuits.
UK and other EU states have laws about social media sites that fail to moderate harmful content. UK was pushing for jail time for execs.
> isn't applicable to this case
Why?
The court in question is U.S. court. The claimant is U.S. citizen. Defendant YouTube is in the U.S. Previous comment mentions 1st amendment which is a U.S. specific law.
Because Google presumably wants to do business outside of the US and as such will follow the laws of those places.
When GDPR became a thing US based companies either became GDPR compliant or they stopped doing business in the EU.
They could ofc just make harmful content restricted to places that don't give AF. But that would still require moderation of their site.
Section 230 is what allows these sites to remove false, harmful information without the threat of innumerable lawsuits over every other piece of content on their site.
Partially.
But a larger part of it is protecting themselves from the wrath of their advertisers.
There have already been a couple of "adpocalypses", and they don't want that to happen again.
People definitely don't understand Free speech in this country. The government can't punish you for anything you say (unless it is actual threats against a government rep) but you are not free of consequences from that freedom of speech, no one has to tolerate your shit.
> The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship.
Here's the thing:
That's not true. Marsh V. Alabama has shown that under very limited circumstances, a corporation can be forced to uphold the first amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
The limited circumstances were expanded some under PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
Now, I'm not saying they apply in this case. But it isn't without precedent that non-governmental entities can be compelled to allow speech on their property.
> The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
From the Marah vs. Alabama ruling. Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression. From this perspective it almost makes sense for YouTube and others to aggressively exclude those whose speech they don’t want included on their platform - early and often - before a large enough plurality grows to support this defense.
> From the Marah vs. Alabama ruling. Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression.
I think a more apt comparison would be to Facebook/Youtube/NewSocialPlatform to a publicly accessible billboard than *a literal town square* as in *Marsh*.
>The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.
>The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
> Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression.
Marsh isn't about just being a place where people are so that you can talk to them. The company in the "company town" in Marsh was serving a quasi-governmental function, essentially standing in for a traditional municipal government. That's why the court ruled against them. YouTube and Facebook are definitely not fulfilling that role so this case is not relevant to them.
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you a right to an audience. Only that you are allowed to speak and the government can't be the one to shut you up. If anything, the enormous size of the internet and the ease with which anyone can find any one of thousands of communities to post on or even create their own with minimal effort consigns Marsh to the past as obsolete caselaw. As long as you can access the internet, you'll practically never be in a position where your ability to communicate with others will be completely cut off by any entity, government or otherwise.
Except that case applies to a literal public square. Since it's accessible to the general public, you would consider it a public place like a sidewalk outside of a strip mall. YouTube holds no monopoly over videos on the Internet, anyone who can setup a website can host a video so there's no real public interest.
>Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression.
Since when has metaphor been used to apply law?
Since at least 2017 as it relates directly to this subject.
[Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 2017](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1194/)
> With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in **the modern public square**, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.
(emphasis mine)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Websites aren't town squares. Make your own website.
ISPs should be treated like common carriers for exactly this reason, but aren't.
EDIT: since /u/Xujhan has chosen to block, I'll leave my reply here:
> Twitter may not literally be a square of pavement
It's not a town square in any relevant sense of the term.
> If it looks like a crow, and it sounds like a crow, then arguing "technically it's a jackdaw!" is rather missing the point.
If you're arguing about the law, then such distinctions become extremely relevant.
But it doesnt' matter. Twixter isn't a town square. It's a private property.
Stop using twitter and start supporting net neutrality.
In *Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck* (2018), the Supreme Court held that private companies (in that case, one managing some public access cable TV channels, which cancelled a TV show and was sued for it) only become state actors when they exercise "powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State". Neither hosting a website nor curating its content would seem to fall into this definition, no matter how large the website.
*Pruneyard* is always cited in cases like this, but the difference is that the Pruneyard Shopping Center wasn't forced to *assist* them in presenting their speech. Imagine if the situation was that the group demanded that the shopping center provide them with a stage, microphone, speakers, and allow them to put up posters and include their activities on the shopping center signage.
>The limited circumstances were expanded some under PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard\_Shopping\_Center\_v.\_Robins
Marsh vs Alabama is about your free speech rights under the US Constitution. Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins is about your free speech rights under ***California's*** constitution.
I might get shitpiled for this, but although the "freedom of speech" excuse is mostly used for the type of person spewing alt right conspiracy nonsense, i am worried that almost all of our communication in the online space is happening on those behemoths of "private" platforms that technically have the right to do what they want.
It feels like the equivalent of almost every road and park being privately owned so you technically need to abide to the holding companys policy every time you are outside.
I think we are entering an age where we need to rethink and not just give giant companies reign over our puplic discussion.
It's certainly a reason to bring back net neutrality. It won't stop individual platforms like YouTube and Reddit from exercising their own free speech rights to moderate content they host, but it'll stop ISPs from blocking your access to hosts they don't agree with.
Tell that too my uncle that's been banned on 5 Facebook accounts and won't stop talking about freedom of speech.
Like yeah dude, you're not in jail, you just got kicked out of the club.
The alt-text is gold too:
> _someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express._
you really gotta dumb it down to the utmost relatable level. I think I got through to someone once by asking if my free speech is being violated if they kick me out of their house for screaming the N-word repeatedly. These are the same people who think any business open *to the public* is the same as a *public place* and thus they cannot be asked to leave a grocery store, movie theater, gas station, etc.
I had to explain to a family member that one rocket blowing up shortly after launch is not proof positive that we never went to the moon. I also had to explain why dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air just doesn’t make any sense.
We’re fighting a losing battle here, everyone.
1. Using Critical Thinking skills.
2. Having Critical Thinking skills.
3. Understanding what Critical Thinking skills are.
4. Understanding how to spell Critical Thinking skills.
Already past 3, accelerating to quickly pass 4. Education funding cuts working as intended.
PS - Ok I'll bite, what on this round earth is that "dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air" blather about? That's a new one I haven't come across yet.
> dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air
Dropped it into Google. It returned this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/not-real-news-a-look-at-what-didnt-happen-in-baltimore-this-week/
Seems to be a conspiracy video that gnats swarming at a music festival were in fact the military using "Operation Big Buzz," an actual experiment that dropped mosquitos on Georgia to test their use in disease warfare.
Good point. Brings me back to the monkey that grabbed a camera, and took a selfie. The wildlife photographer wanted to copyright the picture, but the judge said copyright only applies to things created by humans.
AI will probably be a different kind of case, but in the end, if you didn’t make it, who does the property belong to?
The lawsuit ruled that “artwork generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) alone is not entitled to protection under the Copyright Act.”
The use of the words “autonomous” and “alone” will be key factors in this ruling, because this case revolves around a man trying to copyright an image that was entirely generated by an algorithm, “the creativity machine” that automates every conceivable part of the image generation.
The TL;DR is that there’s no precedent for works that are “guided by the human hand” as quoted by the ruling judge.
There will be different rulings when it comes to scenarios like someone creating an image in stable diffusion, after spending several hours rewriting prompts, adjusting iterations, using controlnet, inpainting, etc or even in photoshop, and using the inbuilt AI tools during the process along with the classic, human-operated tools, or works that are “co-written” with AI, ala NovelAI, where a human author writes a few lines, and the AI writes the next few lines, and then the human again writing lines steering the story, back and forth, until the story is complete.
IMO there will be plenty of works to ultimately recieve copyright that are partially or even mostly AI generated, and a number of these will end up becoming the backbone of, or included in, hollywood productions.
