Social media censorship is a problem - US Attorney General

[Hanno Labuschagne]

Social media censorship is a problem - US Attorney General

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said social media giants are “starting to censor” views and antitrust law can be used to address their dominance, doubling down on Justice Department proposals to limit legal protections for online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Internet platforms are taking down views based on “whether they agree with the viewpoint or not,” which makes them a publisher rather than a neutral platform, voiding the liability protection they enjoy under the law, Barr said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Last week, the Justice Department outlined proposals that would limit platforms’ discretion over removing political posts and take away liability protection for encrypted platforms such as Facebook’s WhatsApp. The recommendations followed a feud between President Donald Trump and Twitter, which slapped fact-checks on some of his tweets.

[Bloomberg]

 

[Sl8er]

This can't happen fast enough.
Freedom of speech FTW.

 

[lucifir]

This is going to get interesting.

 

[RaptorSA]

Feels like we have to learn this lesson over and over again... f**ing tired of it.
Allow everything, no matter how heinous.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Social media censorship is a problem - US Attorney General

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said social media giants are “starting to censor” views and antitrust law can be used to address their dominance, doubling down on Justice Department proposals to limit legal protections for online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Internet platforms are taking down views based on “whether they agree with the viewpoint or not,” which makes them a publisher rather than a neutral platform, voiding the liability protection they enjoy under the law, Barr said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Last week, the Justice Department outlined proposals that would limit platforms’ discretion over removing political posts and take away liability protection for encrypted platforms such as Facebook’s WhatsApp. The recommendations followed a feud between President Donald Trump and Twitter, which slapped fact-checks on some of his tweets.

[Bloomberg]

Pffft. "just social media": any censorship is daft, but let's tell that to BLM, BD, OBLM.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

The Left having a meltdown in 3....2...1....

 

[Supercarfan]

For a bunch of tough guys the right do moan an awful lot about things being unfair... I thought that was the left’s shtick?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The Left having a meltdown in 3....2...1....

Spot of irony in talking about 'the left' having a meltdown when this is part of a years-long tantrum from conservatives (here by Barr) based on their ever-present victimhood complex.

Another spot of irony in them wanting government to regulate what private entities are allowed to do with their own property.

 

[kolaval]

Another spot of irony in them wanting government to regulate what private entities are allowed to do with their own property.

Rather disingenuous of you?
They are already regulated by government.
These private entities wield an absurd amount of power.
This revolves around free speech.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Rather disingenuous of you?
They are already regulated by government.
These private entities wield an absurd amount of power.
This revolves around free speech.

Why do you think it's disingenuous? They want the government to regulate what content websites are allowed to host, including speech.

How is the content they host on their websites regulated by government at present, outside illegal content/copyright issues?

And yes, they do wield a lot of power. In principle I'm not opposed to antitrust action - but for actual issues, not retribution based on a false premise and hurt feelings.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Why do you think it's disingenuous? They want the government to regulate what content websites are allowed to host, including speech.

How is the content they host on their websites regulated by government at present, outside illegal content/copyright issues?

And yes, they do wield a lot of power. In principle I'm not opposed to antitrust action - but for actual issues, not retribution based on a false premise and hurt feelings.

Talk about irony....

 

[Sl8er]

Spot of irony in talking about 'the left' having a meltdown when this is part of a years-long tantrum from conservatives (here by Barr) based on their ever-present victimhood complex.

Another spot of irony in them wanting government to regulate what private entities are allowed to do with their own property.

But that's just the thing:
The first amendment says that government can't censor / regulate speech, so if they "enforce" anything, it would be "free speech".
The other thing is, government isn't going to regulate anything, they're just going to remove the section 230 protection.
Ie. The social media companies are still free to do exactly as they please, the only difference being that they'll be treated the same
as any other publisher -just like magazines are.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

But that's just the thing:
The first amendment says that government can't censor / regulate speech, so if they "enforce" anything, it would be "free speech".
The other thing is, government isn't going to regulate anything, they're just going to remove the section 230 protection.
Ie. The social media companies are still free to do exactly as they please, the only difference being that they'll be treated the same
as any other publisher -just like magazines are.

