The reason that was the best podcast I've listened to in a long time, is because you guys had a genuine heated debate about a subject, not necessarily coming to 100% in agreement, and are still buds, looking forward to the next one. I appreciate your example tremendously 🤜🤛
I like that they are able to have different types of episodes on everything they do. It’s not always the same thing over and over but also, they kinda have recurring segments for people to look forward too. Not sure how much is planning on their end, but it works well.
The ability to have this specific podcast with the disagreements perfectly sums up Jake's argument imo. Differing opinions not being silenced bc the other side doesn't like them and not giving the platform (that performs at a public space scale) the ability to silence the discourse. Great episode and discussion!
I agree that the “silencing of discourse” SHOULD NOT happen BUT the “ability” to do so is not something that needs to be given. Platforms are owned by companies/corporations who can do what they choose to do.
I’d say the difference (at least in your specific example) is that this is openly presented as a discussion, there’s no harmful or misleading BS being shared. Stuff being posted that’s blatantly untrue and dangerous is what Niko and Sam are talking about.
The added “chapters” or whatever you’ll call it, on the video are super helpful. For some reason if I accidentally skip the video, it forgets where I was and I have to try to find it again.
One of my favourite episodes by far. I was so engaged that I was literally shouting out responses to some of your arguments during the last section. Respect and love to all three of you. By the way, what a phenomenal hire! Every video I watch with Jordan in it, it feels like he has ALWAYS been a part of the crew. I still can’t believe he came onboard just a few months ago. He fits Corridor like a hand fits in a glove.
You can tell Jake is a lawyer here, haha. I totally understand what Niko and Sam are saying - but Jake is doing his best to point out some of their logical fallacies with more patience than I have, haha. Honestly though, this is SUCH a tricky debate / problem there is no simple solution on the "platform vs. private" discussion...
The benefit of a "devil's advocate" in the friend group is it forces you to define your argument and checks the group from being lazy/sloppy with their logic. Honestly the whole conversation wouldn't have happened had Jake not started asking questions and making objections. If you're reading this Jake, Thank you for this episode.
The problem is TH-cam presents itself as unbiased and a free speech platform and while they have a right to have a bias they also have a moral obligation not to claim or imply that they allow all opinions on the platform when they clearly do not.
They do? I've never gotten that vibe from TH-cam. It's a private company's website. It's not government. So, I have to abide by their rules or deal with the consequences. Hell, we do this with discord channels and forums. If you don't follow my rules, I can ban you because it's my forum, my channel, etc. You are projecting this unbiased view onto YT because of your world view. And thats ok! But everyone's WV is different. But this is all pretty cut and dry thanks to a few rules enacted by Congress for US companies.
I honestly LOVE how they can get into a heated debate and disagreements and remain great friends afterwards. They've got such a healthy relationship and every single podcast, no matter what they talk about is so engaging. The corridor workspace is goals
I listened to this on my commute this morning, and for about 45mins of the podcast I completely forgot Jordan was even on it. Had to check back in on the video just too see him patiently listen lol
People often get their rights confused, or fail to take into account the competing rights of different parties. You have a right to free speech. Companies have a right not to host it. When companies enforce their right not to host someone’s speech, it doesn’t nullify that person’s right to free speech. _Consider:_ You have a right to eat. A restaurant has a right not to serve you. If a restaurant bans you for, say, not adhering to their rules, that doesn’t mean they’ve terminated your right to eat. In both cases you’ll take your right to speech and eat to another venue.
Can a restaurant decide not to serve you if you are black or gay? That’s illegal here in the UK (Equalities Act 2010, many other countries have similar laws), so the right of a private business to to what they want is limited when they are open to the public. The 'gay wedding cake' was a high profile example case. But let’s extend the rule to monopolies or near monopolies: what if all restaurants and supermarkets became Taco Bell, and Taco Bell blacklisted you from eating at their restaurants? A similar thing is already happening in financial services, who have decided not to be political neutral anymore in the last few years. People are being “de-banked” for political opinions…not for being involved in clear-cut illegal activities in finance...and there aren’t that many choices for banks and payment processors.
@@urbanstarship I specifically cited restaurants banning people for breaking their rules, such as improper conduct or failing to adhere to the dress code. A restaurant absolutely has the right ban a black or gay person (and indeed any person) for shouting abuse at other customers, spreading falsehoods about the food, or wearing jeans if that’s not allowed per the dress code.
I think all Niko is trying to say about platform regulation, is that IF you are a private platform, while NOT under any legal obligation to vet information or regulate content, You should eventually be ethically responsible, if not legally culpable. At the end of the day though, It's up to a private company what they choose to censor, so they become their own arbiters of truthful content. Only the free market can choose if they are doing this fairly.
@@Triforcefilms sorry, let me be more clear. Trusting in the “Free Market” aka unfettered capitalism, to help foster a just society is just as wrong headed as trusting Communism to bring about a just a fair society. They are extremes. I’m a proponent of Capitalism. It’s the best of all the bad systems, it leverages natural instincts and needs and harnesses for progress - when properly regulated and contained. Just like aspect of Communism and it’s redheaded cousin Socialism, have helpful ideas that help create a social safety net, when these ideas are devoid of nuance, they are basically the different sides of the same coin of extremist ideology.
I agree with Jake. Platforms like twitter and youtube has become so big, that they have massive impact on public good. Goverment should regulate just like they regulate private companies not becoming monopoly.
Just watched Son of a Dungeon this week, going to watch the grand finale tonight. It is absolutely insane! I've been watching you guys since 2011 and it's awesome to see how you've turned a fun short film channel into a business model. The information you've shared has helped us grow tremendously. Much love. - Tristan
Your podcast makes me feel so safe. I can listen to such an intense and divisive debate and in the end see you guys really deliver. You guys break it down and hash it out and then build it back up and find common ground. You guys really get into it but then don't let even something this charged come between your bond. You guys are true friends to each other and it means a lot that I can listen in and experience a part of it. Thanks Corridor Digital.
3 principles that would have significantly enhanced the discussion/debate today: - listen and reflect before you act - let the other side finish before you interrupt - steelman, the other sides perspective Otherwise it was intriguing and I think if y’all took some breaths you’d find common ground faster
I really liked this podcast, and I agree with parts of both arguments when it comes to private platforms and free speech, but i think there are things that both sides may be missing. Jake’s argument from what i understand is that social media companies like google and facebook and stuff like that are so big and so influential, they are in effect public platforms. Sam and Niko’s arguments seem to be that they are private companies, and therefore cannot be held to the same standards as a government, because the constitution does not cover the actions of a company. I think one thing that was neglected in this discussion is that you simultaneously do and don’t have the choice to use these platforms. On jakes point, companies that large make it incredibly difficult for anybody not on that platform to speak, and therefore you HAVE to use the platform to communicate in any meaningful way. If they censor people, they are in effect censoring people * like * a government. However ,with Sam and Niko’s point, you can choose to use the platforms if you’d like, and it IS possible to create one that allows your viewpoint. You cannot technically use the first amendment in the argument because nobody is being forced to use the platforms. I think a * possible * way to curtail the issue is to not let the companies like google and facebook become as big as they are. They could apply rules as they see fit, with more or less censorship, but not have such a big effect on a large population that could be potentially harmful.
You make quite a good precis of the arguments. Some additional things to consider.. FB, Twitter and Google have monopolised the public square which is, like it or not, today a digital space. They have engineered their positions, through both good engineering and also bad faith aggressive positioning. It was explicitly their intention to do this and they have been extremely successful. The US administration HAS, on many levels, contracted these companies to do their work, disseminating their narrative, steering acceptance of their policies and silencing dissent. According to US law, the government cannot use a subcontractor - be it any of these digital space companies - to censor contrary to the first amendment, on their behalf. They ARE doing this, and it is unlawful. Niko is WRONG in how he interprets the publisher/platform clause of Section 230. A platform which editorialises (edits, or adds commentary to) users' posts, wherein they manipulate the content that a user posts, is a publisher. The act of applying an algorithm to determine which friends a poster has, to display according to their preferences, does not meet the standard of publisher. A platform, like a "common carrier" - eg a phone company - is not responsible for the actions of its users, whereas a publisher who chooses to wield editorial control over user content can be held liable. Other platforms, such as Gettr or Gab, do not editorialise and your news feed on their site is not manicured beyond the users' own preferences. Neither Nico nor Sam can figure out, if there is incitement to violence, whether the platform is liable for the actions of an influenced party. They are unable to rationalise that incitement is illegal, as is the violence, and so both the user that posts the incitement and the user that commits the violence are responsible for their own actions, while the platform is not, nor should it be.
