Regarding Facebook Censorship Facebook should be treated the same way that a public park that is privately owned should be treated. After all Facebook is the new town square. A private park can make reasonable rules, such as closing times or no camping, but must enforce them equally. If they allow political rallies in a park then they have to allow all political parties to have rallies there. They also have no say as to what is said at those rallies or what is said by private citizens. A park owner does not have the right to censor or fact check what is said in the park. If it's open to the public then the public is free to say what they wish while there. Just as the privately owned public park, Facebook is a privately owned public forum. The same rules should apply. In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Court appeared to equate the Internet to traditional public fora like a street or public park. In Reno v. ACLU, which struck down a prohibition in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 on “indecent” material on the Internet, the Court noted that the Internet “constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can ‘publish’ information. Evans v. Newton was a case of a privately owned public park segregating use by race. It was decided that "The services rendered by a park are municipal in nature, and, under the circumstances of this case, the park is subject to the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment." If Facebook is considered a privately owned public forum that is violating the first and fourteenth amendments by segregating speech based on content; then they should be held to the same standard as a privately owned public park that is violating the 14th amendment regarding segregation by race.
Any of the social networking sites are perfectly welcome to have a site that only allows a particular view, and bars all others. That's fine if you are up front from the get go about it. But TH-cam, Twitter, Facebook, etc, were all built as forums for the general public to engage in free speech and expression within the wide confines of lawful speech as defined in American law. They built their sites into the colossus they are, and then started engaging in dastardly tricks such as shadow banning, and not sending notifications to a channels subscribers. They did this while denying the censorship, and continuing to encourage people to make content for their sites. They reaped profits from views on channels that they then hid from the creators of those channels, and lied about the view counts, number of subscribers, etc,. I could go on for pages just describing these nefarious acts. These things constitute fraud because they were simultaneously telling people to post content and that it was still a free for all free speech site, while also censoring those same people while lying about it. It was only recently that they admitted in part what they've been up to, now that everyone already knows what they're doing. They should face criminal and civil penalties for roping so many of content creators along under these clearly abusive and arbitrary conditions. There are people who spent tens of thousands of dollars, and hours building their sites as a business, and in support of their businesses, and had all their work nullified by the arbitrary and abusive misuse of power by the social networking media companies. Furthermore these sites both advertised as public forums, and became the de facto town square of America, and then abused that position to manipulate the electoral process. They are by their own definition (Dorsey's remarks regarding censorship of Twitter by the Nigeria government) guilty of human rights abuses. They must be held accountable for their Intolerable Acts.
Why is i4j pretending like these social media corps are acting on our behalf? They are the largest lobbyist now. They act with gov & gov acts for them. They are enter twined to the point if being the same beast. To not recognize the oligarchy is contributing to the problem
They're blatantly working with bureaucrats and parasites in Congress to silence anyone who dares to ask questions. When the state controls the media.....
Also, this just goes to show that the personhood of corporations needs to be repealed. It is dangerous and damaging. You cannot jail corporations for committing crimes snd the actual humans making criminal decisions aren't held accountable because they corporations they run are their own persons. That is the antithesis of justice. End corporate personhood NOW!
unfortunately the dumb and silent are also been led by the 'Big Lie' of politicians using Big Tech ... dont they also have a responsibility to highlight the truth.
@@MrTravbad it's hard determining Truth in matters of ideals/ideas/and ethical opinions. Because many don't accept the notion that there are things such as Moral Facts. Such things are context-specific and require elucidation.
@@jeremyhennessee6604 i agree about the truth of ideals/ideas and ethical opinion ... but not when it comes to out and out lies for political gain like the "stolen" election ... that is just a lie ... no ambiguity ... and from those politicos no morals either ... the people perpetuating that made the US sound like a banana republic
"Ideas are dangerous" The problem is, Who gets to make the decision on what thoughts are "dangerous" and what aren't. I do not believe any man on Earth has the right to make that decision for everyone else.
It is same arguement for democracy. Government officials are the only people in the world we trust enough to handle the power to lead the country of millions of people. Since we are trusting Government with this much power, we surely can trust them to handle regulation of free speech. If government misuses this power, they can be held accountable for it through protest and judicial system. But same cannot be said for unregulated free speech. In the system of unregulated free speech, no one will be held responsible since everyone has right to absolute free speech.
@@user-bb5qn7os2n Sorry for the late reply, but a respectfully & strongly disagree. Our democracy is a sick joke. There are many specific factors that 1 can point out proves we have no say I'm our gov. Our gov is a lot of things. Accontable is not one of them. The opposite is true. History has shown limits on freedom of speech ALWAYS benefits the wealthy while hurting working class
Don't forget, the forums are run by companies who pay for the bandwidth and services/servers. They have property rights. They should be encouraged to follow First Amendment rights, as the things the people, they censor, say how they feel and what knowledge that lack. What is it they say can be pointed out, what's wrong with it. I only fear for the generation that can't actually point out what's wrong with.
"Ideas are dangerous" There are relatively few dangerous ideas. Censoring isn't the best choice. There are options like profanity filters, where the words can be blocked out if the person offended by them, using options. Options to ignore certain persons, point of view, due to spamming, for example. Down voting is another one. Google has a problem, where if they are too who downvote a comment, it disappears. The large number of people (with agendas) downvoting a legitimate comment. That's not a good thing. Handling it transparently is the best option. Someone who could to point out flaws, for example. To determine who is right and who is wrong. It's necessary to keep comments as records. To see who is clinging to fallacies. You need to keep the records for analysis to trace it back to the source of the problem.
When a corporation is as large as the government, or is used as a proxy of the government, it's too big. The government doesn't get to outsource its violations of the constitution
It was The Italian Hall disaster in Calumet Michigan in 1913 (over copper mining strikes) that someone on Christmas Eve falsely shouted fire and 73 men, women and children lost their lives in the stampede to get out.