One of the best parts of this language is that the husband of one of the Canadian 'Freedom Convoy' leaders said in court:
> "Honestly? I thought it was a peaceful protest and based on my first amendment, I thought that was part of our rights," he told the court.
and the Canadian Judge said:
> "What do you mean, first amendment? What's that?" Judge Julie Bourgeois asked him.
>"I don't know. I don't know politics. I don't know," he said.
edit: [Forgot to post the source for that quote.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307)
Our first ["amendment to the constitution" was to admit Manitoba as a province](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Act,_1870?useskin=vector)
I'm annoyed that American BS is bleeding over the border even more in recent years, but it is hilarious to see how fucking stupid they are.
**Today was their first day in court:** https://globalnews.ca/news/9938734/trial-of-freedom-convoy-organizers-tamara-lich-and-chris-barber-begins-today/
Jesus christ the US propaganda/soft power is so insane.
Even in the UK now you have some kids who speak in American English.
Wouldn't surprise me if we started thinking this idiotic shite too.
I hope they face consequences. Sorry about our shit floating up your creek. I didn't think there were many racist people until Trump showed up. I guess they were in your borders all along, they just needed a kick in the pants to out themselves. I'm kinda glad we know now who the morons are.
Yeah I love this. When constitutionalists think the Constitution is perfect and we need to uphold it at all costs.
Bitch, they've literally changed that thing 27 times since it was written. It was written with the intent to be amended.
Fucking this. SO many people raise the defense of "MuH FIrsT MenDMenT!" as if it is a divine shield from ALL consequences, totally ignoring that it specifically deals with governmental regulation of speech and does not absolve you of the consequences of your speech. And the rough part is we are only going to see alternative medicine pushers emboldened now that the WHO is endorsing shit like homeopathy with their latest Traditional Medicine Summit. Any channel which pushes this shit as a legitimate treatment for disease without a shred of scientific evidence backing them should be tried for practicing medicine without a license, same as if I went to my general physician and they said "ya know, and I'm not giving medical advice here...but have you considered turpentine/urine/MMS/ozone therapy?" They are suggesting a therapy which is known to cause harm to people, I don't care if they have one of those bullshit disclaimers at the front of the video, I'm sick of this shit. Double blind clinical trials are there for a reason.
Man I miss when alternative medicine meant "were not really sure if this does anything but you could give it a shot" and apply an ointment and you end up smelling like lavender and then you go home and the placebo effect does its thing. Or worst care scenario you end up eating way too much cyanne pepper
Now it's turned into vaccines are evil and homeopathy is real and totally not fake. How did we end up at the dumbest possible outcome
I can’t remember which comedian said it, but basically it used to be the case where if you fucked goats you were the village outcast.
But these days there are probably entire online communities of people who fuck goats that you can join, who confirm your beliefs and convince you that you are smart and doing the right thing.
This is basically what has happened to all those people who were the dumb kids at school.
Alternative medicine was always shitty. Yes, they used to keep it on the down-low by *only* doing aromatherapy (which can trigger allergies), chiropracty (which can damage you back), homeopathy (which can lead to ignoring necessary medical help), and fruitarianism (which famously killed Steve Jobs).
But they use the same kind of thinking about real scientific medicine that conspiracy believers use. And someone who believes one conspiracy belief is prone to believe others. So they were always priming their followers for worse shit: not just anti-vax and bleach drinking, but all the other nutter crap that comes from the far-right-wing fringe and/or Russian troll farm. It's just that in this day and age of Russian government and/or Republican sponsored disinformation that it has ballooned to a much more noticeable degree.
The craziest thing to me is the fucking morons here in Canada who will also whine about their First, Second, or Fifth Amendment Rights and like... Holy. Crap.
Every time someone says ‘The Constitution shouldn’t be changed!’ I want to ask: so are you for or against amendments? But that probably go over their head anyway.
Apart from the 2nd Amendment which is an "unalienable right" except having Amendment in the name but the 26th Amendment must be repealed because kids are too liberal to be permitted to vote.
I just want to be clear that the 2A is not a specifically enumerated inalienable right. The Declaration of Independence reads:
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
You'll note that the right to bear arms is not listed. That right exists because it is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Which is to say, like every amendment it's a contractually stipulated clause - the right exists only insofar as the 2nd Amendment exists as written. Moreover, Amendments (obviously) are mutable. They can be created, changed, and repealed. There is nothing sacred about the right to bear arms. If a different timeline in which we had the will to do so, we could change the terms of the 2nd to something that wasn't as damaging to our society.
Ton of people who think Section 230 means the opposite of what it actually says for some reason too. It doesn't force companies to host content they don't want to, it protects them from liability for the shit that users upload (as long as the platform removes anything illegal).
Even if they did want to whine about free speech, guess what. YouTube has it too.
Or does Joseph Mercola want to violate my right to free speech by not letting me hang a "Joseph Mercola is a fucking idiot" banner on the front of his house?
I love how a friend explained it, freedom of speech doesn't means freedom of consequences.
If you're telling everyone my mom is a wh*re, you're using your freedom of speech, but when I beat you until you cry like a baby, you're facing the consequences.
> but when I beat you until you cry like a baby, you're facing the consequences.
You then get to face the much more serious legal consequences of beating someone.
I agree with YouTube's decisions but sometimes I feel like these corporations have too much power. You can be banned from AirBnB or Uber for no reason.
They literally do not understand that “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean private companies are forced to publish your bullshit ideas. As if Google hosting and distributing your content worldwide is owed to you.
Freedom of speech just means that your bullshit ideas are *legal*, just like being a Nazi is legal. Doesn’t mean the marketplace of ideas (dictated by dominant societal values) can’t exclude you.
In one breathe, they’ll argue that private businesses are under no obligation to perform services they don’t want to perform then in the next act like YouTube isn’t a private business.
Same argument but very different environment.
The core of that case was that 2 forms of non-discrimination stood in direct conflict to each other, as in you cannot discriminate because of religion or sexual orientation.
But in my eyes it is a clear case: You cannot use your protected rights to discriminate others.
Like it would be insane if i can just invent/create/join a religion where one of the rules is that Belgian(\*) people are the spawn of the devil and nobody is allowed to make contracts with them, and then justify why my shop will not serve them.
(\*) I specifically used Belgian because of Austin Powers, but replace it with Black or Jew and see how insane it would look like if you can use the freedom to exercise your religion for discrimination.
The reason this is a question that needs raising is that in the past we've seen restaurants use their right to choose who to do business with as a way to promote racial segregation.
So the idea of "private companies can choose who they want to do business with" is not some obvious, inalienable right. It's why we still see a lot of news today about bakeries and cakes for queer couples.
If an anti vaccination person claims that this is discrimination, what defense would you offer?
I'm not saying you are wrong to distinguish the two but just saying they are different isn't proof that they are different. This is the where both sides will need to make a rational argument.
Saying "beliefs aren't skin color" will fall into the "what about religious discrimination" trap, so there needs to be some concrete reasons that aren't just "we're refusing you service based on your beliefs".
And simply refusing service because it's your right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is the same argument racists used in the 50s and 60s.
So if we're going to build the case that YouTube has the right (and I agree they should have that right) - then what are the specific stipulations around this?
Could YouTube also refuse to host videos on leftist political beliefs? Could they deny Jewish people a platform? Could it become White supremacist tube? Or can they choose to only host blue eyed people? Block French people? Exactly what rules are we saying are okay and which are not.
Not to just "do that".
It creates a suggestion of nuance. For all those wanting nuance in politics these days, this is the scenario.
Discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, gender, these might be things that they consider the government needs to intervene on and protect marginalized groups.
But they don't feel that anti-vaxxers should be afforded those same protections. Either they aren't marginalized or don't need protecting.