Another thing to consider, is the government clearly has influence over big companies like Google or Facebook, and often do their work *through* them, basically get them to do their censorship/removing/propaganda/etc for them, and then hide behind the "well, it's not legally considered censorship unless the government does it!" argument. They basically do it indirectly through giant companies anyway to skirt the law. Also, like Jake and you pointed out, some of these companies have become so big, so influential, their online platforms have basically become the modern digital equivalent of a "public town square" anyway, so it starts to blur the line. Furthermore, often when people DO try to "make their own" they have the outrage mobs out there try to "cancel" them, get their server hosting to drop them, get their payment processors to drop them, get their banks to drop them, which sadly works sometimes, so even when you DO try to make your own it often gets sabotaged and prevented anyway, so that should be factored in as well when trying to consider the situation as a whole. These "cancel culture" types love to say "make your own" but then try to prevent it or get it cancelled when people actually do that, so they only use that as a superficial argument, not actually approving of people using that as a real option.
@@DeathBringer769 you made a important point that they missed to mention, that the infrastructure is also concentrated on a few companies and subject to the same censorship as social media. The opinions allowed by those companies and those pushed by governments (the establishment) are indistinguishable nowadays.
@@tacrocha you're right. Also, let's not forget that it was the governments around the world that forced the public square into the digital space when it enacted nearly 2 years of lockdowns and/or social distancing - in some places on pain of fines/monetary sanction and in other places even on pain of imprisonment (and in some places, a fine which if not paid resulted in imprisonment). When the government removes the option of the physical public square in the digital age, the government has made the digital space THE public square.
@@simonh 1) It is not a public square, we don't even have a definition for a public square 2) What contract did TH-cam take from the government to violate the First Amendment? 3) What is the publisher/platform clause of Section 230? I don't see it
Jake and Niko are talking past each other and are making points on two different things. What Jake is talking about is constitutional law which as Niko correctly pointed out limits the government. What Niko and Sam are talking about is civil law, specifically torts. Platforms don't want to be sued for the things people post. BUT while speech is involved here, this isn't really a matter of limiting speech. This is a matter of limiting influence. The constitution protects speech but it doesn't protect influence. You can say whatever you want on the internet. But if you want to use the established social media platforms to INFLUENCE potential millions, you've got to comply with the terms of service. I've not seen anyone who's been deplatformed stop talking or locked up. They're just not doing it in Facebook, TH-cam, or whatever.
My problem with your distinction is that it is only valid in the early 2000s, with today's reality and what might come in the future, blocking someone from the platform could be the same as putting a cephalon tape on their mouth. imagine in the future when Facebook or Twitter is more of a VR world you live in constantly, not applying free speech on those platforms is the same as limiting someone's freedom of speech, not just influence. of course, this is an exaggeration here that I used as an example but I believe today's reality is not that far off. it might not be a direct legal violation of the constitution, but it is certainly not just or even in line with the constitution's spirit/intention.
@@mdhxx first off, I want to say thank you for your thoughtful and civil response. I 👍 your comment for that 🙂. I do think you give Facebook and Twitter too much credit though to expect they will be the center of speech in the future. Even as I write this, engagement on these platforms is in decline. Spending substantial time on these platforms might make it seem as though all discussion is taking place there. It's not. People move from platform to platform over time and not everyone is all participating in one platform. I agree with you that this is a 2000s view of this form of Internet but we're still existing in this early form of the internet. If in the future there existed a decentralized and non monetized version of what we now call social media, it would be important at that point for speech to be open and free. That, I think, is what the idea of the meta verse is, not exclusively owned by anyone specifically. That's also kind of what podcasts are. They don't have to be hosted on any specific platform to be heard. But again, it's the freedom of influence that's at stake and even in a meta verse world, people will have the freedom to mute the speech they don't agree with.
Surprised that Jake cannot see that the 1st amendment does not legally apply to companies like it does to government. He seems to struggle with the distinction between private or public in a legal/technical sense vs. a moral sense. Just because a platform is massive and used by the public does not make it public speech, it is speech within a private platform that users agree, in advance, to the terms and conditions when they sign up for their account - including a number of rules on the boundaries of speech within the platform and the company's ability to regulate and remove content within those bounds. Niko's point is consistent here, which is that if a company curates speech/content then it is then technically a publisher, and then should be legally responsible for promoting content that breaks any number of existing laws (calls to violence, copyright infringement, libel , fraud, etc.) - which is something that if pursued in this manor could lead to major private and criminal lawsuits where platforms intentionally or negligently promoted law-breaking content. I share Jake's sentiment that the goal of these social platforms should be to uphold the spirit/principles of free speech and not use their curation power to shape political discourse in their favor (something Elon is trying to achieve with his acquisition of Twitter) but until there are laws made specifically against the corporate promotion and suppression of politicized speech (something likely much more dangerous in its own right) these social platforms are no different than Netflix, Xbox Live, TV channels, etc. in terms of content/speech curation. The dissemination of what is "true" and "false" information is an area that is extremely hard to regulate legally, since there is only a criminal threshold when saying something factually untrue crosses into fraud/libel/defamation/harassment territory like the Nick Sandman libel/defamation case against MSM outlets like CNN. Platforms promoting or suppressing what they consider to be true/untrue seems to fall within their own free speech right to express their opinions, and until crossing thresholds into criminal territory they are legally only beholden to act in a way that fulfills their basic corporate obligations. The statement "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" should be seen as a legitimate path for the public to impact the way these companies choose to create/modify and implement their policies on speech - but due to the very few number of massive social platforms, their inherent barriers of entry for new competitors, and the fact that they all seem to lean in one political/ideological direction means this remains an unsolved problem in the market - but in my opinion, additional regulation could just end up transferring the power of speech regulation from private platforms to the government, which then may actually cross the legal boundaries of the 1st amendment.
Jake makes very strong arguments even when the room is stacked against him. He should be a lawyer. Also Free Speech has to be protected in regards to heavily influential private platforms. If reddit and memestock twitter can influence the stock market in major ways like we have seen. Then it is proof those platforms have an overall impact on the public good and should be regulated to ensure free speech. Or we are gonna be stuck in "The Giver" type world one day.
Free speech isn't freedom from consequence though, like most seem to think in terms of social media. In a few countries hate speech (incitement etc.) is actually illegal. Also, where would you draw the line in terms of regulating a private company's products? 1M users? 1B users? Just American companies?
Niko's comment at ~1:16:14 basically saying (I think it was this -- it was challenging to hear the very end) that the truth doesn't matter when people have an influence on the algorithm is a chilling thought. Love this discussion -- thanks for sharing it with us.
"Twitter needs to stop misinformation and take a harder stance on these topic I don't agree with, they publish it, it should be illegal for them to do so" "ok, so if they should be regulated it should be in accordance with the first amendment" "WOAH WOAH WOAH they are a private company allowed to have their own internal policies, these laws are only for the government, Twitter needs to be able to do whatever it wants"
You failed on your first point. Twitter didn't have to stop misinformation. It was a PR move to show that they care about the spread of misinformation. They could have chose not to do anything at all. They are a private company that chose to stop the spread of misinformation.
One analogy might be transportation. The government builds roads, but people drive their personal cars on them. If a private company built a superhighway with no speed limit and tons of potholes, then people had a lot of accidents on it, who's at fault and how should this problem be solved? (A) By taking away the license of a few reckless drivers? (B) By the families of the accident victims suing the private highway for dangerous conditions, until the road gets shut down or chooses to fix itself to limit these financial losses? (C) By anti-trust regulation allowing a choice of train or plane alongside the superhighway? Or (D) by the government confiscating the road, adding a speed limit and filling the potholes? When it comes to internet regulation, we are currently doing (A) and it doesn't seem to go far enough. Niko is proposing (B) and Jake is proposing (D).
I legit thought Jake was going to turn on Super Saiyan Lawyer mode and destroy everyone. Then I realized Niko and Sam are his close friends. What a great guy.
Jordan for sure. Way too vocal. Calm down dude! I was captured by the conversation. Feel like you opened a platform for discussion. Glad you and jake were able to see each others point of view a bit better in the end. Listening is the biggest lesson i take from this. Love for all
The first amendment and free speech argument only applies in the US. Google and other platforms exist in 150 other countries for 4.5 Billion people where this legal right does not apply.
in a world where the internet is used to communicate more than in person, speech should not be regulated or limited. I will take dangerous freedom over "Safer regulations" any day, keep doing your thing jake,
But Jake is arguing for safer regulations... he's saying that private speech platforms have too much of an impact and should have to have government and regulatory intervention because of it?
@@mikehiebert6227 yes youake a great point, this might shock some people but the government is suppose to uphold our rights especially the bill of rights, and by having government regulations for these platforms it would be to restrict the amount of restrictions that these platforms have. now, debating on if our government is fighting for us to have our rights is a whole other issue.
Once you had a sponsor here that I can't find anymore. It was about a journal that had something like a medieval journey, I can't remember it very well but I'm interested in finding that product. Does someone know video has that sponsor? Thanks!