Haven't even finished watching this and I'm already frustrated with all the mental gymnastics required to keep up with something so simple as our Bill of Rights. It really isn't this complicated, if you take the feelings out of it. No one's feelings matter more than another's and when you start to put the feelings of one person above the other Equity goes out the window and so does the Bill of Rights. Double standards need to go away and I don't care if you are left, right, or on the moon some place, if you're creating divisiveness in our culture you ARE the problem.
This comment feels like mental gymnastics. First we don't want equity as it's not achievable. And the bill of rights is only meant to restrict government. How can you define what is considered divisive? People supporting gay marriage were probably considered divisive at a point in time. Divisive people are not a problem. I think the bigger problem is people not understanding the purpose of constitution and what is a right.
@@agisler87 equality is archivable once we start treating each other as equals and understanding that ones freedom of speech is just that speech in other words my words are my opinion and if you don't like that tough shit glue your ears shut ? if ya say no well to bad its true every one has the right to speech if it hurts your feelings tough my constitutional rights over ride your feelings and vice versa but then when one has no feelings its a lil hard to hurt them so go and try you are untitled to you opinion and as far as the platforms go to bad they wanna ban from there its ok i don't use them they are just apart of the big picture of controlling the people and looking into your private lives with every post you make
@@Euphoniumstar if that's the case we are all private entities we don't belong to the government nor do we belong to a any business or social platform so why is it that if you have a business then why do they have more rights then we the private citizen
The thing is you DON'T get to control who's in your dance hall. There are plenty of regulations against discrimination by race, sex, age, etc. So there's one argument that isn't built on a good foundation. Suggesting that the free market will resolve this uses is great, I believe it 100%, except currently in America, our markets aren't free, so what now? How many businesses have been arbitrarily shut down "for the good of society"? If Verizon doesn't like the contents of your text messages, do they have the right to cancel your service because it violated their ability to control who's in their dance hall? If Comcast doesn't like your memes, do they shut off your internet because it's their dance hall? If the water company (which is a private monopoly) doesn't like the flowers in your yard because they aren't native and are a symbol of proto-colonialism, and they shut off your water, is that fair because you've violated their freedom of expression?
Google (who owns this platform) and Facebook were funded by DARPA. Our taxdollars helped create them and tax breaks and subsidies keep them in power. You see how they took down Parler when everyone started jumping ship.
These entities are not publishers. They are platforms. Restricting lawful and legitimate speech is an act of a publisher, not a platform. As such, by taking this step, these entities should now be considered publishers and held to account for deliberate spew of misinformation, and liable speech. You can’t have it both ways. Claiming immunity as a platform but behaving as a publisher is not acceptable.
Absolutely. Also individuals should be leaving these "platforms" in droves. How can anyone stand to stay in an environment where what you can say is dictated to you? Its like a cult. Everyone goes over to the cult leaders place, at first its all fun but then one day he/she singles you out and you realize you are not free to be yourself but everyone keeps going cuz its so fun over there! Like wtf is happening
@@RoyArrowood these "platforms" are such monopolies now that there's no way you can get off these "platforms" without forsaking the internet altogether. Which might not be a bad thing!
@@edwardmiessner6502 Well I'm on diaspora now which I hope won't censor me at least. Unfortunately its pretty much just me and some anarchists on there right now lol. Maybe the libertarians are coming soon haha
The problem with facebook and other platforms is that the algorithms recommend stuff that you interact with to keep you on the platform longer. Censoring the information is wrong, but throwing the same information back at people over and over and over is leading to radicalization. What is the solution that respects free speech and at the same time protects us from manipulation of misinformation and the algorithms of social media platforms. Censoring is just a bandaid for a deeper problem
It can be argued that throwing the same information back at you over and over again *is* censorship because it's intentionally keeping other information you don't know about but might spark your interest away from you. It's like confining people to certain aisles in a bookstore based on their known interests and viewpoints.
@@edwardmiessner6502 I definitely wouldn't call it censorship, but perhaps extreme market manipulation where you keep people on your platform by repeating their ideas to them. Most people don't spend 4-8 hours in a bookstore, and I definitely don't think that facebook should prevent people from seeing information. I do think that facebook and other companies have a responsibility to make their platform less addictive in the interest of consumer protection. If I like a post that promotes a conspiracy theory the algorithm might recommend something more extreme and it becomes a feedback loop. I find it quite concerning.
@@robertguidry2168 ok if you tell some one to go eat a their moms rooster or go eat their dads fish and you get a chat ban for that then it is censorship as all you're doing is telling them to go eat a bird or fish so how does that constitute a chat ban if its not censorship and yes this just recently happen on a game also telling them to enjoy their long slow deaths is just a way of saying enjoy life as each and every one of us are doing it dying a slow long death as it is proven that we start dying from the day we are born
When FACTUAL information is banned and videos, buried... IT IS CENSORSHIP WITH AN AGENDA... Especially, when you know the approved narrative being forced on everyone, IS INCORRECT AND FALSE ! These tech companies ARE obviously, gov-sponsered fronts.
Trying to post rebuttals using links is imposible on TH-cam. I'm a facts based person. When I try to dispell a conspiracy and use certain words or posts links YT bans the whole post. Debate is the best way to deal with Extremism and not try to cover it up to fester.
Actually, Google has many competitors, and while I would say none are quite as refined or feature-rich as Google itself, it's actually QUITE EASY to enter into that market. Bing is a thing with Microsoft's deep pockets (though it's garbage), but DuckDuckGo is actually pretty solid and I use it almost exclusively AND it doesn't track you. I don't deny Google is better in alot of ways, but DuckDuckGo is good. As a consumer, you HAVE a realistic alternative. You just aren't CHOOSING it. Now, TH-cam on the other hand....
Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Google are so large they should be labeled a public square. They are so large they shouldn’t be able to take away speech from people.
it is both an anti-trust issue and a 1st amendment issue. anti-trust just doesn't have the tools to solve this. imo we need a new approach to protect basic liberty from the threat of monopolistic big tech.