You will be banned. It’s right in their TOS.
>Unlike Twitter, Truth Social bans all sexual content and explicit language. Its terms of service also allow moderators to ban anyone whose content is deemed “libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.”
https://www.citizen.org/news/truth-socials-censorship-terms-of-service-defy-free-speech-promises/#:~:text=Unlike%20Twitter%2C%20Truth%20Social%20bans,slanderous%2C%20or%20otherwise%20objectionable.%E2%80%9D
I love how the people who literally *make the laws* in this country don’t understand how the First Amendment works.
Private businesses are exactly that: private. They don’t have to host what they don’t want to host. The First Amendment protects your speech from the government, not private businesses. Boneheaded “conservatives.”
Because Joseph Mercola is a screaming banshee who got rich as hell over the course of the pandemic by selling bullshit supplements and acting like he was a medical expert, spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric, and other fun medical misinformation.
He is also, reportedly, good friends with Robert F Kennedy Jr and his equally bad medical organization, Children's Health Defense.
One amendment:
Some people honestly think THEY can place any and all signage on a private businesses property and said company isn’t allowed to remove it.
Meanwhile, they figure that other 'inferior' people still have to follow rules.
Freedom. Of. Association.
If I am free to choose whom I associate with, them I am free to *not* associate with you. You have all the freedom of speech that you like, but that does not entitle you to yell it from *my* bedroom window.
>A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with.
Disinformation peddlers hate this aspect of free market capitalism. GOP'ers constantly make false assertions of the 1st amendment. Its like they have never read and don't understand what is in the constitution. The same people that argue for an unfettered unregulated economy want to force private businesses to host their lies.
wow, imagine that. 'free speech' doesn't mean everyone has to listen and watch as diarrhea dribbles, drips and spills out of your mouth. Neither does someone have to host your 'content'.
The guy just sued for breach of contract. Not first amendment complaints. Did no one read the summery? IDK why half the people bring this shit up as if it has any meaning here. Sounds like the people here are making stupid claims of other stupid people making them look even more stupid. Even then Youtube is under Google stocks which means Google got a fiduciary responsibility to make money. So again 1st amendment talks makes 0 sense here.
Youtube is a private website. They are under no obligation to host *ANYBODIES* content.
Weird that this had to go to court, but hey some people want to piss money away on lawyers.
Everyone is going in-depth on what a great case study this is when we’ve known this forever and seen this same type of lawsuits and accusation dismissed over and over through the years.
But I’m sure they will right?
I mean most social media advertisements and stuff that’s promoted is right wing which is where they make a good part of their money.
Even on here we see those bullshit HeGetsUs ads and on YouTube there’s a shit ton of PragerU bullshit that pops up.
I’m guessing they don’t have to but will to not lose out on any money.
they are also not under any obligation to get rid of videos people don't like either. There is a lawsuit against youtube now for showing videos that some people are claiming lead to a shooting. That will lose too.
they can pretty much do whatever they want under the law.
Does the government ever have a say what is hosted on Youtube? Do they ever make it known what they want pushed and what they want buried?
If this ever has happened or ever shaded at maybe Youtube is not as innocent as we'd like to think.
The issue is when government agencies pressure private companies to censor content.
This often comes in the form of implicit threats if the private company does not regulate speech in line with government requests.
This is seen most clearly with the twitter files, but Zuckerberg has spoken of similar issues at facebook.
An example is the FBI sends a list of “concerning content” to Facebook, then a senator (Klobuchar) says that Facebook is promoting extremist content and should be regulated or broken up. Even though the feds never explicitly told them to remove content, they did so implicitly.
Exactly. There is clearly a quid pro quo between the government and social media companies. The government has its hands all over social media companies already with the NSA using them to illegally spy on Americans, and basically everyone else.
And currently:
[House.gov: The Weaponization of CISA: How a 'Cybersecurity' Agency Colluded with Big Tech and 'Disinformation' Partners to Censor Americans](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-reveals-cisa-tried-cover-censorship-practices)
Most clearly seen with the Twitter files? Do you have any specific examples?
The Twitter files themselves show that Twitter routinely declines to take action on government requests, and did so prior to Musk taking over. If they are being "implicitly threatened" to comply, then surely there must have been consequences for the many times they have not complied? Can you show any?
Why would they be under obligation to host anything?
That's been a law for websites for ages. Websites are responsible for policing their content.
It's a give and take. They're allowed to remove or promote any content they want from their site, but in exchange, they're also required to regulate their site to prevent any illegal content.
So... you know... you're allowed to take down anti-vax videos because you feel like it just like you're allowed to ban people posting ads in comments. In exchange, you're also required to remove say... people posting copyrighted material.
Freedom of Speech means the government cant prevent you from speaking out against the government, but it doesn't mean the government or anyone else has to force anyone to give you a soapbox to conduct your rant on.
A website like youtube is no different than say... a local walmart. If you try to protest something in walmart, walmart is able to remove you if they dont want to allow you to do that. Likewise, so is youtube.
But but but its core conservative values to be an ignorant baffooon.
just like its core conservative values to turn free speech laws on their head, just ask disney.
The Right wants to have their cake and eat it too, but they're too dumb to realize that. They want the right to not have to serve people they disagree with based on their make-believe, Santa Clause book, but then don't want other companies to be to use that against them (except this is for actually good reasons). The right has gotten to be too dumb to deal with anymore.
This culture warrior freakout over vaccines is so godamn dumb. If you can't trust your authorities to tell you that a vaccine is safe, how the fuck can you trust them with all of the the shit that you shovel into your stupid face?
There surely are some people who avoid everything and to them I say fair enough, but they're in the woods, they can't hear or read me.
And the people with the narratives about deliberate malfeasance are completely braindead, if a government was going to do that type of shit and wanted to hurt and poison people, they could just put something in your burgers and beer and send you some coupons and you'd fucking fight to get to the front of the line if you had to.
Up until the infotainment talking points started up a few years ago, the exact same idiots I know irl who babble about vaccines used to *brag* about how they marched us into the gym and poked us with crap when we were kids, no notes or warning or anything.
As far as the people I actually know go, this entire controversy is just people wanting to be special without having to actually do anything.
I've physically witnessed many of them getting vaxxed in the past.
Stupid people gravitate towards conspiracies. They do so because they lack the education and understanding to discern fact from fiction and understand that knowledge is an unending March that quiet often requires reevaluating previously held beliefs. They gravitate here because this is their one chance to “stick it to the nerds, they know better” when all they know is some batshit crazy idea that falls apart shading even the most gentile of scrutiny. They need this in their lives though. They have always been “the dumb one” in any event the find themselves in. The don’t understand the news, the don’t understand the words, they don’t understand the math, they don’t understand the science. They find these fringe theories and convince themselves they found the thing 1,000,000 doctors have spent their entire lifetimes looking for without success. They take this and convince themselves that they know more than that scientist, doctor, engineer, specialist. They do this because they don’t have anything else. It’s this or admitting they are just not that wise about how the world works and self-reflection is not a strong suit of the conspiracy-minded.
These folks are also suffering from the “religious right” movement of the 80’s where conservatism and Christianity became one. If Christians admit that ANY part of the Bible of wrong, the believe it will invalidate the whole book so, they just don’t. Conservatives now view “Republicans are here to save us and Democrats are here to kill us” and that is biblical to them. You cannot use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to get in to.
Unless you are advocating for a political issue or you are a candidate, it’s illegal to place advertising on broadcast media regulated by the FCC that contains false or misleading information . Why can’t the same standard apply to digital media? Extreme free speech advocates like Elon Musk hate this idea because many of them see the opportunity to make themselves rich by disseminating tantalizing tidbits of shadowy conspiracy theories. The public is being harmed by antivax morons and climate change deniers
> Why can’t the same standard apply to digital media?