The Moment a social media platform claims to be a platform, they simply cannot just do what ever they want, they actually have to adhere to very, very specific rules to continue to be allowed to be a platform, and if they fail that, they become a publisher. (example: a news paper is a publisher, and so is youtube, youtube was suppose to be a platform, but it's regulation way to much content to be one) If youtube and Facebook decides not to be a platform but be a publisher that is fine by me (and they chose to be this years ago, we are talking first term during the Obama Ministration) however, when they decide to curate, alter, and delete content they have become publishers and should by default lose their safe harbor protection.
Son of a dungeon seems pretty cool, looking forward for more of the projects. I think the crew cuts are still my biggest desire to get the sub to the website.
1:04:50 This goes into the topic of intention and negligence. Let me provide 3 examples: If I live in a city and I have a rooftop garden which I need gardening tools to maintain like a wheelbarrow. Let’s say I want to kill my friend Bill who I know walks by my building at around 10:00am, I wait around for him and I see him about to walk by and I drop the wheelbarrow onto his head and I kill him. I am responsible for his death because I intended to kill him by dropping the wheelbarrow on him. Let’s use the same example but I don’t intend to kill anyone specifically, let’s say I just want to drop the wheelbarrow off of the roof. That is extremely negligent because now I am creating a situation where someone could die or be injured by my actions. I didn’t consider that it could land on someone, it could land in busy traffic which could cause horrible car accidents, it could damage property (public or private), many things could happen as a result of my negligence for which I could be sued or prosecuted. Let’s use the same example one last time but this time I have a little tool shed on my roof which I use to lock away my wheelbarrow, I also have some knee high siding on my roof to prevent things from falling off. If someone comes to my rooftop while I’m not there and breaks into my tool shed, and drops my wheelbarrow off of the roof and kills someone or creates a dangerous situation. I did everything a reasonable person would do to prevent accidents like this. Someone intentionally broke into my tool shed and dropped the wheelbarrow onto the sidewalk. That is not my fault. In the example given by Sam, you could present similar arguments. If Sam have the book to Jake and Niko and he knew that they have a tendency to do stuff like this and he intended for them to break windows, then he is responsible for them breaking windows. Let’s use the same situation, he knew they had a tendency to do these things but he didn’t consider what could happen were he to give them this book. He is negligent in causing them to break windows which is not as serious of a charge, but it is still very illegal. Same situation again but he had no clue that Jake and Niko had a tendency to do this, he just wanted to show them this funny book. If they go and break windows, it’s not his fault because he had no clue they would go and do these things because it’s not something a reasonable person considers if they don’t know that someone does things like this.
49:19 I'd say this example Sam gives would work better as in: you go to a town and you almost hit yourself against a light pole. You get upset by it and want the town to ban light poles because they are "dangerous" even though they have been useful for many others in the town at night. So instead of you moving to a town were there are no light poles, no, the town decides to oblige and take them away or simply never turn them on. Now if you want light at night you should go and live in a town that has them or make your own town with them. That's how it has been with certain subjects that just because some people haven't liked or sponsors didn't agree with, they have had to be either removed or shadow banned. Different from taking away actual sharp objects that were placed there with the actual intention to hurt someone. Which would be something like actual snuff. Something actually against the law. Not some fictional violence or political views or opinions. But to be fair, Sam pretty much comes to a similar conclusion at the end of the episode.
The point that Jake was bringing up about public vs. private company stuff was actually a really big problem back when the internet was in its infancy I can't remember the exact details of but it came down to 2 ruling companies will be held liable for anything on their platform if they regulate it if the users are thr ones to moderate it the companies hands stay free TH-cam regulates the platform whether they admit it or not but they are inadvertently making themselves liable for anything that's on here
I agree, and Section 230 was intended to resolve the issue by providing platform/publisher protection. However, "big tech" abuses the intention of 230 by exploiting its imprecise language. It claims the right to be a publisher when it wants control over the narrative while simultaneously claiming platform status when it wishes to avoid culpability. The abuse of Section 230 by the digital giants must stop.
Great episode, this in my opinion links to a pandemic that has been ruling the online world for the past couple of years which is canceling disagreement and that people can't bare to hear somebody go against them. It's much easier to stroke your ego and only talk to people who agree with you and shut down anybody who says otherwise than to try and have a constructive conversation about something. And this is seen from all "political mindsets" as that's what people like to bring it down to a lot of the time. Everyone is to blame. As for the social media platforms. At the end of the day they are there to make money and they will do everything that benefits them in making the most money. And as they are spread worldwide and not in just one country applying laws for the immoral actions they take is I believe extremely complex.
I was trying to find a good analogy for private companies offering free speech, but then regulating it. Imagine companies like Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, instagram etc. Is like a home they own, and they invite you to stay and live. And let's say, that you want to open up all the windows and doors, so that everyone in public can hear what you want to say. But then the owner of the house says. "no no, you can't open up the windows or doors unless we allow you to". The question is do they have a right to do that? The obvious answer could be sure, because it's their house and they offered you a place to stay for "free". This is where the line between legality and morality get blurred.
I have so much to say about the free speech/ online platforms discussion. But one thing I don't hear a lot about is personal responsibility. For example, the Tide Pods challenge, particularly talking about teenagers, are they not responsible for their own actions to some degree? Everyone focuses on where the teenager heard it from and says they're at fault, but why isn't any attention given to who is listening to the person online. I think the same can be said for people spreading bad information online, doesn't the individual have some kind of responsibility to themselves to think critically? So don't get me wrong people can be possessed by ego, their own beliefs and things of the like, but I think it's something people overlook all the time. Finally, the reason I mentioned just teenagers in my previous example in that there's kind of the grey area for children up until they are too young to know better, anyway, great podcast!
Twitter has like 400M users globally, they're like a small town square basically, just amplified to bonkers magnitudes cause most large entities have a presence there and it spreads from there via more antiquated means of media (news).
And Google, Amazon and Azure (Microsoft) are the public internet infrastructure. If you try to "build your own TH-cam", they will kick you out without due process if you're someone they want to censor.
Thanks for the talk guys! Feels good to listen to something while I'm working. Although, I couldn't help but notice the center of the video and how the 4 clips aren't aligned properly or is it just Jake's being greedy with space...
Oh Sam and Niko think they can win a legal argument with a lawyer….hahah great points Jake and good job staying so patient! Would love to see more topics like this on the podcast.
You ever have a conversation /argument where you're pretty sure in your side, and then you hear it from a third person perspective and you realize how dumb you sound. That's what's happening with this podcast and the public forum/ private company debate they had. Full-on team Niko but Jake really opened my eyes
My take on it was that the argument was really about who needs to take accountability for legitimately harmful, slanderous and libelous free speech statements. So more about dealing with the ramifications of free speech. Jake is in favour of the government regulating TH-cams ability to operate as a private platform disregarding 1st amendment rights (because their impact is too big), and seemingly that people will be held responsible on the individual scale for harmful statements. Niko is in favor of of the platforms maintaining their ability to allow or disallow anybody they want from participating on the platform, as is their right as a private company. BUT because youtube currates and promotes its content knowingly to a mass audience, and has the ability to control dissemination of harmful statements on their platform, the government should hold TH-cam directly accountable.
You have the right to have free speech. But not everything said is free speech. Get it? You have the freedom to pursue happiness, etc. But your freedoms can't infringe on my freedom. Get it? The far right is just as woke as the far left.