Good to see you again Paul. My concern is Government is working in concert with NGOs to circumvent the constitution. Working with licensing and funding, any political party in power can apply pressure to control speech platforms. Government levers can be FCC, IRS, OSHA, local code and permitting - directly. Indirectly Government levers can push or nudge investment firms, banks and other business partners to make life better or worse.
Fire in a building is the start of suppression. Hold those people accountable for saying fire when this is none or pulling a fie alarm. Hold the ACCOUNTABLE solves the problem.. Just like we stop showing our shoulders coming home in caskets. So people won't protest a war. . The first amendment was for all speech and if it harms someone hold them accountable for the deed .
Here is a wrench in this the Government have now been paying these companies not only that but they have contract with them. NSA, FBI, CIA,. So they then become a Government employee of the Government which we pay for with our Tax.
If that speech violates the terms as a subject matter that is prohibited from being published on their platforms by users that agree to those terms…. Is not censorship.
@@elinope4745 Sorry but no. a site has the right under rule 230 to determine what content is acceptable on their site. What they do not have the right to do is edit or editorialize on the someone's post in a way that alters the original intent or meaning. For example, based on your logic, I should be allowed to go onto a forum on a churches site and posting things that if I was saying the same things while in their church they would have me thrown out or arrested. That it is wrong for the church to be able to prevent me from telling them their are all going to hell or going all Westboro Baptist Church on them, and they are censoring my legal free speech. The church can delete all my posts as well as block me from their site. What they cannot do is edit my posts to make it appear that I am saying something other than what I had originally posted.
A group of people don't lose their first amendment rights no more than a individual. No matter what the group calls themselves they still have a right to pool resources and speak.
@@agisler87 Take a look at how public unions work. They want to control private businesses and demand union membership dues on those who don't want to be included as a membership. Several of them have been called out in the past for bullying and threatening non-members into signing the agreement. Not only that, the dues from all members are spent on progressive, political views of a select few (a.k.a. union leaders).
@@agisler87 As the rights are afforded to the individuals, a corporation that uses its influence outside of a 100% consensus is committing fraud, as it is manipulating individuals rights and adding an additional number that does not exist, no different than voter fraud.
I don't think this is as big an issue at all. The concern is REACH, not SPEECH. WE make those companies powerful enough that we feel they are 'censoring' us. I've abandoned all the major social media platforms except this one. And I'm building my OWN website so I can put things I want without it being removed.
Good luck if it becomes big. Just look at what happened to Parler. You’re right, reach is the problem. And the fact is, Twatter, Facebook and TH-cam own the majority of the space in social media BUT the people that run these companies share views with people in charge of companies further up the same chain like Amazon or the government, making it very hard for newer, non-establishment competitors to actually succeed once they start getting too big
You're a gullible fool to believe these children's rhymes: "reach not speech." Censoring political speech on one of the big social media sites is the equivalent of Greyhound denying transportation to travelers. Greyhound is a private company but cannot turn away customers because of the political affiliation, nor should Twitter et al be permitted to ban users because of political speech.
I'm on the fence about this. On one hand restricting freedom of speech makes it easier to punish critics, but on the other hand not censoring crazy people who spread lies to the gullible and whip them into violent action also hurts society as a whole; examples being the Christmas 5g tower bombing and the capital assault. if were gonna allow these people a platform to spread their crazy then we need to be more proactive about making sure these people don't do any harm.
So lying about someone else publicly is a crime that is supposed to be able to be prosecuted in a court of law. The courts have made this more complicated than it needs to be. And the individual harmed by the lies needs to be bringing the case in a certain time period.
@@benjaminstalcup we did that with Donald Trump's cases against the election and that didn't result in anything, people still rioted and committed domestic terrorism
It is so frustrating and disheartening, to see how ill-informed and gullible, that YOU folks are. I pray you will learn the truths we have to deal with...
If they are the platform they claim to be they should stop banning conservatives. They want the political protections of being considered a platform when they want to act like they are not a platform. They need to be one or the other as they can not be both as they are mutually exclusive.
If they have editorial control then they are publishers and thus subject to the same laws regarding publishers. Big Tech social media companies are de facto monopolies have official public pages and therefore are public forums subject to the 1st Amendment.
I got my Facebook account suspended, after me and another person argued by comments about vaccination. Facebook immediately afterward suspended my account because it said someone reported that my username wasn't my real name. Facebook guidelines state that you can use a name that you go by, which I did. Facebook demanded that I submit a copy of my driver's license, and then they never actually made my account not suspended.
How can we give immunity to Twitter through section 230, and then turn around and say we can't regulate who they let on. It should be one or the other.
Ideas are nothing but ideas until they are implemented. The market should be able to decide, however, the ability to create platforms is nontrivial and costly. These social media platforms have built their platforms based on the idea of inclusion, but are now excluding based upon their arbitrary choices. If this isn't false advertising, can't imagine what is.
These are private companies but they have become so influential that a new approach is required. All speech that is not within the long established limitations must be permitted so that all ideas can be vetted in the "public square." Any other system leads to authoritarianism as part of a vicious cycle that infantilizes the electorate in order to further contract liberty. The lack of solutions to the Constitutional and anti-trust issues of actions by Google and FB lead me to believe that the only solution is to nationalize these companies and strictly adhere to 1st am law under fully transparent civilian oversight.
When Big tech and the Government seem to be working together yes it is a big problem to our first amendment. We have Australia getting rid of Google has their server after removing information. I too have found this hard to watch while you go around the houses to explain something so simple!!👎🏻
Facebook is not free. It offers a person access to the largest social media platform in the world in exchange for information about the user, which it monetizes in the form of selling and using that information for profit.
MODERATION IS NOT CENSORSHIP. CENSORSHIP IS NOT MODERATION. BUT THE BIG TECH COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THE MODERATION. IMHO WHEN THE COMPANY MODERATED IT DENIES THE DISCUSSIONS THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. USERS WILL EXPRESS OTHER OPINIONS , PRESENT DIFFERENT FACTS TO CONSIDER. LET THE MARKET DECIDE WITHOUT COMPANY (CONGLOMERATE) INTERFERENCE.