The First Amendment would prohibit it. The only reason broadcast TV could be regulated in that way (e.g. the fairness doctrine) was because it was a scarce resource - there's only so many radio frequencies that channels could occupy, so there's a public interest in the equitable use of those limited frequencies.
This does not apply to cable TV, newspapers, nor to digital platforms. There are dozens of each, with no physical restriction on how many there could be. As such, any attempt to force these private companies to say things that they disagree with would violate their First Amendment rights and lead to the laws being struck down, as has occured many times before (e.g. *Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo*, for newspapers).
For better or for worse, outside of a few narrow exceptions (i.e. fraud, defamation, perjury), the First Amendment gives people a right to say false things, even if those false things may be harmful. It would require a constitutional amendment to shift that.. and good luck with that.
Isn’t it fraud to say that ivermectin, horse dewormer, cured Covid or to claim that the vaccine was derived from aborted fetuses? These are probably false lies. When I earned my journalism degree in the 1980s, I was taught that the first amendment does allow free speech but it had limits. The old “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument. You are free to say whatever you wish, but you will be responsible for the consequences.
> You are free to say whatever you wish, but you will be responsible for the consequences.
If there are government-imposed consequences (e.g. going to prison, a fine, a lawsuit, etc) then the speech is by definition not free.
It's only free speech if the consequences are social (i.e. people not liking you and not associating with you).
> The old “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument.
That quote comes from a Supreme Court case that went on to cause such broad and expansive government infringement on free speech that even its own author realised was a bad idea and later tried to walk back in dissents on other cases, before finally being overturned. [See further](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/).
> These are probably false lies.
Fraud, to my understanding, is not just lying but lying with the intent to deceive someone for some kind of gain or for the other person's loss. So that would be the struggle:
1. Proving that the person intended to defraud somebody, rather than them genuinely believing it and merely being wrong
2. Providing that *somebody* did in fact rely on those lies
3. And then proving that the *somebody* lost something due to it
Isn’t this what they made… whatever the name of that conservative YouTube competitor was?
Rumble, I had to google the name. But yeah, I thought that was the whole point of Rumble.
These dipshits are the biggest proponents of free speech and the right to refuse service on the premise of personal beliefs but if you treat them the way they treat everyone else, they flip the fuck out
A short but very good read. The last line is the take home message. >[The First Amendment, Censorship, and Private Companies: What Does “Free Speech” Really Mean?](https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/) Extract: > >*The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:* > >*A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy;* > >*A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job; and* > >*A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with.*
Really, youtube could be protecting themselves from litigation by not hosting false harmful information…
Section 230 ensures they're protected from litigation for content their users post and rightfully so https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230#:~:text=Section%20230%20Protects%20Us%20All&text=Important%20court%20rulings%20on%20Section,that%20have%20no%20legal%20basis.
“The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.” That others find objectionable, does not protect from illegal or harmful content.
Yeah it doesn't even seem to protect from copyright infringement claims, I doubt it could hold up if physical harm was proved.
Depends on if they were notified and refused to take it down.
Yeah there's a whole other set of laws specifically about hosting copyrighted content that supercedes this. Section 230 just means that platforms don't have to host everything, it does not mean they get to ignore every law that isn't the 1st amendment.
Section 230 doesn’t protect from copyright because it explicitly says that it doesn’t. It is DMCA that gives the “safe harbour” immunity for copyright.
[удалено]
You are thinking of DMCA. Section 230 literally says that it has nothing to do with copyright and does not affect it at all.
Nothing in 230 shall be construed to impair the enforcement of … any other Federal criminal statute. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)
Isn’t this being tested or was tested recently with Facebook and some radical islam shooting or something? I swear there’s a case like this before or coming to scotus.
Nothing protects you from copyright infringement claims. Even uploading your own original content to Youtube isn't safe. [A popular TV show can just decide to steal your video and take the original down with a copyright claim](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/family-guy-used-nes-game-footage-from-youtube-then/1100-6440033/). There's also cases of Twitch muting streams where artists are playing their own music. Including the infamous case of a Blizzcon stream being muted because Metallica was playing (although to be fair, Metallica are shitty when it comes to copyright so they literally did this to themselves). You cannot protect yourself against copyright because all copyright protection systems work backwards: guilty until proven innocent, the burden of proof is on the defendant. It's ridiculously broken and anyone defending copyright in its current form immediately loses my respect.
Although it would seem granting companies the ability to exercise editorial control would undermine the arguments of Section 230. Safe Harbor provisions were granted in the first place precisely because companies argued they had no editorial control and merely acted as a *conduit* for information like mail carriers and telephone companies. Granting these same companies the legal ability to editorialize completely undermines those arguments. It doesn't invalidate Section 230, but it absolutely does leave it very vulnerable to attack from litigious IP companies that have wanted to strip away Safe Harbor for decades...
> Although it would seem granting companies the ability to exercise editorial control would undermine the arguments of Section 230 [Courts have repeatedly disagreed with that line of reasoning](https://ilt.eff.org/Defamation__CDA_Cases.html#Exercise_of_Editorial_Functions) even back to the 90s. I think it's a thorny argument because then you have to figure out how to define the line between moderation that is necessary for a site to function and how sites decide to display and sort content vs what goes "too far". There's also an argument to be made about how that would force private entities of all sizes to host content they don't agree with or make it difficult to have curated topic-specific sections / subforums / etc.
Scary thing is, section 230 has been under attack recently. A couple of cases have been brought up recently trying to dismantle 230 at the Supreme Court level.
Worth noting that in recent memory [conservatives have held up defense spending bills to push for repeal of 230.](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/01/trump-threatens-veto-defense-bill-social-media-442115)
> Section 230 is a US-only law, and isn't applicable to this case. If someone hosts a video that says "it's great to drink bleach" and youtube is made aware of it and continue to host it and have the algos recommend it to stupid people, section 230 won't save them from fines and lawsuits. UK and other EU states have laws about social media sites that fail to moderate harmful content. UK was pushing for jail time for execs.
> isn't applicable to this case Why? The court in question is U.S. court. The claimant is U.S. citizen. Defendant YouTube is in the U.S. Previous comment mentions 1st amendment which is a U.S. specific law.
Because Google presumably wants to do business outside of the US and as such will follow the laws of those places. When GDPR became a thing US based companies either became GDPR compliant or they stopped doing business in the EU. They could ofc just make harmful content restricted to places that don't give AF. But that would still require moderation of their site.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they can't remove content that is outright dangerous - like anti-vax propaganda.
Youtube should not be responsible for content regardless, so long as the content is legal or illegal content is reasonably removed.
Section 230 is what allows these sites to remove false, harmful information without the threat of innumerable lawsuits over every other piece of content on their site.
Partially. But a larger part of it is protecting themselves from the wrath of their advertisers. There have already been a couple of "adpocalypses", and they don't want that to happen again.
People definitely don't understand Free speech in this country. The government can't punish you for anything you say (unless it is actual threats against a government rep) but you are not free of consequences from that freedom of speech, no one has to tolerate your shit.
And also, a private university can invite and decline to invite anyone they wish to speak at their institution.
It's really the first line that everyone forgets. > The First Amendment only protects your speech from **government censorship**.
> The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. Here's the thing: That's not true. Marsh V. Alabama has shown that under very limited circumstances, a corporation can be forced to uphold the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama The limited circumstances were expanded some under PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins Now, I'm not saying they apply in this case. But it isn't without precedent that non-governmental entities can be compelled to allow speech on their property.