The government deciding what content you're allowed to host on your own website is regulating it.

And you're still misunderstanding Section 230. The distinction between user-generated content and publisher-generated content is what you're missing.

I replied to you previously in another thread, but you may have missed it, so I'll repost.

"Section 230 is what enables websites to have user-generated content that they aren't legally liable for. Think comments on a website that users/readers (i.e. third parties) post , not the website itself.

Without it, it'd be almost impossible to have forums, news sites, blogs etc. as they'd be sued into oblivion for things third parties post.

So Trump actually depends on the Section 230 protections Twitter has, because without it, they'd be sued for what he's posting, meaning they're much more likely to just remove him.

...

Magazines and newspapers generate content themselves, for which they're legally liable. They're not legally liable for comments that third parties post on their websites. They have T&Cs they can enforce to moderate it.

You can sue Twitter for what Twitter says, but you can't sue Twitter for what Trump says on Twitter."

Magazines and newspapers don't have the ability for third parties to insert content into their print magazines and newspapers, but websites do.

So the analogy doesn't work.

 

[access]

The Left having a meltdown in 3....2...1....

 

[Sl8er]

The government deciding what content you're allowed to host on your own website is regulating it.

You're going to have to explain this to me with an example please, because I'm obviously not getting it.
What content are they deciding that you're allowed to host on your website?

And you're still misunderstanding Section 230. The distinction between user-generated content and publisher-generated content is what you're missing.

I replied to you previously in another thread, but you may have missed it, so I'll repost.

"Section 230 is what enables websites to have user-generated content that they aren't legally liable for. Think comments on a website that users/readers (i.e. third parties) post , not the website itself.

Without it, it'd be almost impossible to have forums, news sites, blogs etc. as they'd be sued into oblivion for things third parties post.

So Trump actually depends on the Section 230 protections Twitter has, because without it, they'd be sued for what he's posting, meaning they're much more likely to just remove him.

Only if they want to police what he's saying, though?
What if they just didn't censor anything?

...

Magazines and newspapers generate content themselves, for which they're legally liable. They're not legally liable for comments that third parties post on their websites. They have T&Cs they can enforce to moderate it.

You can sue Twitter for what Twitter says, but you can't sue Twitter for what Trump says on Twitter."

Magazines and newspapers don't have the ability for third parties to insert content into their print magazines and newspapers, but websites do.

So the analogy doesn't work.

So...what happens if social media companies just throw their hands in the air and go:
Right...we're out, boys.
We're no longer going to censor, edit or police anything anymore.
We're going to just be the platform and not the publisher from now on.
We'll be like the phone company.
(Which was supposed to be the point from the beginning, as far as I understand?)

Instead, they want to be treated like a phone company...that has the power to cut off your conversation if they don't like what you're saying.
(Can you imagine being on a call with someone and suddenly the call drops because the phone company didn't agree
with your opinion? That's kinda' how I'm understanding this whole thing.)

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You're going to have to explain this to me with an example please, because I'm obviously not getting it.
What content are they deciding that you're allowed to host on your website?

If they want to regulate what your terms & conditions are, or how to enforce them, how are they not deciding that?

So...what happens if social media companies just throw their hands in the air and go:
Right...we're out, boys.
We're no longer going to censor, edit or police anything anymore.
We're going to just be the platform and not the publisher from now on.
We'll be like the phone company.
(Which was supposed to be the point from the beginning, as far as I understand?)

Not really. They've always had T&Cs.

But what would happen is it would get completely overrun with bots, trolls, and general garbage. It's happened numerous time before, and there have been social media sites that try it but they all inevitably collapse because it just ends up being a garbage fire.

Instead, they want to be treated like a phone company...that has the power to cut off your conversation if they don't like what you're saying.
(Can you imagine being on a call with someone and suddenly the call drops because the phone company didn't agree
with your opinion? That's kinda' how I'm understanding this whole thing.)