When everyone tried to switch to Parler, they closed them down. The monopoly men have sabotaged the free market. Same reason Walmart & McD's stayed open during the plandemic but mom & pop's all got driven out of business. The free market is rigged just like our voting system.
@@gan5045 exactly! San Francisco and the Bay Area are getting ready to become the next Detroit because the shutdown of small businesses have turned that area into a collection of bedroom communities surrounding ghost towns. Look for big tech to migrate to Texas where they will be shut down every two years due to blackouts
@@edwardmiessner6502 From what I understand, China owns most of Cali, so they won't have to relocate. Automation will replace most of the jobs. Most Americans don't understand the strangle hold we are in right now.
Section 230 protects the platforms from their users saying bad things. So, if the platforms are going to enjoy such legal protections, then the platforms should be legally bound to be allow their users to speak freely, as in a public square, without restriction or censorship. It is a stretch to flip it and say that Section 230 was enacted specifically to allow platforms to restrict, censor, and control their user's content. It is really a stretch to argue that Section 230 was actually meant to allow platforms such as the Prodigy BBS to subjectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously censor user speech/content, just because the trial judge made an argument that Prodigy was liable for their user's content/speech since Prodigy's profanity filter opened the door to liability via that form of that one specific/objective form of content control. Paul Sherman argues the latter, where Section 230 is supposed to allow for the platforms to censor user speech/content - which definitively chills speech. Yet, confusingly, he also argues that repealing Section 230 is what would chill speech.
Thinking the Earth is Flat is fundamentally the Flat-Earthers problem... I'm not sure why the liberal guy at 2:30 asks "How often do I have to hear this" - Your ears aren't sacred. If you don't like hearing something. Go somewhere else, ignore it, or try to educate your opponents. Why is this guy so soft?
The problem with people claiming their 1st amendment rights is that they refuse to acknowledge that even though they have their 1st amendment rights it does not absolve them of any consequences of their free speech. Those that constantly scream that their 1st amendment rights are being violated are usually trying to escape the consequences for them violating the rights of others
It’s only the right of a private company to sensor you when they don’t like what you say. But it’s a human right when a whole country bans your whole platform according to Twitter.
@ 37:00 But what happens between 2021 and 2041 if you can't get your view out? Think people! There is too much at stake here to take a wait and see attitude.
The entire public doesn't have access to your living room. Free accounts for the public to communicate like a town square, that square (communication medium), must be subject to the laws of the country of the citizens using it. Otherwise the companies must charge.
Social medias are not censoring anyone. If the USER wants to find the person responsible for their being censored, just look in a mirror. you will then see the person who checked off the box in the T.O.A. agreeing to community standards as set forth by the platform.
As a FREE user of big tech companies we all sign a terms of use policy. A contract that says what we can and cannot do on their platform. Abide by their terms of use or do not use them. Nobody is preventing us from going out on a street corner and speaking. That would be censorship. Just because we have free speech does not require anybody to give us a platform. If we pay for an internet domain name and create our own blogs. Then there are pretty much no limits what we can say or post. See 4chan or 8chan. Been around for years. People say all kinds of things. It is really difficult to get booted from them. I will use a couple of analogies. Society expects us to adhere to certain norms. Would any of us expect to be able to swim naked in a fitness club pool? Why not? Not wearing clothing is our choice a matter of free speech. We would be asked to leave by the management. Why because we signed an license agreement or contract with the pool when we paid for our membership. Would any of us think that we could stand up in a restaurant and begin a racist tirade and not be asked to leave by the management? Absolutely not. We would expect to get thrown out or even arrested in both cases. Would that mean that the fitness club or restaurant is CENSORING our right to free speech? Absolutely not. We enter a unwritten social contract when we go into an establishment such as restaurant or a store. About how we will act. If we step outside of the norms then we will be asked to leave. FB and T are no different. Just because we might be in the privacy of our home sitting naked on a beanbag chair eating cheetos. When we log in we have entered a virtual establishment. Some parts are private rooms others are open spaces where we can meet old friends or discover new ones. Just because the space is virtual does not mean societal norms no longer exist.
That's the thing, Facebook and Twitter are not news agencies and their users are not employees. There is no editorial rights for Facebook to decide what users can or cannot talk about. Thats like saying restaurant owners can gag customers for speaking how they dont like. Just not the case. We are customers not employees, Facebook has no legal right to restrict our speech.
Ya, well let us all know what that obscure law is that allows the enforcement of laws meant specifically for all the countries governments and enjoins businesses as well.
I think most reasonable people acknowledge that a private business can indeed set certain standards and the First Amendment does not apply. That said, I don't think you can make a rational argument that you should get protection as though you're a public utility while at the same time saying all we're not public this is a private business. One or the other, take the protection and open up to a free and open exchange of ideas, or do away with the protection, and these social media sites can be held liable for their content. The other aspect is violating the contracts of their content providers by their extreme, irrational, and very biased censorship.
I'm not comfortable with the level of political bias on display here. One of the lawyers effectively said that he wouldn't want Donald Trump deciding what is fair. I was under the impression that the IFJ was non-partisan. If you are going to display unbalanced bias, please make that clear.
Im a bit dubious of the fact that these 2 guys are so perfectly simpatico on this issue who are they REALLY trying to convince? Will there even BE a message in 20yrs if we throw our hands up & jus wait it out?
Just because things may change in future is no reason not to ensure that today's "public squares" are not as open as yesterday's. After all progress requires open discussion of new ideas and if we close off the public from having access to those discussion today then maybe things won't be different tomorrow.