@@kpNov23free speech is the freedom of expression, the types of speech that fall outside of that are thinks like threats and fraud, opinions involving racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry, if you believe in censoring the expression of replusive ideas you don't support free speech For example, the following would be protected by freedom of speech "I believe that [insert minority group here] is biologically inforior and less capable of reason and should not be able to vote like [insert majority group here]" The following example would not "Hey Cletus grab that rope and those pitchforks we're going to go [insert racist crime here] John down the street" It's pretty simple, but the bottom line is you cannot censor expression and act like you support free speech
I’m happy that you guys can have a debate and not fall out. It’s good to have different opinions it makes the world a far more interesting place. Also can’t seminar for son of a dungeon again
niko is missing one important fact. the internet is a public utility. it is very much a public space. if you have a website it is literally open to the public to access the domain address you have bought/arguably rented because you have to keep paying the registrar. it is not a private network. it is public. if you want to create a private network that is accessible through the internet you can do that. you have to password protect and block off public access to the content behind the wall and so all of that is private. but twitter, facebook, etc i can pay a isp, a utility, public utility, and then access those websites and see all the content they have available to the public. just like a supermarket, a pub/bar (a public house), and there are laws around the public square. an area in which people have commonly congregated to be the main public square, in America, absolutely can be privately owned property. parks can be privately owned and there are laws around whether the owners can operate as a private company and refuse access to specific people, and there are laws that make sure people cannot be restricted from that square which has become the defacto public square. they can operate and sell people ice cream in their park, and put up advertisements in their property, they absolutely can do that just as twitter and facebook can have advertisements, on the public faceing parts of their site, just like any website, but if millions of people now use that s the public square and theres no real alternative, say because the company bought up most of the land in a town, then there are laws that make sure people cannot be kicked out of this space. the company benefit from being a public square, so they have to follow those rules. the internet absolutely should operate in that same way. twitter facebook, youtube etc, are so massive at this point, you cant deny that, the data is there as to how massive the traffic flow and size they are as a segment of the entire internet. they are the public square now, and no amount of "setup your own website" can create a viable alternative. especially when these same platforms will use their control to shut down people from being able to do so. google/apple/amazon shutting down parler, because because who were banned from twitter/facebook etc were going there... disgusting. massive abuse of their power. paypal, and banks refuse to work with specific people/businesses after they get kicked off other platforms. they dont have the ability to "make your own website". and its incredibly naive to think thats a viable solution to this. imagine if every movie editing software in the industry tomorrow decided corridor digital has the wrong opinions, none of them are allowed to use our product. they can make their own video editi software. then cannon, red, etc all join in, decide youre not allowed to use their products. whoever your website server provider is decides to end your contract. whoever the company is that handles your user payments, they cut you off so you cant get money from your customers, the customer cant access your site, you site has no centnet. you have to invent cameras, invent software, build your own servers, build you own bank.... does that seem realistic? either these platforms acept that they are public squares and stop censoring people, or THEY can make their own internet. the internet is a utility, the infrastructure is paid for by taxes, its regulated by the government just like radiowaves are for tv, etc, if twitter wants to take away some people ability to use the public square, if they don't want to be the public square, they can setup and entirely private infrastructure, and see if they can still operate that way. see if they can manage to buy land that crosses entire states in order to run optical cable through their own land. see if they can do what elon musk has done and create a satellite based internet. and even then, twitter don't own the atmosphere, do they have a right to put that many satellites up there and refuse some people from using their service? this is a question of how we want the world to work. do you want one person determining reality, and ruining the lives of anyone who disagrees? because that is where we are at, or very quickly approaching. there is also the fact that the american government cannot censor someone indirectly by telling someone or some company to do it for them. And we have absolutely seen that happen with the biden administration admitting that they work with these platforms and tell them what regulations to put in place. they cant say "oh were just advising them, they dont have to do it, so we're not censoring people". thats bs. theres even evidence from the times article about the 2020 election that democrat politicians were working with these platforms in order to "control the flow of information", should that really be allowed? is that good for society?
The political platform for a Democracy isn't the only building block for a humane society.. you need an actual sympathetic and truthful and people with integrity to run a democratic nation/society.. the failsafe of democratic systems is good like the free media, justice system or free speech, but it can derail if the people in the democratic society doesn't respect its own social structures/foundation.. That is why Muslim nations don't work for democracies for instance, as their values don't align with tolerance or other democratic values.. or it could be another type of democracy.. like democracy that discriminate minority and women but is a democracy for men.. sort like viking democracy circles where democracy with weapons and manpower and swords, sort of the same thing with the Roman senate and greek senate..
Tbh i agree with the issues with Halo. Like it just looked all over the place. Another issue i had was the actor for Halsey as she is meant to be really old as shes meant to be their mum in a way as she nurtures them into adult hood for the Spartan project
1. Using audio recordings and AI to build 3D spaces was the most interesting bit for me. Tech will get even more wild, and intrusive. 2. You shouldnt be considered private if: 1. there's no recourse to the service, like competing youtube or twitter having their hosting, financial banking, etc pulled. 2. you take government contracts / "ex" gov employees 3. you take gov subsidies / tax dodge 4. you lobby politicians 5. gov. strong arms you into complying in non criminal / unarrestable matters. Just leave everyone alone. If money was stolen, or bodies hurt, that wasn't consented to between adults involved, then build a case, then go to trial. No arbitrary sweeping judgements.
i have to ask because i have been wonder for ages since I've seen Clint where them back when he was working at corridor but what kind of headphones are they wearing
I'm kinda late but I think in the end: Jake was talking about whether monopolies have a duty to serve all of society (especially worth considering if they force out other options and make themselves the only real option), Niko was talking about how people who BS then further BS and claim their first amendment rights are being infringed if companies don't host their content (which nobody is obligated to do and isn't covered by the first amendment, which is a limit on government), and Sam is talking about what MLJ Jr called the 'white moderates' - those who just want the illusion of peace and will ban those who speak up and rock the boat even if they have a problem, just wanting the illusion of emotional calm to convince themselves with and don't care about the merit of people's discussions.
This episode, in my own opinion, is a great example of people having their own opinion on a topic and talking it out without getting mad, insulting, interrupting, or completely ignoring what the other persons thoughts are and repeat the same thing over and over again without going into detail or explaining their own belief. I think we need more conversations like this in our own lives.
@@vipadventure I think a lot of that was because he wasn't in the room with them. There were interruptions from both, but they also let them finish their thought. Jake might have been a little more animated which could cause that, but it wasn't the throughout the whole conversation and he did let Niko share his thoughts.
Man, I worked at a video rental place back in the day too, that job was awesome. Get to sneak things out before they release. Some 360 games used to ship with a code for a free 30 days of Xbox Live, so when a new game was hitting the shelves I'd grab all of those from the boxes, pretty sure I ended up with like 4+ years of free XBL on my account from them ahah Solid highschool job there.
This is, as often is the case, a situation of definition. IMO here "control" is ment in the sense of direct, actively regulate instantaneously at the moment of the thought. Can thought be controlled in our current society? Absolutely, but only non-directly through propaganda, peer reinforcement and reward/punishment. So while currently many things can be in place to reduce the chance of a specific thought happening, there is nothing currently in place that would 100% regulate thoughts and prevent that same specific thought from popping into existence within a mind.
Niko made a neutral statement about the autonomy the free market gives to corporations, and is right about it. I feel like Jake seems to think Niko is "in favor" of private entities "doing whatever they want," when he simply stated that they can. Private entities are indeed not beholden to anything the government is, but are to some degree still bound by law--just not the laws that apply to the government.
The reason that was the best podcast I've listened to in a long time, is because you guys had a genuine heated debate about a subject, not necessarily coming to 100% in agreement, and are still buds, looking forward to the next one. I appreciate your example tremendously 🤜🤛
The whole world could benefit from this example.
Well said. Had to pause and make popcorn once things got intense and they started talking over each other. True brotherhood, right there.
What kind of people do you hangout with, this is normal in friend group that are honest.
A precarious position for Jordan to chime in and take one of his boss's sides. He did good staying quiet and neutral.
A wise move indeed.
These are my absolute favorite episodes. I love when they get into “deeper”conversations about thing they care about.
I like that they are able to have different types of episodes on everything they do. It’s not always the same thing over and over but also, they kinda have recurring segments for people to look forward too.
Not sure how much is planning on their end, but it works well.
The ability to have this specific podcast with the disagreements perfectly sums up Jake's argument imo. Differing opinions not being silenced bc the other side doesn't like them and not giving the platform (that performs at a public space scale) the ability to silence the discourse. Great episode and discussion!
I agree that the “silencing of discourse” SHOULD NOT happen BUT the “ability” to do so is not something that needs to be given. Platforms are owned by companies/corporations who can do what they choose to do.
I’d say the difference (at least in your specific example) is that this is openly presented as a discussion, there’s no harmful or misleading BS being shared. Stuff being posted that’s blatantly untrue and dangerous is what Niko and Sam are talking about.
The added “chapters” or whatever you’ll call it, on the video are super helpful. For some reason if I accidentally skip the video, it forgets where I was and I have to try to find it again.
One of my favourite episodes by far. I was so engaged that I was literally shouting out responses to some of your arguments during the last section. Respect and love to all three of you.
By the way, what a phenomenal hire! Every video I watch with Jordan in it, it feels like he has ALWAYS been a part of the crew. I still can’t believe he came onboard just a few months ago. He fits Corridor like a hand fits in a glove.
You can tell Jake is a lawyer here, haha. I totally understand what Niko and Sam are saying - but Jake is doing his best to point out some of their logical fallacies with more patience than I have, haha. Honestly though, this is SUCH a tricky debate / problem there is no simple solution on the "platform vs. private" discussion...
Jakes not wrong
But he was def off base.
There’s a lot more nuance with Media than other private entities, that I don’t think he’s considering.
The benefit of a "devil's advocate" in the friend group is it forces you to define your argument and checks the group from being lazy/sloppy with their logic.
Honestly the whole conversation wouldn't have happened had Jake not started asking questions and making objections.
If you're reading this Jake, Thank you for this episode.
@@soulance8342 Completely agree, but Jake was being sincere - this isn't a thought exercise for him.
The problem is TH-cam presents itself as unbiased and a free speech platform and while they have a right to have a bias they also have a moral obligation not to claim or imply that they allow all opinions on the platform when they clearly do not.
What opinions are not allowed?
Did they really claim to allow all opinions? Or is that just a wrong assumption that people made?