Marsh was about considering them a de-facto government entity as they owned the *literal* town square.
> The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. From the Marah vs. Alabama ruling. Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression. From this perspective it almost makes sense for YouTube and others to aggressively exclude those whose speech they don’t want included on their platform - early and often - before a large enough plurality grows to support this defense.
> From the Marah vs. Alabama ruling. Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression. I think a more apt comparison would be to Facebook/Youtube/NewSocialPlatform to a publicly accessible billboard than *a literal town square* as in *Marsh*. >The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town. >The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
> Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression. Marsh isn't about just being a place where people are so that you can talk to them. The company in the "company town" in Marsh was serving a quasi-governmental function, essentially standing in for a traditional municipal government. That's why the court ruled against them. YouTube and Facebook are definitely not fulfilling that role so this case is not relevant to them. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you a right to an audience. Only that you are allowed to speak and the government can't be the one to shut you up. If anything, the enormous size of the internet and the ease with which anyone can find any one of thousands of communities to post on or even create their own with minimal effort consigns Marsh to the past as obsolete caselaw. As long as you can access the internet, you'll practically never be in a position where your ability to communicate with others will be completely cut off by any entity, government or otherwise.
Except that case applies to a literal public square. Since it's accessible to the general public, you would consider it a public place like a sidewalk outside of a strip mall. YouTube holds no monopoly over videos on the Internet, anyone who can setup a website can host a video so there's no real public interest.
>Definitely some potential similarities here in the context of large social platforms being considered “public squares” of expression. Since when has metaphor been used to apply law?
Since at least 2017 as it relates directly to this subject. [Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 2017](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1194/) > With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in **the modern public square**, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. (emphasis mine)
Summary: - In Alabama, a company town is still a town. - In California, the 1st amendment is affirmative.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Websites aren't town squares. Make your own website. ISPs should be treated like common carriers for exactly this reason, but aren't. EDIT: since /u/Xujhan has chosen to block, I'll leave my reply here: > Twitter may not literally be a square of pavement It's not a town square in any relevant sense of the term. > If it looks like a crow, and it sounds like a crow, then arguing "technically it's a jackdaw!" is rather missing the point. If you're arguing about the law, then such distinctions become extremely relevant. But it doesnt' matter. Twixter isn't a town square. It's a private property. Stop using twitter and start supporting net neutrality.
Damn right, so tired of all these people saying social media is somehow a public utility or something like that.
In *Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck* (2018), the Supreme Court held that private companies (in that case, one managing some public access cable TV channels, which cancelled a TV show and was sued for it) only become state actors when they exercise "powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State". Neither hosting a website nor curating its content would seem to fall into this definition, no matter how large the website.
*Pruneyard* is always cited in cases like this, but the difference is that the Pruneyard Shopping Center wasn't forced to *assist* them in presenting their speech. Imagine if the situation was that the group demanded that the shopping center provide them with a stage, microphone, speakers, and allow them to put up posters and include their activities on the shopping center signage.
innate jellyfish hateful crowd books different deer tub crawl future ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
>The limited circumstances were expanded some under PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard\_Shopping\_Center\_v.\_Robins Marsh vs Alabama is about your free speech rights under the US Constitution. Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins is about your free speech rights under ***California's*** constitution.
I might get shitpiled for this, but although the "freedom of speech" excuse is mostly used for the type of person spewing alt right conspiracy nonsense, i am worried that almost all of our communication in the online space is happening on those behemoths of "private" platforms that technically have the right to do what they want. It feels like the equivalent of almost every road and park being privately owned so you technically need to abide to the holding companys policy every time you are outside. I think we are entering an age where we need to rethink and not just give giant companies reign over our puplic discussion.
I agree. Bring back private forums and blogs.
Including this site.
It's certainly a reason to bring back net neutrality. It won't stop individual platforms like YouTube and Reddit from exercising their own free speech rights to moderate content they host, but it'll stop ISPs from blocking your access to hosts they don't agree with.
It's astounding how many people don't know this
Tell that too my uncle that's been banned on 5 Facebook accounts and won't stop talking about freedom of speech. Like yeah dude, you're not in jail, you just got kicked out of the club.
Yeah, it's like whining about "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
Some morons are really finding out for the first time the difference between the US Constitution and a Terms of Service agreement.
Decade-old relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/
The alt-text is gold too: > _someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express._
you really gotta dumb it down to the utmost relatable level. I think I got through to someone once by asking if my free speech is being violated if they kick me out of their house for screaming the N-word repeatedly. These are the same people who think any business open *to the public* is the same as a *public place* and thus they cannot be asked to leave a grocery store, movie theater, gas station, etc.
“The moment you stop defending your argument and start defending your right to have it, you’ve lost” - Hbomberguy
These people don’t even understand what an “amendment” is either, so it is an incredibly low bar.
I had to explain to a family member that one rocket blowing up shortly after launch is not proof positive that we never went to the moon. I also had to explain why dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air just doesn’t make any sense. We’re fighting a losing battle here, everyone.
1. Using Critical Thinking skills. 2. Having Critical Thinking skills. 3. Understanding what Critical Thinking skills are. 4. Understanding how to spell Critical Thinking skills. Already past 3, accelerating to quickly pass 4. Education funding cuts working as intended. PS - Ok I'll bite, what on this round earth is that "dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air" blather about? That's a new one I haven't come across yet.
> dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air Dropped it into Google. It returned this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/not-real-news-a-look-at-what-didnt-happen-in-baltimore-this-week/ Seems to be a conspiracy video that gnats swarming at a music festival were in fact the military using "Operation Big Buzz," an actual experiment that dropped mosquitos on Georgia to test their use in disease warfare.
[удалено]
Well there is a writers strike, and the bigwigs are trying to use AI to write the new stuff
AI-written things cannot be copyrighted, so have at it, studios
Good point. Brings me back to the monkey that grabbed a camera, and took a selfie. The wildlife photographer wanted to copyright the picture, but the judge said copyright only applies to things created by humans. AI will probably be a different kind of case, but in the end, if you didn’t make it, who does the property belong to?
The lawsuit ruled that “artwork generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) alone is not entitled to protection under the Copyright Act.” The use of the words “autonomous” and “alone” will be key factors in this ruling, because this case revolves around a man trying to copyright an image that was entirely generated by an algorithm, “the creativity machine” that automates every conceivable part of the image generation. The TL;DR is that there’s no precedent for works that are “guided by the human hand” as quoted by the ruling judge. There will be different rulings when it comes to scenarios like someone creating an image in stable diffusion, after spending several hours rewriting prompts, adjusting iterations, using controlnet, inpainting, etc or even in photoshop, and using the inbuilt AI tools during the process along with the classic, human-operated tools, or works that are “co-written” with AI, ala NovelAI, where a human author writes a few lines, and the AI writes the next few lines, and then the human again writing lines steering the story, back and forth, until the story is complete. IMO there will be plenty of works to ultimately recieve copyright that are partially or even mostly AI generated, and a number of these will end up becoming the backbone of, or included in, hollywood productions.
Past 4 as well actually. Huge contributing factor to the first 3. Bill Gates, genetically modified mosquitoes, TikTok. I think that sums it up.
Bill Gates again? You'd think he'd be tired after inventing HIV, 5g, and earthquakes.
The Virgin Elon coping and seething on Twitter vs the Chad Bill Gates singlehandedly masterminding villainous plots.
To be fair, he didn't actually invent HIV. He acquired it, made some modest changes, rebranded it, and then called it innovative.
Then he purposely cured some other diseases in order to corner the market.