I was a little disappointed in the beginning but it definitely got better. With respect to the "it's free" argument while true in monetary terms I think that's too narrow a perspective. These companies that provide the services are not charities. They profit off your membership, e.g. through advertising. In exchange for your participation they provide you with their services. So, their is definitely a contract there even if no money ever changed hands. I think the issue is that they do not apply their rules consistently. You mentioned that Trump was kicked off Twitter because he "incited" violence and while that did not meet the legal threshold of incitement Twitter doesn't have to follow those rules. That's fine. However, there are leaders of countries that are literally calling for terrorists to kill some demographic that are still on Twitter. You mentioned the benefit of having "clear bright lines" so that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not. Twitter's rules and certainly the application of those rules is the antithesis of that. Section 230 protects companies that engage in editorial control from being sued for things that other people say which pass through their filter. I think that protection should only be extended to companies that apply their rules consistently without fear or favor. Another issue is the lack of transparency. Section 230 should require companies to be transparent about the process they use to determine whether to filter content. Particularly for the automated filters. e.g. every company that filters content provided by others should have to provide feedback for rejected content that explains what is wrong, e.g. use a slur, etc. Section 230 protections should also be withdrawn if a company censors things that they claim are false but end up being true. If the goal of section 230 is to encourage an open internet then as it stands it gives companies the wrong incentives as there are no costs or risks for those companies that are trying to close off sections of the internet. As you've mentioned elsewhere in your videos incentives are key.
"Editorial Decision" implies that social media is a publisher and therefore liable for defamation and threats on their platform. Further, in the case of so-called covid misinformation, if these decisions are made at the behest or threat of the government. This "chilling effect" can make social media a state actor and then restricted by the constitution.
Unless somebody can be charged for what they say, then it shouldn't be censored when big tech provide public forums... and I am not talking about the censoring of swearwords.. especially in "restricted by age group" forums, which by the way if we shelter our children they will only grow to be weak. We are a resilient species, relax a little.. if people have no place to express their frustrations then where else is there for it to go other than to escalate? Most of the places that people converse in Hatred are centered on these topics anyway, not pervading others "observational awareness"... Ironically though a book can tell people they are going to burn in hell for eternity and it flies completely under the radar.... In fact learning to get around the "filters" is what taught me to go beyond "walking on eggshells" to "walking on Mercury"...... An exercise to witness censoring for yourselves is create a new account and go back to look for previous posts & comments.... they even go so far as to trick you into believing that it remains posted, when your 'posting" account is the only one that can see it....
The only problem with Facebook and Twitter is that you use them. If you don't like that solution then start your own social media company and only let those you want on platform, but don't make more laws because you can't have it both ways.
"start your own social media company" We tried that; Gab. They shut it down. These aren't private entities competing in an open marketplace. These are state monopolies that own the marketplace and act as the agents of government. You know what that's called?
When you purchase a information device ie an I phone, I pad, Mack computer, etc and want to hear from the other side then the manufacturer of the device (that you own (apple)) withdraws the ability for you to see it (removal of apps from the store) what choice do you have? Stand in the line that is ominously ending in that dark building up ahead......
Just stop using them, and shut them down, we really don't need them, we lived just fine before them and we can live just fine without them, DON'T LET THEM RULE OUR LIVES, WAKE UP
Mill was referring to "good faith" arguments that are wrong. Not the dishonest or deluded. Free speech doesn't apply to dishonest and fraudulent speech.
If it's fraudulent then it's a crime and doesn't need any extra restrictions. Whether it is dishonest or delusional is a subjective opinion and you really don't want to give anyone else the power to decide whether your speech is dishonest or delusional.
38:00 ironic he says this when his whole argument is based on tech progressing faster than the law, which is a very unusual recent situation that is unlikely to persist.
In the balance of free speech,,, there is opinion and there is also fact. All opinions should be allowed,, and voiced,, and listened to at least once or twice to glean the point of view,,,,, is there some valid perspective that I have over looked? However,,, fact is a different category. How many votes were cast and by who? I can count those. There is a finite number. And if I cannot count them myself,,, then what authority or authorities shall I trust,,,, BUT THE CORE IS A FINITE NUMBER,,, after they have been counted 3 times by a trusted counter, it moves into the realm of fact. Vaccines, in general, do not cause disease. Vaccines do not have mercury in them. Vaccines are a fact. Some vaccines work slightly better than other vaccines,,,, but again,, they have all run through a peer review gauntlet. Most, multiple times,,,, vaccines and the safety of is a fact. Now when opinions are voiced, and they are opinions, but stated as a fact. No. Opinions are not facts. Someone telling me that the Theory of Evolution is 'just' a theory,, is wrong. Their opinion has edged into fact. Evolution is fact. Sandy Hook school shooting is fact. Trump lost is fact. These are not debatable,,, these are not opinions,,, and they can and should be treated callously. All opinions are good to voice,,, all 'opinions' that are presented as a fact ? Should be censored and erased. And the dividing line is can it be factually supported. Not an opinion masquerading as fact. I also am in lust/love with M. Hildreth. Nice to look at and substance between the ears,,,, bestill mine heart,,,
The analogy of a concert stage doesn't fit here, imo the closest thing is public photos and privacy rights. When you leave your home and venture into any public place your right to privacy is vacated. And so it goes with any business who opens their platform to the public, they vacate their rights to police speech or censure. It really boils down to FCC and OTA television. There should be general rules to follow and that's it. Anything more than that is plain communism. The people in congress are not think tanks, quite the opposite, more like tankless.
?? Those two thing are nothing alike. Public photos is regarding right to privacy. Businesses being forced to broadcast a persons statements that violate the terms and policies that person agreed not to break to be able to use other people’s programs, code, platforms.
Congress shall make no law and the laws which govern society come from either nature or the institutions of government. No corporation, company, or big business has the false authority to create false laws that violate the inalienable rights of the of the American citizenry. If the government cannot do it, a corporation certainly Corporation’s are not vested with the power to create the laws which govern society, nor can they infringe upon the inalienable rights and liberties that lie beyond the governing institutions of men. Corporations have meddled enough with American law and legislation, thanks to the greediocies of our own diseased institutions of greed ridden governance. A line should have been drawn long ago. If the nation doesn’t stop the diseased influence and greediocy of the almighty dollar the almighty dollar is going to destroy this entire country. Just like it has thoroughly destroyed and deluded our government and businesses.