Where do they say that they're an unbiased free speech platform?
They do? I've never gotten that vibe from TH-cam.
It's a private company's website. It's not government. So, I have to abide by their rules or deal with the consequences. Hell, we do this with discord channels and forums. If you don't follow my rules, I can ban you because it's my forum, my channel, etc.
You are projecting this unbiased view onto YT because of your world view. And thats ok! But everyone's WV is different. But this is all pretty cut and dry thanks to a few rules enacted by Congress for US companies.
Ive never seen youtube market itself as such
I honestly LOVE how they can get into a heated debate and disagreements and remain great friends afterwards. They've got such a healthy relationship and every single podcast, no matter what they talk about is so engaging. The corridor workspace is goals
I listened to this on my commute this morning, and for about 45mins of the podcast I completely forgot Jordan was even on it. Had to check back in on the video just too see him patiently listen lol
God bless you Sam! Comes in and at the end and sums it up while perfectly applyin both jakes and nikos arguments. 🤯
People often get their rights confused, or fail to take into account the competing rights of different parties.
You have a right to free speech. Companies have a right not to host it. When companies enforce their right not to host someone’s speech, it doesn’t nullify that person’s right to free speech.
_Consider:_ You have a right to eat. A restaurant has a right not to serve you. If a restaurant bans you for, say, not adhering to their rules, that doesn’t mean they’ve terminated your right to eat.
In both cases you’ll take your right to speech and eat to another venue.
Can a restaurant decide not to serve you if you are black or gay? That’s illegal here in the UK (Equalities Act 2010, many other countries have similar laws), so the right of a private business to to what they want is limited when they are open to the public. The 'gay wedding cake' was a high profile example case.
But let’s extend the rule to monopolies or near monopolies: what if all restaurants and supermarkets became Taco Bell, and Taco Bell blacklisted you from eating at their restaurants?
A similar thing is already happening in financial services, who have decided not to be political neutral anymore in the last few years. People are being “de-banked” for political opinions…not for being involved in clear-cut illegal activities in finance...and there aren’t that many choices for banks and payment processors.
@@urbanstarship I specifically cited restaurants banning people for breaking their rules, such as improper conduct or failing to adhere to the dress code. A restaurant absolutely has the right ban a black or gay person (and indeed any person) for shouting abuse at other customers, spreading falsehoods about the food, or wearing jeans if that’s not allowed per the dress code.
@@Thomas15 exactly right.
I think all Niko is trying to say about platform regulation, is that IF you are a private platform, while NOT under any legal obligation to vet information or regulate content, You should eventually be ethically responsible, if not legally culpable. At the end of the day though, It's up to a private company what they choose to censor, so they become their own arbiters of truthful content. Only the free market can choose if they are doing this fairly.
It’s Niko
@@malfaroangel3896 thx. Corrected
Free markets? The commies and free marketers are the worst extremist. It’s the answer to everything
@@beretaniastreet6384 commies?... Free market is a Capitalist principle... Not communist. What on Earth are you trying to say?
@@Triforcefilms sorry, let me be more clear. Trusting in the “Free Market” aka unfettered capitalism, to help foster a just society is just as wrong headed as trusting Communism to bring about a just a fair society. They are extremes. I’m a proponent of Capitalism. It’s the best of all the bad systems, it leverages natural instincts and needs and harnesses for progress - when properly regulated and contained. Just like aspect of Communism and it’s redheaded cousin Socialism, have helpful ideas that help create a social safety net, when these ideas are devoid of nuance, they are basically the different sides of the same coin of extremist ideology.
Sam in the background of the debate: “I just don’t think some people should be listened to”
👏👏
I agree with Jake. Platforms like twitter and youtube has become so big, that they have massive impact on public good. Goverment should regulate just like they regulate private companies not becoming monopoly.
Monopoly is an economic idea, this is not the main issue here. But I agree in the sense that YT needs to be regulated like ExxonMobil.
Just watched Son of a Dungeon this week, going to watch the grand finale tonight. It is absolutely insane!
I've been watching you guys since 2011 and it's awesome to see how you've turned a fun short film channel into a business model. The information you've shared has helped us grow tremendously. Much love.
- Tristan
Your podcast makes me feel so safe. I can listen to such an intense and divisive debate and in the end see you guys really deliver. You guys break it down and hash it out and then build it back up and find common ground. You guys really get into it but then don't let even something this charged come between your bond. You guys are true friends to each other and it means a lot that I can listen in and experience a part of it. Thanks Corridor Digital.
Based Jake, Defender of free speech.
3 principles that would have significantly enhanced the discussion/debate today:
- listen and reflect before you act
- let the other side finish before you interrupt
- steelman, the other sides perspective
Otherwise it was intriguing and I think if y’all took some breaths you’d find common ground faster
Jordan's like, " I just came to talk about Blockbuster" lol
I really liked this podcast, and I agree with parts of both arguments when it comes to private platforms and free speech, but i think there are things that both sides may be missing.
Jake’s argument from what i understand is that social media companies like google and facebook and stuff like that are so big and so influential, they are in effect public platforms.
Sam and Niko’s arguments seem to be that they are private companies, and therefore cannot be held to the same standards as a government, because the constitution does not cover the actions of a company.
I think one thing that was neglected in this discussion is that you simultaneously do and don’t have the choice to use these platforms.
On jakes point, companies that large make it incredibly difficult for anybody not on that platform to speak, and therefore you HAVE to use the platform to communicate in any meaningful way. If they censor people, they are in effect censoring people * like * a government.
However ,with Sam and Niko’s point, you can choose to use the platforms if you’d like, and it IS possible to create one that allows your viewpoint. You cannot technically use the first amendment in the argument because nobody is being forced to use the platforms.
I think a * possible * way to curtail the issue is to not let the companies like google and facebook become as big as they are. They could apply rules as they see fit, with more or less censorship, but not have such a big effect on a large population that could be potentially harmful.
You make quite a good precis of the arguments. Some additional things to consider..
FB, Twitter and Google have monopolised the public square which is, like it or not, today a digital space. They have engineered their positions, through both good engineering and also bad faith aggressive positioning. It was explicitly their intention to do this and they have been extremely successful.
The US administration HAS, on many levels, contracted these companies to do their work, disseminating their narrative, steering acceptance of their policies and silencing dissent. According to US law, the government cannot use a subcontractor - be it any of these digital space companies - to censor contrary to the first amendment, on their behalf. They ARE doing this, and it is unlawful.
Niko is WRONG in how he interprets the publisher/platform clause of Section 230. A platform which editorialises (edits, or adds commentary to) users' posts, wherein they manipulate the content that a user posts, is a publisher. The act of applying an algorithm to determine which friends a poster has, to display according to their preferences, does not meet the standard of publisher. A platform, like a "common carrier" - eg a phone company - is not responsible for the actions of its users, whereas a publisher who chooses to wield editorial control over user content can be held liable. Other platforms, such as Gettr or Gab, do not editorialise and your news feed on their site is not manicured beyond the users' own preferences.
Neither Nico nor Sam can figure out, if there is incitement to violence, whether the platform is liable for the actions of an influenced party. They are unable to rationalise that incitement is illegal, as is the violence, and so both the user that posts the incitement and the user that commits the violence are responsible for their own actions, while the platform is not, nor should it be.
Another thing to consider, is the government clearly has influence over big companies like Google or Facebook, and often do their work *through* them, basically get them to do their censorship/removing/propaganda/etc for them, and then hide behind the "well, it's not legally considered censorship unless the government does it!" argument. They basically do it indirectly through giant companies anyway to skirt the law. Also, like Jake and you pointed out, some of these companies have become so big, so influential, their online platforms have basically become the modern digital equivalent of a "public town square" anyway, so it starts to blur the line.
Furthermore, often when people DO try to "make their own" they have the outrage mobs out there try to "cancel" them, get their server hosting to drop them, get their payment processors to drop them, get their banks to drop them, which sadly works sometimes, so even when you DO try to make your own it often gets sabotaged and prevented anyway, so that should be factored in as well when trying to consider the situation as a whole. These "cancel culture" types love to say "make your own" but then try to prevent it or get it cancelled when people actually do that, so they only use that as a superficial argument, not actually approving of people using that as a real option.
@@DeathBringer769 you made a important point that they missed to mention, that the infrastructure is also concentrated on a few companies and subject to the same censorship as social media.
The opinions allowed by those companies and those pushed by governments (the establishment) are indistinguishable nowadays.
@@tacrocha you're right. Also, let's not forget that it was the governments around the world that forced the public square into the digital space when it enacted nearly 2 years of lockdowns and/or social distancing - in some places on pain of fines/monetary sanction and in other places even on pain of imprisonment (and in some places, a fine which if not paid resulted in imprisonment).
When the government removes the option of the physical public square in the digital age, the government has made the digital space THE public square.