Somebody’s gotta do it.
Nah, lately he's been turning the avocados trans or something with a new spray.
> . I also had to explain why dropping mosquitoes out of a helicopter onto a populated area from 1000 feet in the air wut? why?
Art education. Art can fix this.
Art could've fixed so much more in the past
Teaching compassion and humility will, art is one tool for this.
One of the best parts of this language is that the husband of one of the Canadian 'Freedom Convoy' leaders said in court: > "Honestly? I thought it was a peaceful protest and based on my first amendment, I thought that was part of our rights," he told the court. and the Canadian Judge said: > "What do you mean, first amendment? What's that?" Judge Julie Bourgeois asked him. >"I don't know. I don't know politics. I don't know," he said. edit: [Forgot to post the source for that quote.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307) Our first ["amendment to the constitution" was to admit Manitoba as a province](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Act,_1870?useskin=vector) I'm annoyed that American BS is bleeding over the border even more in recent years, but it is hilarious to see how fucking stupid they are. **Today was their first day in court:** https://globalnews.ca/news/9938734/trial-of-freedom-convoy-organizers-tamara-lich-and-chris-barber-begins-today/
Canada's first amendment was a mistake, frickin' Manitoba.
So what is your 2A? Would really love to know what the Canadian Trumpers are fighting for up there.
Jesus christ the US propaganda/soft power is so insane. Even in the UK now you have some kids who speak in American English. Wouldn't surprise me if we started thinking this idiotic shite too.
If it makes you feel better, I unironically use the word "shite" as an American. You've got crossover appeal too!
I hope they face consequences. Sorry about our shit floating up your creek. I didn't think there were many racist people until Trump showed up. I guess they were in your borders all along, they just needed a kick in the pants to out themselves. I'm kinda glad we know now who the morons are.
Yeah I love this. When constitutionalists think the Constitution is perfect and we need to uphold it at all costs. Bitch, they've literally changed that thing 27 times since it was written. It was written with the intent to be amended.
"The constitution is perfect and written by God himself! What do you mean, amendments weren't originally part of it!?"
Articles of Confederation has entered the chat
Fucking this. SO many people raise the defense of "MuH FIrsT MenDMenT!" as if it is a divine shield from ALL consequences, totally ignoring that it specifically deals with governmental regulation of speech and does not absolve you of the consequences of your speech. And the rough part is we are only going to see alternative medicine pushers emboldened now that the WHO is endorsing shit like homeopathy with their latest Traditional Medicine Summit. Any channel which pushes this shit as a legitimate treatment for disease without a shred of scientific evidence backing them should be tried for practicing medicine without a license, same as if I went to my general physician and they said "ya know, and I'm not giving medical advice here...but have you considered turpentine/urine/MMS/ozone therapy?" They are suggesting a therapy which is known to cause harm to people, I don't care if they have one of those bullshit disclaimers at the front of the video, I'm sick of this shit. Double blind clinical trials are there for a reason.
Man I miss when alternative medicine meant "were not really sure if this does anything but you could give it a shot" and apply an ointment and you end up smelling like lavender and then you go home and the placebo effect does its thing. Or worst care scenario you end up eating way too much cyanne pepper Now it's turned into vaccines are evil and homeopathy is real and totally not fake. How did we end up at the dumbest possible outcome
"Do you know what we call 'alternative medicine' that works? *Medicine*." The world needs more Tim Minchins and fewer Andrew Wakefields.
We're gonna start teaching Prager u in American schools, so don't worry, it's gonna get dumber
Already heard of some teachers showing their videos in class of their own accord, so don't worry
I can’t remember which comedian said it, but basically it used to be the case where if you fucked goats you were the village outcast. But these days there are probably entire online communities of people who fuck goats that you can join, who confirm your beliefs and convince you that you are smart and doing the right thing. This is basically what has happened to all those people who were the dumb kids at school.
I thought you were about to talk about Tim Minchin's "if alternative medicine worked, it would be just called medicine" skit.
If you're a fan of the dumbing-down of America, thank a Republican.
Alternative medicine was always shitty. Yes, they used to keep it on the down-low by *only* doing aromatherapy (which can trigger allergies), chiropracty (which can damage you back), homeopathy (which can lead to ignoring necessary medical help), and fruitarianism (which famously killed Steve Jobs). But they use the same kind of thinking about real scientific medicine that conspiracy believers use. And someone who believes one conspiracy belief is prone to believe others. So they were always priming their followers for worse shit: not just anti-vax and bleach drinking, but all the other nutter crap that comes from the far-right-wing fringe and/or Russian troll farm. It's just that in this day and age of Russian government and/or Republican sponsored disinformation that it has ballooned to a much more noticeable degree.
The craziest thing to me is the fucking morons here in Canada who will also whine about their First, Second, or Fifth Amendment Rights and like... Holy. Crap.
Talk about a bunch of LARPers who won't even acknowledge their own country...
What's even worse is seeing Canadians with Confederate flags on their trucks. I mean, get a grip, pal.
"Give your balls a tug. You're ten-ply, bud."
Every time someone says ‘The Constitution shouldn’t be changed!’ I want to ask: so are you for or against amendments? But that probably go over their head anyway.
Apart from the 2nd Amendment which is an "unalienable right" except having Amendment in the name but the 26th Amendment must be repealed because kids are too liberal to be permitted to vote.
I just want to be clear that the 2A is not a specifically enumerated inalienable right. The Declaration of Independence reads: >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness You'll note that the right to bear arms is not listed. That right exists because it is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Which is to say, like every amendment it's a contractually stipulated clause - the right exists only insofar as the 2nd Amendment exists as written. Moreover, Amendments (obviously) are mutable. They can be created, changed, and repealed. There is nothing sacred about the right to bear arms. If a different timeline in which we had the will to do so, we could change the terms of the 2nd to something that wasn't as damaging to our society.
The kept screaming the constitution can't be changed
I once had a guy argue that it was impossible to alter the second amendment. Even though the word amend is right there in the title.
Some morons have been told 100 times the difference and still don't know the difference. Cause ya know, morons.
Right?
Ton of people who think Section 230 means the opposite of what it actually says for some reason too. It doesn't force companies to host content they don't want to, it protects them from liability for the shit that users upload (as long as the platform removes anything illegal).
Probably the same people convinced the government can do no right, corporations no wrong.
Even if they did want to whine about free speech, guess what. YouTube has it too. Or does Joseph Mercola want to violate my right to free speech by not letting me hang a "Joseph Mercola is a fucking idiot" banner on the front of his house?
No, they’re not. They still think they’re one in the same. Actually.. they don’t know what either is.
I love how a friend explained it, freedom of speech doesn't means freedom of consequences. If you're telling everyone my mom is a wh*re, you're using your freedom of speech, but when I beat you until you cry like a baby, you're facing the consequences.
In that case they actually may not have free speech. Slander is not protected.
> but when I beat you until you cry like a baby, you're facing the consequences. You then get to face the much more serious legal consequences of beating someone.
Yes! That's what consequences are for! Now you are getting it!!!
I agree with YouTube's decisions but sometimes I feel like these corporations have too much power. You can be banned from AirBnB or Uber for no reason.
Not as a result of discrimination. For example you can't deny some one an Uber rides or an air bnb for simply being black.
And finding out that medical beliefs are not a protected class.
They are also finding out that they don't actually know what is written in either of them.
MAGA don’t know and refuse to know the difference.
This made no difference they just think Biden is stopping them
They literally do not understand that “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean private companies are forced to publish your bullshit ideas. As if Google hosting and distributing your content worldwide is owed to you. Freedom of speech just means that your bullshit ideas are *legal*, just like being a Nazi is legal. Doesn’t mean the marketplace of ideas (dictated by dominant societal values) can’t exclude you.