There are many reasons why that I go onto Twitter, or TikTok or TH-cam. Just one of them is to check on the news. I do not go to Tiktok for news. The public square is very large now, but it is "the public." I think we also need private squares to converse one on one, to me that is email, or in a closed group setting, like Patreon, a little public at times, but not the same as Twitter.. and Patreon has the potential of paying me. Yet even Patreon thinks they can keep me from publishing anything that I want to publish, I think that is wrong, but it is what it is.
The fire in a crowded theater term is popularly misunderstood. They still protected speech that was comparable to that. Even when speech is shown to be dangerous, it is still protected by the first amendment.
I think about what I would do if someone started yelling fire in a crowded theater. I mean its dark in there. If there was a fire that was immediately threatening me. I would already know. I'm not going to panic and start climbing over people for the door. I'm going to think "what's this guy yelling for?" Even if he was screaming carbon monoxide or something imperceptible that is immediately threatening he doesn't seem credible. Usually people tasked with delivery of evacuation instructions deliberately try not to incite panic. I don't think I would buy it.
Yeah but you CAN yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded threatre so long as you follow it with "FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!!!" and then exhortations to accept Jesus. It's doubly protected because it's free speech and the free exercise of religion. I'm sure if put to the test the Gorsuch-Barrett Court will confirm. Yeah I don't like it but hey what can you do? 🤷
I think in general people are not wanting to hold these big tech companies accountable for speech, quite the opposite they're wanting free speech for all that use these platforms. Don't hide behind 2:30 when it's convenient for you but sensor especially in a bias manner when it's also convenient for you. You can have the protection but stop censoring political speech you do not like.
its not only political speech if you tell some on to go eat their moms rooster then you get banned for telling them to go eat a bird then its censorship and yes i have proof of it happening
@@GiznoFux I don't doubt it I was censored and put in Facebook jail for 5 days after making a derogatory comment to a fictional character, because I was "bullying". When I appealed the ridiculous conclusion, they reversed the decision and decided I was indeed correct, but still kept me in Facebook Joe for the 5 days, and gave me no avenue to fix the problem.
Social media being free, it is a monopoly on free content. If I wish to try and make money on some types of information, if it is all free on social media, I can not hope to make money on it. Yet, social media is for profit, it profits from selling ads.
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr
twitter, facebook, and google might be free and your no longer a consumer you are the product. I would argue from that standpoint.
Isn't this creed discrimination ?
Regarding Facebook Censorship
Facebook should be treated the same way that a public park that is privately owned should be treated. After all Facebook is the new town square. A private park can make reasonable rules, such as closing times or no camping, but must enforce them equally. If they allow political rallies in a park then they have to allow all political parties to have rallies there. They also have no say as to what is said at those rallies or what is said by private citizens. A park owner does not have the right to censor or fact check what is said in the park. If it's open to the public then the public is free to say what they wish while there. Just as the privately owned public park, Facebook is a privately owned public forum. The same rules should apply.
In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Court appeared to equate the Internet to traditional public fora like a street or public park.
In Reno v. ACLU, which struck down a prohibition in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 on “indecent” material on the Internet, the Court noted that the Internet “constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can ‘publish’ information.
Evans v. Newton was a case of a privately owned public park segregating use by race. It was decided that "The services rendered by a park are municipal in nature, and, under the circumstances of this case, the park is subject to the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment."
If Facebook is considered a privately owned public forum that is violating the first and fourteenth amendments by segregating speech based on content; then they should be held to the same standard as a privately owned public park that is violating the 14th amendment regarding segregation by race.
Any of the social networking sites are perfectly welcome to have a site that only allows a particular view, and bars all others. That's fine if you are up front from the get go about it. But TH-cam, Twitter, Facebook, etc, were all built as forums for the general public to engage in free speech and expression within the wide confines of lawful speech as defined in American law. They built their sites into the colossus they are, and then started engaging in dastardly tricks such as shadow banning, and not sending notifications to a channels subscribers. They did this while denying the censorship, and continuing to encourage people to make content for their sites. They reaped profits from views on channels that they then hid from the creators of those channels, and lied about the view counts, number of subscribers, etc,. I could go on for pages just describing these nefarious acts. These things constitute fraud because they were simultaneously telling people to post content and that it was still a free for all free speech site, while also censoring those same people while lying about it. It was only recently that they admitted in part what they've been up to, now that everyone already knows what they're doing. They should face criminal and civil penalties for roping so many of content creators along under these clearly abusive and arbitrary conditions. There are people who spent tens of thousands of dollars, and hours building their sites as a business, and in support of their businesses, and had all their work nullified by the arbitrary and abusive misuse of power by the social networking media companies. Furthermore these sites both advertised as public forums, and became the de facto town square of America, and then abused that position to manipulate the electoral process. They are by their own definition (Dorsey's remarks regarding censorship of Twitter by the Nigeria government) guilty of human rights abuses. They must be held accountable for their Intolerable Acts.
Why is i4j pretending like these social media corps are acting on our behalf?
They are the largest lobbyist now.
They act with gov & gov acts for them.
They are enter twined to the point if being the same beast.
To not recognize the oligarchy is contributing to the problem
What about when a private company is acting as an agent of the government?
Yes, like Chevron bringing criminal charges against an American attorney, and the judge sentenced him for house arrest. Been over 2 years.
They're blatantly working with bureaucrats and parasites in Congress to silence anyone who dares to ask questions. When the state controls the media.....
Government culusion with is a rights issue
Also, this just goes to show that the personhood of corporations needs to be repealed. It is dangerous and damaging. You cannot jail corporations for committing crimes snd the actual humans making criminal decisions aren't held accountable because they corporations they run are their own persons. That is the antithesis of justice. End corporate personhood NOW!