@@simonh
1) It is not a public square, we don't even have a definition for a public square
2) What contract did TH-cam take from the government to violate the First Amendment?
3) What is the publisher/platform clause of Section 230? I don't see it
Jake and Niko are talking past each other and are making points on two different things. What Jake is talking about is constitutional law which as Niko correctly pointed out limits the government. What Niko and Sam are talking about is civil law, specifically torts. Platforms don't want to be sued for the things people post. BUT while speech is involved here, this isn't really a matter of limiting speech. This is a matter of limiting influence. The constitution protects speech but it doesn't protect influence. You can say whatever you want on the internet. But if you want to use the established social media platforms to INFLUENCE potential millions, you've got to comply with the terms of service. I've not seen anyone who's been deplatformed stop talking or locked up. They're just not doing it in Facebook, TH-cam, or whatever.
That's a really great distinction. The right to speech vs. the right to influence.
My problem with your distinction is that it is only valid in the early 2000s, with today's reality and what might come in the future, blocking someone from the platform could be the same as putting a cephalon tape on their mouth.
imagine in the future when Facebook or Twitter is more of a VR world you live in constantly, not applying free speech on those platforms is the same as limiting someone's freedom of speech, not just influence. of course, this is an exaggeration here that I used as an example but I believe today's reality is not that far off.
it might not be a direct legal violation of the constitution, but it is certainly not just or even in line with the constitution's spirit/intention.
@@mdhxx first off, I want to say thank you for your thoughtful and civil response. I 👍 your comment for that 🙂. I do think you give Facebook and Twitter too much credit though to expect they will be the center of speech in the future. Even as I write this, engagement on these platforms is in decline. Spending substantial time on these platforms might make it seem as though all discussion is taking place there. It's not. People move from platform to platform over time and not everyone is all participating in one platform. I agree with you that this is a 2000s view of this form of Internet but we're still existing in this early form of the internet. If in the future there existed a decentralized and non monetized version of what we now call social media, it would be important at that point for speech to be open and free. That, I think, is what the idea of the meta verse is, not exclusively owned by anyone specifically. That's also kind of what podcasts are. They don't have to be hosted on any specific platform to be heard. But again, it's the freedom of influence that's at stake and even in a meta verse world, people will have the freedom to mute the speech they don't agree with.
Wow! Awesome discussion. I can see both point of views. Love listening to you guys. Looking forward to the next one. Much love from Malaysia!
Great episode, I was surprised you guys didn't dodge the discussion and instead embraced it. Most interesting podcast in a while I've listened to!
Just subscribed after being a long-time crew subscriber! This was a very good listen as I was doing homework
Surprised that Jake cannot see that the 1st amendment does not legally apply to companies like it does to government. He seems to struggle with the distinction between private or public in a legal/technical sense vs. a moral sense. Just because a platform is massive and used by the public does not make it public speech, it is speech within a private platform that users agree, in advance, to the terms and conditions when they sign up for their account - including a number of rules on the boundaries of speech within the platform and the company's ability to regulate and remove content within those bounds.
Niko's point is consistent here, which is that if a company curates speech/content then it is then technically a publisher, and then should be legally responsible for promoting content that breaks any number of existing laws (calls to violence, copyright infringement, libel , fraud, etc.) - which is something that if pursued in this manor could lead to major private and criminal lawsuits where platforms intentionally or negligently promoted law-breaking content.
I share Jake's sentiment that the goal of these social platforms should be to uphold the spirit/principles of free speech and not use their curation power to shape political discourse in their favor (something Elon is trying to achieve with his acquisition of Twitter) but until there are laws made specifically against the corporate promotion and suppression of politicized speech (something likely much more dangerous in its own right) these social platforms are no different than Netflix, Xbox Live, TV channels, etc. in terms of content/speech curation.
The dissemination of what is "true" and "false" information is an area that is extremely hard to regulate legally, since there is only a criminal threshold when saying something factually untrue crosses into fraud/libel/defamation/harassment territory like the Nick Sandman libel/defamation case against MSM outlets like CNN. Platforms promoting or suppressing what they consider to be true/untrue seems to fall within their own free speech right to express their opinions, and until crossing thresholds into criminal territory they are legally only beholden to act in a way that fulfills their basic corporate obligations. The statement "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" should be seen as a legitimate path for the public to impact the way these companies choose to create/modify and implement their policies on speech - but due to the very few number of massive social platforms, their inherent barriers of entry for new competitors, and the fact that they all seem to lean in one political/ideological direction means this remains an unsolved problem in the market - but in my opinion, additional regulation could just end up transferring the power of speech regulation from private platforms to the government, which then may actually cross the legal boundaries of the 1st amendment.
Could there be anything more frustrating than someone who laughs after each point you make like your opposing view is stupid?
That really irked me too
Super agree w/ Jake on this one, the oil company analogy actually made the issue a lot clearer to me
The oil analogy showed how he was thinking his own logic through though
Yeah he honestly made the most sense of everyone IMO
"A strawman in a Chuck-E-Cheese costume."
Jake makes very strong arguments even when the room is stacked against him. He should be a lawyer. Also Free Speech has to be protected in regards to heavily influential private platforms. If reddit and memestock twitter can influence the stock market in major ways like we have seen. Then it is proof those platforms have an overall impact on the public good and should be regulated to ensure free speech. Or we are gonna be stuck in "The Giver" type world one day.
Free speech isn't freedom from consequence though, like most seem to think in terms of social media. In a few countries hate speech (incitement etc.) is actually illegal. Also, where would you draw the line in terms of regulating a private company's products? 1M users? 1B users? Just American companies?
Jake *is* a lawyer, funnily enough. He has a law degree and passed the Bar.
Niko's comment at ~1:16:14 basically saying (I think it was this -- it was challenging to hear the very end) that the truth doesn't matter when people have an influence on the algorithm is a chilling thought. Love this discussion -- thanks for sharing it with us.
Love everyone in the room but thank God for all the Jakes out there!
"Twitter needs to stop misinformation and take a harder stance on these topic I don't agree with, they publish it, it should be illegal for them to do so"
"ok, so if they should be regulated it should be in accordance with the first amendment"
"WOAH WOAH WOAH they are a private company allowed to have their own internal policies, these laws are only for the government, Twitter needs to be able to do whatever it wants"
You failed on your first point. Twitter didn't have to stop misinformation. It was a PR move to show that they care about the spread of misinformation. They could have chose not to do anything at all. They are a private company that chose to stop the spread of misinformation.
what I respect mostly is that you guys can have differing opinions and still be cool with each other at the end of the day
One analogy might be transportation. The government builds roads, but people drive their personal cars on them. If a private company built a superhighway with no speed limit and tons of potholes, then people had a lot of accidents on it, who's at fault and how should this problem be solved? (A) By taking away the license of a few reckless drivers? (B) By the families of the accident victims suing the private highway for dangerous conditions, until the road gets shut down or chooses to fix itself to limit these financial losses? (C) By anti-trust regulation allowing a choice of train or plane alongside the superhighway? Or (D) by the government confiscating the road, adding a speed limit and filling the potholes? When it comes to internet regulation, we are currently doing (A) and it doesn't seem to go far enough. Niko is proposing (B) and Jake is proposing (D).
So just to be clear, it appears that you're equating regulation of free speech with that of highway maintenance. Correct?
@@justacrazycamper As a metaphor.
Sam and Niko always take it to the creative and fun way, Jake grounds them with reason and practicality. Based Jake.
This was the best podcast I have listened to in a while. Loved the genuine debate and discussion.
Agree with Jake.
I legit thought Jake was going to turn on Super Saiyan Lawyer mode and destroy everyone. Then I realized Niko and Sam are his close friends. What a great guy.
They are also his Boss... Lol
@@umad7796 His a partner I believe
Jake went to law school but he never practice any professional law career profession in court. That’s why he sucks at arguing.
Jordan for sure. Way too vocal. Calm down dude!
I was captured by the conversation. Feel like you opened a platform for discussion. Glad you and jake were able to see each others point of view a bit better in the end. Listening is the biggest lesson i take from this. Love for all
love how at one point Jordan just decides to sit back and enjoy the show with the rest of us
The first amendment and free speech argument only applies in the US. Google and other platforms exist in 150 other countries for 4.5 Billion people where this legal right does not apply.
Update: there's almost 8 billion people on earth.
in a world where the internet is used to communicate more than in person, speech should not be regulated or limited. I will take dangerous freedom over "Safer regulations" any day, keep doing your thing jake,
But Jake is arguing for safer regulations... he's saying that private speech platforms have too much of an impact and should have to have government and regulatory intervention because of it?
@@mikehiebert6227 yes youake a great point, this might shock some people but the government is suppose to uphold our rights especially the bill of rights, and by having government regulations for these platforms it would be to restrict the amount of restrictions that these platforms have. now, debating on if our government is fighting for us to have our rights is a whole other issue.