They already can. If you violate their T&Cs or do something illegal, they can already cut you off. That's the point of ticking the box when you sign up to use their service.

The analogy is imperfect, because you can't really compare talking on the phone to user-generated content on websites in a like-for-like fashion.

But to stay with it for a bit - what do you think would happen if phone companies were legally liable for what people say on the phone? i.e. Person X is on a call with someone and slags off person Y. Person Y finds out and sues the phone company because they enabled Person X's defamation. They would be constantly inundated with lawsuits.

That's what Section 230 is about.

So again, you need to distinguish between what the company/platform itself generates, and what its users generate.

 

[Sl8er]

If they want to regulate what your terms & conditions are, or how to enforce them, how are they not deciding that?

Assuming social media companies are platforms not publishers:
I suppose, technically, you could say "regulate"...but that's a bit disingenuous.
They're "regulating" them into free speech...they're not "regulating" them into censorship.

Like:
"We hereby 'regulate' you to allow people to say whatever they want because that's, legally, what the First Amendment of our constitution says."

Not like:
"These words are forbidden, these ideas are forbidden, we therefore 'regulate' that they are no longer used ,regardless of whether the First Amendment legally prevents us from doing so. "

All the companies need to do is adhere to the First Amendment and nothing else.
(It's all there, already.)

But, of course, if this were to happen, people would be free to express differing opinions...and apparently that is frowned upon.

Not really. They've always had T&Cs.

But what would happen is it would get completely overrun with bots, trolls, and general garbage. It's happened numerous time before, and there have been social media sites that try it but they all inevitably collapse because it just ends up being a garbage fire.

Then they need to figure it out.
Instead of spending so much time policing people's speech, they could police for bots. Trolls and general garbage exists in real life and people seem to navigate those just fine.
I don't know what the solution is, but censoring or policing opinions (aka "free speech") you don't agree with is not it.
They're smart, they can figure it out, I'm sure.

Can you imagine if every time Elon wanted to start one of his projects and someone would tell him he couldn't do it, it's impossible, he shouldn't try and he just gave up?
I'm sure that probably actually happened all the time, but he didn't listen...and so he did it. He figured it out. In the future, someone else will come along and perfect what he started...but the
point is he didn't listen.

If in 1969 people could land a tin can on the moon with a computer that has less processing power than a modern day calculator, I'm sure they can figure this out.
I have confidence in them.

They already can. If you violate their T&Cs or do something illegal, they can already cut you off. That's the point of ticking the box when you sign up to use their service.

Their service shouldn't top the First Amendment because they disagree with an opinion. (And, "yes" conservatives are 100% absolutely being targeted over "liberals" / alt-left extremists, on social media platforms -as proven by a number of project veritas undercover videos. [Personally, that O'Keefe {or whatever his name is} dude comes off as a bit of a fickle dick, but you can't argue with the available evidence anymore.] It is what it is.)

The analogy is imperfect, because you can't really compare talking on the phone to user-generated content on websites in a like-for-like fashion.

But to stay with it for a bit - what do you think would happen if phone companies were legally liable for what people say on the phone? i.e. Person X are on a call with someone and slags off person Y. Person Y finds out and sues the phone company because they enabled Person X's defamation. They would be constantly inundated with lawsuits.

That's what Section 230 is about.

But that's exactly the point.
The phone companies knew they couldn't police everything...whereas the social media companies think they can -which, obviously, they can't without
becoming a publisher. So they want to be the platform...but with the power (of the publisher) to police your speech.

But yeah, you're right. A more apt analogy would probably be "the new town square".

It's all really simple.
They should've stuck to not policing speech...boom!...problem solved.

In the beginning you could've pretty much posted what you wanted -except maybe for inciting violence, First Amendment-style stuff, basically.
Things started really going south after "The Great Meltdown of 2016" -maybe a couple of years earlier, even.