Hear, hear! One of SCOTUS' most harmful decisions was granting companies personhood.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
absolutely right
unfortunately the dumb and silent are also been led by the 'Big Lie' of politicians using Big Tech ... dont they also have a responsibility to highlight the truth.
@@MrTravbad it's hard determining Truth in matters of ideals/ideas/and ethical opinions. Because many don't accept the notion that there are things such as Moral Facts.
Such things are context-specific and require elucidation.
@@jeremyhennessee6604 i agree about the truth of ideals/ideas and ethical opinion ... but not when it comes to out and out lies for political gain like the "stolen" election ... that is just a lie ... no ambiguity ... and from those politicos no morals either ... the people perpetuating that made the US sound like a banana republic
@@MrTravbad well stated friend.
"Ideas are dangerous" The problem is, Who gets to make the decision on what thoughts are "dangerous" and what aren't. I do not believe any man on Earth has the right to make that decision for everyone else.
It is same arguement for democracy. Government officials are the only people in the world we trust enough to handle the power to lead the country of millions of people. Since we are trusting Government with this much power, we surely can trust them to handle regulation of free speech. If government misuses this power, they can be held accountable for it through protest and judicial system. But same cannot be said for unregulated free speech. In the system of unregulated free speech, no one will be held responsible since everyone has right to absolute free speech.
@@user-bb5qn7os2n
Sorry for the late reply, but a respectfully & strongly disagree.
Our democracy is a sick joke. There are many specific factors that 1 can point out proves we have no say I'm our gov.
Our gov is a lot of things. Accontable is not one of them.
The opposite is true.
History has shown limits on freedom of speech ALWAYS benefits the wealthy while hurting working class
Don't forget, the forums are run by companies who pay for the bandwidth and services/servers. They have property rights. They should be encouraged to follow First Amendment rights, as the things the people, they censor, say how they feel and what knowledge that lack. What is it they say can be pointed out, what's wrong with it. I only fear for the generation that can't actually point out what's wrong with.
TH-cam is Censoring Content just like a Fascist Government would
"Ideas are dangerous"
There are relatively few dangerous ideas. Censoring isn't the best choice. There are options like profanity filters, where the words can be blocked out if the person offended by them, using options. Options to ignore certain persons, point of view, due to spamming, for example. Down voting is another one. Google has a problem, where if they are too who downvote a comment, it disappears. The large number of people (with agendas) downvoting a legitimate comment. That's not a good thing.
Handling it transparently is the best option. Someone who could to point out flaws, for example. To determine who is right and who is wrong. It's necessary to keep comments as records. To see who is clinging to fallacies. You need to keep the records for analysis to trace it back to the source of the problem.
Restriction of information flow is beyond contempt. Distorting public opinion by restricting opposing views is obscene to the extreme.
When a corporation is as large as the government, or is used as a proxy of the government, it's too big. The government doesn't get to outsource its violations of the constitution
IF WE ONLY ALLOWED SPEECH THAT THE MAJORITY LIKE WE WOULD STILL HAVE SLAVERY.
Tell that to "non-racist" liberals who never date black people.
The platforms are "free" because the people with accounts on these platforms are not the clients, they (or their eyes) are the product.
Even services that you pay for can censor you, such as your domain provider👍
It was The Italian Hall disaster in Calumet Michigan in 1913 (over copper mining strikes) that someone on Christmas Eve falsely shouted fire and 73 men, women and children lost their lives in the stampede to get out.
Over one hundred years later, the pictures of the funeral processions still tear your heart out. Most of the victims were children.
Haven't even finished watching this and I'm already frustrated with all the mental gymnastics required to keep up with something so simple as our Bill of Rights. It really isn't this complicated, if you take the feelings out of it. No one's feelings matter more than another's and when you start to put the feelings of one person above the other Equity goes out the window and so does the Bill of Rights. Double standards need to go away and I don't care if you are left, right, or on the moon some place, if you're creating divisiveness in our culture you ARE the problem.
Brilliantly said. All facts! 🤝🏾👏🏽👊🏾
Private entities don't have to abide by the bill of rights.
This comment feels like mental gymnastics. First we don't want equity as it's not achievable. And the bill of rights is only meant to restrict government.
How can you define what is considered divisive? People supporting gay marriage were probably considered divisive at a point in time. Divisive people are not a problem.
I think the bigger problem is people not understanding the purpose of constitution and what is a right.
@@agisler87 equality is archivable once we start treating each other as equals and understanding that ones freedom of speech is just that speech in other words my words are my opinion and if you don't like that tough shit glue your ears shut ? if ya say no well to bad its true every one has the right to speech if it hurts your feelings tough my constitutional rights over ride your feelings and vice versa but then when one has no feelings its a lil hard to hurt them so go and try you are untitled to you opinion and as far as the platforms go to bad they wanna ban from there its ok i don't use them they are just apart of the big picture of controlling the people and looking into your private lives with every post you make
@@Euphoniumstar if that's the case we are all private entities we don't belong to the government nor do we belong to a any business or social platform so why is it that if you have a business then why do they have more rights then we the private citizen
Now we embrace a world of weaklings with unresolved issues
I love these deep dives. Thanks IJ for everything you do.
The thing is you DON'T get to control who's in your dance hall. There are plenty of regulations against discrimination by race, sex, age, etc. So there's one argument that isn't built on a good foundation.
Suggesting that the free market will resolve this uses is great, I believe it 100%, except currently in America, our markets aren't free, so what now? How many businesses have been arbitrarily shut down "for the good of society"?
If Verizon doesn't like the contents of your text messages, do they have the right to cancel your service because it violated their ability to control who's in their dance hall? If Comcast doesn't like your memes, do they shut off your internet because it's their dance hall? If the water company (which is a private monopoly) doesn't like the flowers in your yard because they aren't native and are a symbol of proto-colonialism, and they shut off your water, is that fair because you've violated their freedom of expression?