The Internet is absolutely not used to communicate more than in person. Where did you get that statistic?
1:00:00 I completely agree with Jake's argument. Hes being factually correct and the guys just took him for a joke. But hes right.
TH-cam doesn't have to host your flat earth videos
Once you had a sponsor here that I can't find anymore. It was about a journal that had something like a medieval journey, I can't remember it very well but I'm interested in finding that product. Does someone know video has that sponsor? Thanks!
Hero's Journal.
Wow this debate was wild😄 I thoroughly enjoyed it
The Moment a social media platform claims to be a platform, they simply cannot just do what ever they want, they actually have to adhere to very, very specific rules to continue to be allowed to be a platform, and if they fail that, they become a publisher. (example: a news paper is a publisher, and so is youtube, youtube was suppose to be a platform, but it's regulation way to much content to be one)
If youtube and Facebook decides not to be a platform but be a publisher that is fine by me (and they chose to be this years ago, we are talking first term during the Obama Ministration) however, when they decide to curate, alter, and delete content they have become publishers and should by default lose their safe harbor protection.
I think Sam's summary at the end was very concise and really captured the true problems vs. perceived ones. Keep up the great work lads
Son of a dungeon seems pretty cool, looking forward for more of the projects. I think the crew cuts are still my biggest desire to get the sub to the website.
Love this podcast! One of my faves in rotation. Haven't missed one yet! Definitely an interesting debate. Please no megaphones for everyone 😂
1:04:50 This goes into the topic of intention and negligence. Let me provide 3 examples:
If I live in a city and I have a rooftop garden which I need gardening tools to maintain like a wheelbarrow. Let’s say I want to kill my friend Bill who I know walks by my building at around 10:00am, I wait around for him and I see him about to walk by and I drop the wheelbarrow onto his head and I kill him. I am responsible for his death because I intended to kill him by dropping the wheelbarrow on him.
Let’s use the same example but I don’t intend to kill anyone specifically, let’s say I just want to drop the wheelbarrow off of the roof. That is extremely negligent because now I am creating a situation where someone could die or be injured by my actions. I didn’t consider that it could land on someone, it could land in busy traffic which could cause horrible car accidents, it could damage property (public or private), many things could happen as a result of my negligence for which I could be sued or prosecuted.
Let’s use the same example one last time but this time I have a little tool shed on my roof which I use to lock away my wheelbarrow, I also have some knee high siding on my roof to prevent things from falling off. If someone comes to my rooftop while I’m not there and breaks into my tool shed, and drops my wheelbarrow off of the roof and kills someone or creates a dangerous situation. I did everything a reasonable person would do to prevent accidents like this. Someone intentionally broke into my tool shed and dropped the wheelbarrow onto the sidewalk. That is not my fault.
In the example given by Sam, you could present similar arguments.
If Sam have the book to Jake and Niko and he knew that they have a tendency to do stuff like this and he intended for them to break windows, then he is responsible for them breaking windows.
Let’s use the same situation, he knew they had a tendency to do these things but he didn’t consider what could happen were he to give them this book. He is negligent in causing them to break windows which is not as serious of a charge, but it is still very illegal.
Same situation again but he had no clue that Jake and Niko had a tendency to do this, he just wanted to show them this funny book. If they go and break windows, it’s not his fault because he had no clue they would go and do these things because it’s not something a reasonable person considers if they don’t know that someone does things like this.
I love how Nikko and Sam are arguing with a frickin lawyer😂
49:19 I'd say this example Sam gives would work better as in: you go to a town and you almost hit yourself against a light pole. You get upset by it and want the town to ban light poles because they are "dangerous" even though they have been useful for many others in the town at night. So instead of you moving to a town were there are no light poles, no, the town decides to oblige and take them away or simply never turn them on. Now if you want light at night you should go and live in a town that has them or make your own town with them.
That's how it has been with certain subjects that just because some people haven't liked or sponsors didn't agree with, they have had to be either removed or shadow banned. Different from taking away actual sharp objects that were placed there with the actual intention to hurt someone. Which would be something like actual snuff. Something actually against the law. Not some fictional violence or political views or opinions.
But to be fair, Sam pretty much comes to a similar conclusion at the end of the episode.
I listen to these way too much now... And I can't make sense of it. I think I like them and then again 🤣🤣🤣
Jordan's expression at 1:02:47 sums up my reaction, haha
They are laughing at Jakes arguments while those arguments are totally valid. High school group mentality.
The point that Jake was bringing up about public vs. private company stuff was actually a really big problem back when the internet was in its infancy I can't remember the exact details of but it came down to 2 ruling companies will be held liable for anything on their platform if they regulate it if the users are thr ones to moderate it the companies hands stay free TH-cam regulates the platform whether they admit it or not but they are inadvertently making themselves liable for anything that's on here
I agree, and Section 230 was intended to resolve the issue by providing platform/publisher protection. However, "big tech" abuses the intention of 230 by exploiting its imprecise language. It claims the right to be a publisher when it wants control over the narrative while simultaneously claiming platform status when it wishes to avoid culpability. The abuse of Section 230 by the digital giants must stop.
Jake is definitely right here. They are definitely a public speech platforms. They have a massive impact on society.
I really enjoyed this episode!!!
Great episode, this in my opinion links to a pandemic that has been ruling the online world for the past couple of years which is canceling disagreement and that people can't bare to hear somebody go against them. It's much easier to stroke your ego and only talk to people who agree with you and shut down anybody who says otherwise than to try and have a constructive conversation about something. And this is seen from all "political mindsets" as that's what people like to bring it down to a lot of the time. Everyone is to blame.
As for the social media platforms. At the end of the day they are there to make money and they will do everything that benefits them in making the most money. And as they are spread worldwide and not in just one country applying laws for the immoral actions they take is I believe extremely complex.
I was trying to find a good analogy for private companies offering free speech, but then regulating it. Imagine companies like Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, instagram etc. Is like a home they own, and they invite you to stay and live. And let's say, that you want to open up all the windows and doors, so that everyone in public can hear what you want to say. But then the owner of the house says. "no no, you can't open up the windows or doors unless we allow you to". The question is do they have a right to do that? The obvious answer could be sure, because it's their house and they offered you a place to stay for "free". This is where the line between legality and morality get blurred.
I have so much to say about the free speech/ online platforms discussion. But one thing I don't hear a lot about is personal responsibility. For example, the Tide Pods challenge, particularly talking about teenagers, are they not responsible for their own actions to some degree? Everyone focuses on where the teenager heard it from and says they're at fault, but why isn't any attention given to who is listening to the person online. I think the same can be said for people spreading bad information online, doesn't the individual have some kind of responsibility to themselves to think critically? So don't get me wrong people can be possessed by ego, their own beliefs and things of the like, but I think it's something people overlook all the time. Finally, the reason I mentioned just teenagers in my previous example in that there's kind of the grey area for children up until they are too young to know better, anyway, great podcast!
This was a super interesting episode.
Valid points on all sides. TH-cam, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are now the public square. They are too big
Twitter has like 400M users globally, they're like a small town square basically, just amplified to bonkers magnitudes cause most large entities have a presence there and it spreads from there via more antiquated means of media (news).
And Google, Amazon and Azure (Microsoft) are the public internet infrastructure. If you try to "build your own TH-cam", they will kick you out without due process if you're someone they want to censor.
Thanks for the talk guys! Feels good to listen to something while I'm working.
Although, I couldn't help but notice the center of the video and how the 4 clips aren't aligned properly or is it just Jake's being greedy with space...
thats funny you say that because I noticed the same thing while filming! You can see I fixed it by 58min hahaha
@@SleepyBear-66 So the podcast is done "live? Do you ever do any editing after the recording session?
This is the best one so far! Hilarious debate. This somewhat reminds me of the Channel 4 interview with Jordan Peterson but much funnier. :)
Jake is on point
The marvelous world of CorriLand.
Yes! Another Corridor Cast!
Drop your phone and bump it with your foot, what a reference!
33:32 I got the reference Jake, and I love this movie.
Oh Sam and Niko think they can win a legal argument with a lawyer….hahah great points Jake and good job staying so patient! Would love to see more topics like this on the podcast.
did he stay patient though? he kept interrupting and getting heated
You ever have a conversation /argument where you're pretty sure in your side, and then you hear it from a third person perspective and you realize how dumb you sound. That's what's happening with this podcast and the public forum/ private company debate they had. Full-on team Niko but Jake really opened my eyes
Honest! Nice! My respect to you.
Did you guys band Jordan live during this podcast?😂
This is awesome conversation.
This free speech conversation seems to be from the perspective that free speech is a problem that needs to be solved
My take on it was that the argument was really about who needs to take accountability for legitimately harmful, slanderous and libelous free speech statements. So more about dealing with the ramifications of free speech.
Jake is in favour of the government regulating TH-cams ability to operate as a private platform disregarding 1st amendment rights (because their impact is too big), and seemingly that people will be held responsible on the individual scale for harmful statements.