Now they keep poking the bear...what do they think is going to happen?
The problem is, they can't back down anymore...because then they'd lose face with their very small, very vocal alt-left minority.
They would totally survive if they decided to just stick to the First Amendment. Things might not end so well if they continue poking the hornet's nest.
I certainly wouldn't take that chance if I were them...but I'm all about that "Free speech" thing, so... *shrug*

I remember when the real liberals were all about that free speech and stuff...jeez, how things have changed....

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Assuming social media companies are platforms not publishers:
I suppose, technically, you could say "regulate"...but that's a bit disingenuous.
They're "regulating" them into free speech...they're not "regulating" them into censorship.

Like:
"We hereby 'regulate' you to allow people to say whatever they want because that's, legally, what the First Amendment of our constitution says."

Not like:
"These words are forbidden, these ideas are forbidden, we therefore 'regulate' that they are no longer used ,regardless of whether the First Amendment legally prevents us from doing so. "

All the companies need to do is adhere to the First Amendment and nothing else.
(It's all there, already.)

But, of course, if this were to happen, people would be free to express differing opinions...and apparently that is frowned upon.

The First Amendment binds the government, not private individuals or entities, so nope - not how it works.

And no - what you're asking for is for government to be the arbiter of what kind of content private web/social platforms are allowed to have in the first place. You're effectively arguing that Ben Shapiro's website has to run pro-Antifa articles, otherwise he's censoring them.

Why do you think government should be the arbiter of what private companies are allowed to put on their own property?

I don't know if you have/run any websites or forums, but do you think the government should be the one that decides what you're allowed to put on it?

Then they need to figure it out.
Instead of spending so much time policing people's speech, they could police for bots. Trolls and general garbage exists in real life and people seem to navigate those just fine.
I don't know what the solution is, but censoring or policing opinions (aka "free speech") you don't agree with is not it.
They're smart, they can figure it out, I'm sure.

Can you imagine if every time Elon wanted to start one of his projects and someone would tell him he couldn't do it, it's impossible, he shouldn't try and he just gave up?
I'm sure that probably actually happened all the time, but he didn't listen...and so he did it. He figured it out. In the future, someone else will come along and perfect what he started...but the
point is he didn't listen.

If in 1969 people could land a tin can on the moon with a computer that has less processing power than a modern day calculator, I'm sure they can figure this out.
I have confidence in them.

lol - "just figure it out". They have, it's called having T&C's and enforcing them.

When you sign up to use their service and gain access to their property (i.e. website/app/platform), you agree to abide by their T&C's.

How do you think websites with user-generated content remain functional at all?

Their service shouldn't top the First Amendment because they disagree with an opinion.

As mentioned above, the First Amendment applies to government, not private individuals or entities.

(And, "yes" conservatives are 100% absolutely being targeted over "liberals" / alt-left extremists, on social media platforms -as proven by a number of project veritas undercover videos.

No, they aren't. It's a completely bogus claim. Conservatives dominate social media platforms, routinely getting the most reach and most recommendations via their algorithm.

In fact, social media companies, like Facebook, explicitly grants special leniency to conservatives, like Ben Shapiro. In reality, they appoint conservative operatives and give them the ability to overrule the company's own policies and T&Cs to give conservatives extra leeway that no one else gets.

[Personally, that O'Keefe {or whatever his name is} dude comes off as a bit of a fickle dick, but you can't argue with the available evidence anymore.] It is what it is.)

A fraudster who's specifically known for selectively editing videos and hoaxes? Uh, of course you can argue with it.

But that's exactly the point.
The phone companies knew they couldn't police everything...whereas the social media companies think they can -which, obviously, they can't without
becoming a publisher. So they want to be the platform...but with the power (of the publisher) to police your speech.

But yeah, you're right. A more apt analogy would probably be "the new town square".

Only if by "town square" you mean a privately owned spot of land where the owner allows people access if they sign a form agreeing to abide by the owner's T&C's, and the owner retains the right to kick people off his property, because - ya know, it's his, and not the government's.

It's all really simple.
They should've stuck to not policing speech...boom!...problem solved.

I know, right? Fox News keeps policing speech and censoring Noam Chomsky for not airing his articles and interviews.