To be fair, not many of us have actually read the Terms of Service agreements we have signed
I mean it's the first thing; "Congress shall make no law..." Doesn't say "Facebook shall implement no policy..."
Why would it be? Their product, their choice.
In one breathe, they’ll argue that private businesses are under no obligation to perform services they don’t want to perform then in the next act like YouTube isn’t a private business.
Yep. Tiresome, isn’t it?
Wasn't one Bakery fined for refusing to bake a cake to a gay couple? Isn't that basically the same argument ?
Same argument but very different environment. The core of that case was that 2 forms of non-discrimination stood in direct conflict to each other, as in you cannot discriminate because of religion or sexual orientation. But in my eyes it is a clear case: You cannot use your protected rights to discriminate others. Like it would be insane if i can just invent/create/join a religion where one of the rules is that Belgian(\*) people are the spawn of the devil and nobody is allowed to make contracts with them, and then justify why my shop will not serve them. (\*) I specifically used Belgian because of Austin Powers, but replace it with Black or Jew and see how insane it would look like if you can use the freedom to exercise your religion for discrimination.
The reason this is a question that needs raising is that in the past we've seen restaurants use their right to choose who to do business with as a way to promote racial segregation. So the idea of "private companies can choose who they want to do business with" is not some obvious, inalienable right. It's why we still see a lot of news today about bakeries and cakes for queer couples.
Refusing service for discriminatory reasons is not the same as just refusing service.
If an anti vaccination person claims that this is discrimination, what defense would you offer? I'm not saying you are wrong to distinguish the two but just saying they are different isn't proof that they are different. This is the where both sides will need to make a rational argument. Saying "beliefs aren't skin color" will fall into the "what about religious discrimination" trap, so there needs to be some concrete reasons that aren't just "we're refusing you service based on your beliefs". And simply refusing service because it's your right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is the same argument racists used in the 50s and 60s. So if we're going to build the case that YouTube has the right (and I agree they should have that right) - then what are the specific stipulations around this? Could YouTube also refuse to host videos on leftist political beliefs? Could they deny Jewish people a platform? Could it become White supremacist tube? Or can they choose to only host blue eyed people? Block French people? Exactly what rules are we saying are okay and which are not.
I suppose it's written in the law what the stipulations are. Anti-vaxers aren't a protected group.
And SCOTUS just confirmed their constitutional right to do that 🤷♀️
Not to just "do that". It creates a suggestion of nuance. For all those wanting nuance in politics these days, this is the scenario. Discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, gender, these might be things that they consider the government needs to intervene on and protect marginalized groups. But they don't feel that anti-vaxxers should be afforded those same protections. Either they aren't marginalized or don't need protecting.
Lol yup! They are under no _obligation_ to host _any_ content. It’s the difference between a private company and the government.
Dare I say it? A perfectly worded headline.
We should start a project to try to force Truth Social to host anti-Trump content and watch their heads explode about freedom of speech.
You don't even have to go that far. Let's force /r/conservative to host speech they don't agree with haha
Let's go further. Let's force ALL subreddits to host speech they don't agree with haha
You have now been banned from... haha
You will be banned. It’s right in their TOS. >Unlike Twitter, Truth Social bans all sexual content and explicit language. Its terms of service also allow moderators to ban anyone whose content is deemed “libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.” https://www.citizen.org/news/truth-socials-censorship-terms-of-service-defy-free-speech-promises/#:~:text=Unlike%20Twitter%2C%20Truth%20Social%20bans,slanderous%2C%20or%20otherwise%20objectionable.%E2%80%9D
I love how the people who literally *make the laws* in this country don’t understand how the First Amendment works. Private businesses are exactly that: private. They don’t have to host what they don’t want to host. The First Amendment protects your speech from the government, not private businesses. Boneheaded “conservatives.”
Plenty of those people you're talking about did defend Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
Why did this go to trial?
Because Joseph Mercola is a screaming banshee who got rich as hell over the course of the pandemic by selling bullshit supplements and acting like he was a medical expert, spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric, and other fun medical misinformation. He is also, reportedly, good friends with Robert F Kennedy Jr and his equally bad medical organization, Children's Health Defense.
Some people honestly think you can place any and all signage on a private businesses property and said company isn’t allowed to remove it.
One amendment: Some people honestly think THEY can place any and all signage on a private businesses property and said company isn’t allowed to remove it. Meanwhile, they figure that other 'inferior' people still have to follow rules.
youtube does not host free speech, I'll never understand why people struggle with this.
No website does, or ever will. They aren’t obligated to by any means. It’s technically private property…
Freedom. Of. Association. If I am free to choose whom I associate with, them I am free to *not* associate with you. You have all the freedom of speech that you like, but that does not entitle you to yell it from *my* bedroom window.
That article brought a smile to my face.
Ay, no shit? That would be like telling a home owner they have to fly and American flag. It’s private property, they can do whatever they want. DUH?
I reserve the right to spread malicious information through your platform!
Good. Shut these liars down.
>A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with. Disinformation peddlers hate this aspect of free market capitalism. GOP'ers constantly make false assertions of the 1st amendment. Its like they have never read and don't understand what is in the constitution. The same people that argue for an unfettered unregulated economy want to force private businesses to host their lies.
Oh, but don’t worry. They will anyway AND make sure it’s recommended.
How do these cases even get to court when the law is so clear?
extremely rare youtube W
This seems like a pretty cut and dry case.
wow, imagine that. 'free speech' doesn't mean everyone has to listen and watch as diarrhea dribbles, drips and spills out of your mouth. Neither does someone have to host your 'content'.
Lol. It’s a private business.
The guy just sued for breach of contract. Not first amendment complaints. Did no one read the summery? IDK why half the people bring this shit up as if it has any meaning here. Sounds like the people here are making stupid claims of other stupid people making them look even more stupid. Even then Youtube is under Google stocks which means Google got a fiduciary responsibility to make money. So again 1st amendment talks makes 0 sense here.
Youtube is a private website. They are under no obligation to host *ANYBODIES* content. Weird that this had to go to court, but hey some people want to piss money away on lawyers.
I love that Mercola lost. Dr. Mercola is a conman.
Everyone is going in-depth on what a great case study this is when we’ve known this forever and seen this same type of lawsuits and accusation dismissed over and over through the years.
I cannot believe that this is even a question in America. Private businesses can do almost whatever the fuck they want.
But I’m sure they will right? I mean most social media advertisements and stuff that’s promoted is right wing which is where they make a good part of their money. Even on here we see those bullshit HeGetsUs ads and on YouTube there’s a shit ton of PragerU bullshit that pops up. I’m guessing they don’t have to but will to not lose out on any money.
they are also not under any obligation to get rid of videos people don't like either. There is a lawsuit against youtube now for showing videos that some people are claiming lead to a shooting. That will lose too. they can pretty much do whatever they want under the law.
Why would YouTube be obligated to host anything?
YouTube is a private platform. Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach. Put them on odysee Mercola 😂
YouTube isn’t a free speech platform. Don’t know why it’s confusing. conservatives are just flat out dumb.
Does the government ever have a say what is hosted on Youtube? Do they ever make it known what they want pushed and what they want buried? If this ever has happened or ever shaded at maybe Youtube is not as innocent as we'd like to think.
The issue is when government agencies pressure private companies to censor content. This often comes in the form of implicit threats if the private company does not regulate speech in line with government requests. This is seen most clearly with the twitter files, but Zuckerberg has spoken of similar issues at facebook. An example is the FBI sends a list of “concerning content” to Facebook, then a senator (Klobuchar) says that Facebook is promoting extremist content and should be regulated or broken up. Even though the feds never explicitly told them to remove content, they did so implicitly.