Niko is in favor of of the platforms maintaining their ability to allow or disallow anybody they want from participating on the platform, as is their right as a private company. BUT because youtube currates and promotes its content knowingly to a mass audience, and has the ability to control dissemination of harmful statements on their platform, the government should hold TH-cam directly accountable.
You have the right to have free speech. But not everything said is free speech. Get it?
You have the freedom to pursue happiness, etc. But your freedoms can't infringe on my freedom. Get it?
The far right is just as woke as the far left.
@@kpNov23free speech is the freedom of expression, the types of speech that fall outside of that are thinks like threats and fraud, opinions involving racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry, if you believe in censoring the expression of replusive ideas you don't support free speech
For example, the following would be protected by freedom of speech
"I believe that [insert minority group here] is biologically inforior and less capable of reason and should not be able to vote like [insert majority group here]"
The following example would not
"Hey Cletus grab that rope and those pitchforks we're going to go [insert racist crime here] John down the street"
It's pretty simple, but the bottom line is you cannot censor expression and act like you support free speech
I’m happy that you guys can have a debate and not fall out. It’s good to have different opinions it makes the world a far more interesting place. Also can’t seminar for son of a dungeon again
I think Jordan made a lot of great points...
niko is missing one important fact. the internet is a public utility. it is very much a public space. if you have a website it is literally open to the public to access the domain address you have bought/arguably rented because you have to keep paying the registrar. it is not a private network. it is public. if you want to create a private network that is accessible through the internet you can do that. you have to password protect and block off public access to the content behind the wall and so all of that is private. but twitter, facebook, etc i can pay a isp, a utility, public utility, and then access those websites and see all the content they have available to the public. just like a supermarket, a pub/bar (a public house), and there are laws around the public square. an area in which people have commonly congregated to be the main public square, in America, absolutely can be privately owned property. parks can be privately owned and there are laws around whether the owners can operate as a private company and refuse access to specific people, and there are laws that make sure people cannot be restricted from that square which has become the defacto public square. they can operate and sell people ice cream in their park, and put up advertisements in their property, they absolutely can do that just as twitter and facebook can have advertisements, on the public faceing parts of their site, just like any website, but if millions of people now use that s the public square and theres no real alternative, say because the company bought up most of the land in a town, then there are laws that make sure people cannot be kicked out of this space. the company benefit from being a public square, so they have to follow those rules.
the internet absolutely should operate in that same way. twitter facebook, youtube etc, are so massive at this point, you cant deny that, the data is there as to how massive the traffic flow and size they are as a segment of the entire internet. they are the public square now, and no amount of "setup your own website" can create a viable alternative. especially when these same platforms will use their control to shut down people from being able to do so. google/apple/amazon shutting down parler, because because who were banned from twitter/facebook etc were going there... disgusting. massive abuse of their power. paypal, and banks refuse to work with specific people/businesses after they get kicked off other platforms. they dont have the ability to "make your own website". and its incredibly naive to think thats a viable solution to this. imagine if every movie editing software in the industry tomorrow decided corridor digital has the wrong opinions, none of them are allowed to use our product. they can make their own video editi software. then cannon, red, etc all join in, decide youre not allowed to use their products. whoever your website server provider is decides to end your contract. whoever the company is that handles your user payments, they cut you off so you cant get money from your customers, the customer cant access your site, you site has no centnet. you have to invent cameras, invent software, build your own servers, build you own bank.... does that seem realistic?
either these platforms acept that they are public squares and stop censoring people, or THEY can make their own internet. the internet is a utility, the infrastructure is paid for by taxes, its regulated by the government just like radiowaves are for tv, etc, if twitter wants to take away some people ability to use the public square, if they don't want to be the public square, they can setup and entirely private infrastructure, and see if they can still operate that way. see if they can manage to buy land that crosses entire states in order to run optical cable through their own land. see if they can do what elon musk has done and create a satellite based internet. and even then, twitter don't own the atmosphere, do they have a right to put that many satellites up there and refuse some people from using their service?
this is a question of how we want the world to work. do you want one person determining reality, and ruining the lives of anyone who disagrees? because that is where we are at, or very quickly approaching.
there is also the fact that the american government cannot censor someone indirectly by telling someone or some company to do it for them. And we have absolutely seen that happen with the biden administration admitting that they work with these platforms and tell them what regulations to put in place. they cant say "oh were just advising them, they dont have to do it, so we're not censoring people". thats bs. theres even evidence from the times article about the 2020 election that democrat politicians were working with these platforms in order to "control the flow of information", should that really be allowed? is that good for society?
Such a good episode
The political platform for a Democracy isn't the only building block for a humane society.. you need an actual sympathetic and truthful and people with integrity to run a democratic nation/society.. the failsafe of democratic systems is good like the free media, justice system or free speech, but it can derail if the people in the democratic society doesn't respect its own social structures/foundation..
That is why Muslim nations don't work for democracies for instance, as their values don't align with tolerance or other democratic values.. or it could be another type of democracy.. like democracy that discriminate minority and women but is a democracy for men.. sort like viking democracy circles where democracy with weapons and manpower and swords, sort of the same thing with the Roman senate and greek senate..
Enjoyed the lively conversation gentlemen. 😁
Tbh i agree with the issues with Halo. Like it just looked all over the place. Another issue i had was the actor for Halsey as she is meant to be really old as shes meant to be their mum in a way as she nurtures them into adult hood for the Spartan project
Jake is a breath of fresh air
1. Using audio recordings and AI to build 3D spaces was the most interesting bit for me. Tech will get even more wild, and intrusive.
2. You shouldnt be considered private if: 1. there's no recourse to the service, like competing youtube or twitter having their hosting, financial banking, etc pulled. 2. you take government contracts / "ex" gov employees 3. you take gov subsidies / tax dodge 4. you lobby politicians 5. gov. strong arms you into complying in non criminal / unarrestable matters.
Just leave everyone alone. If money was stolen, or bodies hurt, that wasn't consented to between adults involved, then build a case, then go to trial. No arbitrary sweeping judgements.
i have to ask because i have been wonder for ages since I've seen Clint where them back when he was working at corridor but what kind of headphones are they wearing
What a wild episode this was. 🤣
I love it haha I love these kind of conversations
Fantastic episode guys. I agree with Jake. Fantastic discussion that needs to be addressed by more people.
I'm kinda late but I think in the end: Jake was talking about whether monopolies have a duty to serve all of society (especially worth considering if they force out other options and make themselves the only real option), Niko was talking about how people who BS then further BS and claim their first amendment rights are being infringed if companies don't host their content (which nobody is obligated to do and isn't covered by the first amendment, which is a limit on government), and Sam is talking about what MLJ Jr called the 'white moderates' - those who just want the illusion of peace and will ban those who speak up and rock the boat even if they have a problem, just wanting the illusion of emotional calm to convince themselves with and don't care about the merit of people's discussions.
Yeah Jakes correct.
This episode, in my own opinion, is a great example of people having their own opinion on a topic and talking it out without getting mad, insulting, interrupting, or completely ignoring what the other persons thoughts are and repeat the same thing over and over again without going into detail or explaining their own belief. I think we need more conversations like this in our own lives.
But Jake did interrupt multiple times
@@vipadventure I think a lot of that was because he wasn't in the room with them. There were interruptions from both, but they also let them finish their thought. Jake might have been a little more animated which could cause that, but it wasn't the throughout the whole conversation and he did let Niko share his thoughts.
This is not rare among educated adults. Where have you been?
Sam's beard is looking GOOD!!!
Man, I worked at a video rental place back in the day too, that job was awesome. Get to sneak things out before they release. Some 360 games used to ship with a code for a free 30 days of Xbox Live, so when a new game was hitting the shelves I'd grab all of those from the boxes, pretty sure I ended up with like 4+ years of free XBL on my account from them ahah Solid highschool job there.
Niko is just simply correct here
This was a fantastic episode. I have one big question, what did they mean by "a world where you cant control thought"?
This is, as often is the case, a situation of definition.
IMO here "control" is ment in the sense of direct, actively regulate instantaneously at the moment of the thought.
Can thought be controlled in our current society? Absolutely, but only non-directly through propaganda, peer reinforcement and reward/punishment.
So while currently many things can be in place to reduce the chance of a specific thought happening, there is nothing currently in place that would 100% regulate thoughts and prevent that same specific thought from popping into existence within a mind.
Niko made a neutral statement about the autonomy the free market gives to corporations, and is right about it.
I feel like Jake seems to think Niko is "in favor" of private entities "doing whatever they want," when he simply stated that they can. Private entities are indeed not beholden to anything the government is, but are to some degree still bound by law--just not the laws that apply to the government.
10:00 Frank Darabont directed Shawshank Redemption didn't he? Frank Abignale was Catch Me If You Can
My town lost our 'Movie Town' just last year
Jake nailed it...