 

[noxibox]

Even though I don't support censorship the so-called right are only whining because it is their material getting taken down. They have a long history of supporting censorship.

 

[Sl8er]

The First Amendment binds the government, not private individuals or entities, so nope - not how it works.

Nope, not just government, in fact this applies especially to individuals.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech.Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.


A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.


Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

first_amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

And no - what you're asking for is for government to be the arbiter of what kind of content private web/social platforms are allowed to have in the first place. You're effectively arguing that Ben Shapiro's website has to run pro-Antifa articles, otherwise he's censoring them.

Not at all.
If Ben Shapiro's website claimed to be a platform, then Ben Shapiro couldn't censor what other people posted onto his platform --this allows him section 230 protection.
If Ben Shapiro's website claimed to be a private website, (Ie. he's a / the publisher), Ben Shapiro can censor whatever anyone posts on his site --this does not allow section 230 protection.
Either way, the government still couldn't force Ben Shapiro to put out an article he disagrees with -I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I've asked this question before, but no one answered, so I'll ask again (maybe you can tell me):
Are social media companies "platforms" or "publishers"?
(What's the fancy version of "publisher" again? .... Oh yeah, "content provider" or something like that.)
(It's the same thing, so let's call it what it is, to avoid any confusion: "publisher")

Why do you think government should be the arbiter of what private companies are allowed to put on their own property?

I don't know if you have/run any websites or forums, but do you think the government should be the one that decides what you're allowed to put on it?

See, above.

That's exactly the problem. They claim protection under the "platform" label, while acting like a "publisher" -which would not afford them the same protection.
That's what this whole spiel is about.
If they claim to be a publisher -again, which they are right now- they need to be treated as such.

So, if these companies go, "Look guys, we're publishers," the government can't do anything...but on the flip-side they (the companies) are then open to being sued.
If the companies go, "We're a platform," the government can tell them that they can't censor or edit what people say or type.

lol - "just figure it out". They have, it's called having T&C's and enforcing them.

When you sign up to use their service and gain access to their property (i.e. website/app/platform), you agree to abide by their T&C's.

How do you think websites with user-generated content remain functional at all?

See above, "publisher" vs "platform" (I might be repeating this a couple more times, because that's essentially the crux of the matter.
Forcing these companies to publicly state what they are. They can't be both.

As mentioned above, the First Amendment applies to government, not private individuals or entities.

See First Amendment "stuff" above.

No, they aren't. It's a completely bogus claim. Conservatives dominate social media platforms, routinely getting the most reach and most recommendations via their algorithm.

In fact, social media companies, like Facebook, explicitly grants special leniency to conservatives, like Ben Shapiro. In reality, they appoint conservative operatives and give them the ability to overrule the company's own policies and T&Cs to give conservatives extra leeway that no one else gets.

A fraudster who's specifically known for selectively editing videos and hoaxes? Uh, of course you can argue with it.

Ah yes, the "but look, nothing's happened to Ben Shapiro" defense.
(I really hate the fact that you're making me defend these people, because I generally don't agree with most of their stuff, but I'm in the
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." camp.)

The "big guys" are not the "target" audience. The social media companies don't go after the "big boys" -that would be too blatantly obvious.
They go after the "little guys". The guy that posts a MAGA hat wearing pic. The woman who posts about the trump rally. The people talking about
how great The Orange Don is or who post positive articles about him. Your normal everyday people. (Despite of what you may think or believe of them, 90% are
just normal people.)

As for the veritas stuff, I'm going to guess you haven't seen any of the clips.
Feel free to watch them here (it's pretty conclusive):

Facbook doesn't like when they're exposed:

Only if by "town square" you mean a privately owned spot of land where the owner allows people access if they sign a form agreeing to abide by the owner's T&C's, and the owner retains the right to kick people off his property, because - ya know, it's his, and not the government's.

That's not even remotely the same thing.

I know, right? Fox News keeps policing speech and censoring Noam Chomsky for not airing his articles and interviews.

See "platform" vs "publisher" thingie above.