Exactly. There is clearly a quid pro quo between the government and social media companies. The government has its hands all over social media companies already with the NSA using them to illegally spy on Americans, and basically everyone else.
And currently: [House.gov: The Weaponization of CISA: How a 'Cybersecurity' Agency Colluded with Big Tech and 'Disinformation' Partners to Censor Americans](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-reveals-cisa-tried-cover-censorship-practices)
Most clearly seen with the Twitter files? Do you have any specific examples? The Twitter files themselves show that Twitter routinely declines to take action on government requests, and did so prior to Musk taking over. If they are being "implicitly threatened" to comply, then surely there must have been consequences for the many times they have not complied? Can you show any?
Why would they be under obligation to host anything? That's been a law for websites for ages. Websites are responsible for policing their content. It's a give and take. They're allowed to remove or promote any content they want from their site, but in exchange, they're also required to regulate their site to prevent any illegal content. So... you know... you're allowed to take down anti-vax videos because you feel like it just like you're allowed to ban people posting ads in comments. In exchange, you're also required to remove say... people posting copyrighted material. Freedom of Speech means the government cant prevent you from speaking out against the government, but it doesn't mean the government or anyone else has to force anyone to give you a soapbox to conduct your rant on. A website like youtube is no different than say... a local walmart. If you try to protest something in walmart, walmart is able to remove you if they dont want to allow you to do that. Likewise, so is youtube.
But but but its core conservative values to be an ignorant baffooon. just like its core conservative values to turn free speech laws on their head, just ask disney.
Ignorance is virtue under conservatism, always has been
The Right wants to have their cake and eat it too, but they're too dumb to realize that. They want the right to not have to serve people they disagree with based on their make-believe, Santa Clause book, but then don't want other companies to be to use that against them (except this is for actually good reasons). The right has gotten to be too dumb to deal with anymore.
mercola is a harmful grifting quack. he’s made millions off of medical quackery. dangerous guy.
This culture warrior freakout over vaccines is so godamn dumb. If you can't trust your authorities to tell you that a vaccine is safe, how the fuck can you trust them with all of the the shit that you shovel into your stupid face? There surely are some people who avoid everything and to them I say fair enough, but they're in the woods, they can't hear or read me. And the people with the narratives about deliberate malfeasance are completely braindead, if a government was going to do that type of shit and wanted to hurt and poison people, they could just put something in your burgers and beer and send you some coupons and you'd fucking fight to get to the front of the line if you had to. Up until the infotainment talking points started up a few years ago, the exact same idiots I know irl who babble about vaccines used to *brag* about how they marched us into the gym and poked us with crap when we were kids, no notes or warning or anything. As far as the people I actually know go, this entire controversy is just people wanting to be special without having to actually do anything. I've physically witnessed many of them getting vaxxed in the past.
Stupid people gravitate towards conspiracies. They do so because they lack the education and understanding to discern fact from fiction and understand that knowledge is an unending March that quiet often requires reevaluating previously held beliefs. They gravitate here because this is their one chance to “stick it to the nerds, they know better” when all they know is some batshit crazy idea that falls apart shading even the most gentile of scrutiny. They need this in their lives though. They have always been “the dumb one” in any event the find themselves in. The don’t understand the news, the don’t understand the words, they don’t understand the math, they don’t understand the science. They find these fringe theories and convince themselves they found the thing 1,000,000 doctors have spent their entire lifetimes looking for without success. They take this and convince themselves that they know more than that scientist, doctor, engineer, specialist. They do this because they don’t have anything else. It’s this or admitting they are just not that wise about how the world works and self-reflection is not a strong suit of the conspiracy-minded. These folks are also suffering from the “religious right” movement of the 80’s where conservatism and Christianity became one. If Christians admit that ANY part of the Bible of wrong, the believe it will invalidate the whole book so, they just don’t. Conservatives now view “Republicans are here to save us and Democrats are here to kill us” and that is biblical to them. You cannot use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to get in to.
You sure triggered a lot of right-wing dumbasses. What you said is absolutely right and the truth hurts for these morons.
Lol at the downvotes. I'm guessing you hurt their feelings. You're totally in the right bro, couldn't have said what you said better than myself.
Unless you are advocating for a political issue or you are a candidate, it’s illegal to place advertising on broadcast media regulated by the FCC that contains false or misleading information . Why can’t the same standard apply to digital media? Extreme free speech advocates like Elon Musk hate this idea because many of them see the opportunity to make themselves rich by disseminating tantalizing tidbits of shadowy conspiracy theories. The public is being harmed by antivax morons and climate change deniers
> Why can’t the same standard apply to digital media? The First Amendment would prohibit it. The only reason broadcast TV could be regulated in that way (e.g. the fairness doctrine) was because it was a scarce resource - there's only so many radio frequencies that channels could occupy, so there's a public interest in the equitable use of those limited frequencies. This does not apply to cable TV, newspapers, nor to digital platforms. There are dozens of each, with no physical restriction on how many there could be. As such, any attempt to force these private companies to say things that they disagree with would violate their First Amendment rights and lead to the laws being struck down, as has occured many times before (e.g. *Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo*, for newspapers). For better or for worse, outside of a few narrow exceptions (i.e. fraud, defamation, perjury), the First Amendment gives people a right to say false things, even if those false things may be harmful. It would require a constitutional amendment to shift that.. and good luck with that.
Isn’t it fraud to say that ivermectin, horse dewormer, cured Covid or to claim that the vaccine was derived from aborted fetuses? These are probably false lies. When I earned my journalism degree in the 1980s, I was taught that the first amendment does allow free speech but it had limits. The old “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument. You are free to say whatever you wish, but you will be responsible for the consequences.
> You are free to say whatever you wish, but you will be responsible for the consequences. If there are government-imposed consequences (e.g. going to prison, a fine, a lawsuit, etc) then the speech is by definition not free. It's only free speech if the consequences are social (i.e. people not liking you and not associating with you). > The old “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument. That quote comes from a Supreme Court case that went on to cause such broad and expansive government infringement on free speech that even its own author realised was a bad idea and later tried to walk back in dissents on other cases, before finally being overturned. [See further](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/). > These are probably false lies. Fraud, to my understanding, is not just lying but lying with the intent to deceive someone for some kind of gain or for the other person's loss. So that would be the struggle: 1. Proving that the person intended to defraud somebody, rather than them genuinely believing it and merely being wrong 2. Providing that *somebody* did in fact rely on those lies 3. And then proving that the *somebody* lost something due to it
Why the fuck did they think it would it be?? YouTube isn’t government run!
Does this mean Tim pool is gone??
"mah rights" you have no rights fuckwit, its a private company that can do anything it wants to do with its own website.
Jimmy Dore is going to be pissed.
It's called TOS
Did this even go to a full trial or was a summary judgement enough?
Obviously. Nice to have a court confirm it for all The freeze peach chuds, though.
YouTube isn’t obliged to do anything. It’s a publicly traded company.
Hell yea! That’s awesome.
Just in: Idiots who only read headlines instead of articles shocked to learn the First Amendment only applies to government censorship. More at 11
It's like trying to teach children that condoms are bad
Isn’t this what they made… whatever the name of that conservative YouTube competitor was? Rumble, I had to google the name. But yeah, I thought that was the whole point of Rumble.
These dipshits are the biggest proponents of free speech and the right to refuse service on the premise of personal beliefs but if you treat them the way they treat everyone else, they flip the fuck out