They do if they want to. You sue and I they just make up reasons. Keep appealing. You run out of money.
I respectfully disagree on Twitter and Facebook being #free. We willfully pay with our personal information, thoughts, desires and so much more.
Google (who owns this platform) and Facebook were funded by DARPA. Our taxdollars helped create them and tax breaks and subsidies keep them in power. You see how they took down Parler when everyone started jumping ship.
@@gan5045 tis why we all need to stop using then most of the stuff on them are trash and not factual anyways
@UCgHzLG7FgrUxyYIcbnvVVRA No they weren't, dumbass.
These entities are not publishers. They are platforms. Restricting lawful and legitimate speech is an act of a publisher, not a platform. As such, by taking this step, these entities should now be considered publishers and held to account for deliberate spew of misinformation, and liable speech. You can’t have it both ways. Claiming immunity as a platform but behaving as a publisher is not acceptable.
100% on point. Great post.
Absolutely. Also individuals should be leaving these "platforms" in droves. How can anyone stand to stay in an environment where what you can say is dictated to you? Its like a cult. Everyone goes over to the cult leaders place, at first its all fun but then one day he/she singles you out and you realize you are not free to be yourself but everyone keeps going cuz its so fun over there! Like wtf is happening
@@RoyArrowood these "platforms" are such monopolies now that there's no way you can get off these "platforms" without forsaking the internet altogether. Which might not be a bad thing!
@@edwardmiessner6502 Well I'm on diaspora now which I hope won't censor me at least. Unfortunately its pretty much just me and some anarchists on there right now lol. Maybe the libertarians are coming soon haha
Legally they are not publishers no matter how much they restrict speech.
Thanks for providing this insightful dialogue many of us appreciate it
The problem with facebook and other platforms is that the algorithms recommend stuff that you interact with to keep you on the platform longer. Censoring the information is wrong, but throwing the same information back at people over and over and over is leading to radicalization. What is the solution that respects free speech and at the same time protects us from manipulation of misinformation and the algorithms of social media platforms. Censoring is just a bandaid for a deeper problem
It can be argued that throwing the same information back at you over and over again *is* censorship because it's intentionally keeping other information you don't know about but might spark your interest away from you. It's like confining people to certain aisles in a bookstore based on their known interests and viewpoints.
@@edwardmiessner6502 I definitely wouldn't call it censorship, but perhaps extreme market manipulation where you keep people on your platform by repeating their ideas to them. Most people don't spend 4-8 hours in a bookstore, and I definitely don't think that facebook should prevent people from seeing information. I do think that facebook and other companies have a responsibility to make their platform less addictive in the interest of consumer protection. If I like a post that promotes a conspiracy theory the algorithm might recommend something more extreme and it becomes a feedback loop. I find it quite concerning.
@@robertguidry2168 ok if you tell some one to go eat a their moms rooster or go eat their dads fish and you get a chat ban for that then it is censorship as all you're doing is telling them to go eat a bird or fish so how does that constitute a chat ban if its not censorship and yes this just recently happen on a game also telling them to enjoy their long slow deaths is just a way of saying enjoy life as each and every one of us are doing it dying a slow long death as it is proven that we start dying from the day we are born
Censoring is NO BANDAID... IT IS THE INFECTION !
When FACTUAL information is banned and videos, buried...
IT IS CENSORSHIP WITH AN AGENDA...
Especially, when you know the approved narrative being forced on everyone, IS INCORRECT AND FALSE !
These tech companies ARE obviously, gov-sponsered fronts.
Trying to post rebuttals using links is imposible on TH-cam. I'm a facts based person. When I try to dispell a conspiracy and use certain words or posts links YT bans the whole post. Debate is the best way to deal with Extremism and not try to cover it up to fester.
Uh, Google is definitely a monopoly. Even though there are competitors are they really competitors?
They are only a monopoly because we allow them to be.
Actually, Google has many competitors, and while I would say none are quite as refined or feature-rich as Google itself, it's actually QUITE EASY to enter into that market. Bing is a thing with Microsoft's deep pockets (though it's garbage), but DuckDuckGo is actually pretty solid and I use it almost exclusively AND it doesn't track you. I don't deny Google is better in alot of ways, but DuckDuckGo is good. As a consumer, you HAVE a realistic alternative. You just aren't CHOOSING it.
Now, TH-cam on the other hand....
@Blob Monster DuckDuckGo is a search engine. LOL back at you, sir.
@@brianmulholland2467 DDG offers only a fraction of what google does.
@@BastiatC There are alternatives for everything google does, dummy.
Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Google are so large they should be labeled a public square. They are so large they shouldn’t be able to take away speech from people.
Facebook is also not an essential service. Not telephone, not electricity, not water, it totally is a Blockbuster.
I've been seeking legal help for over 30 years, to no avail.
It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT, "lawyers". The "gov" assists their corps in violating Rights.
It’s an antitrust issue.
it is both an anti-trust issue and a 1st amendment issue. anti-trust just doesn't have the tools to solve this. imo we need a new approach to protect basic liberty from the threat of monopolistic big tech.
Simple: Stop giving them money.
Good to see you again Paul.
My concern is Government is working in concert with NGOs to circumvent the constitution.
Working with licensing and funding, any political party in power can apply pressure to control speech platforms.
Government levers can be FCC, IRS, OSHA, local code and permitting - directly.
Indirectly Government levers can push or nudge investment firms, banks and other business partners to make life better or worse.
Fire in a building is the start of suppression. Hold those people accountable for saying fire when this is none or pulling a fie alarm. Hold the ACCOUNTABLE solves the problem.. Just like we stop showing our shoulders coming home in caskets. So people won't protest a war. . The first amendment was for all speech and if it harms someone hold them accountable for the deed .
Here is a wrench in this the Government have now been paying these companies not only that but they have contract with them. NSA, FBI, CIA,. So they then become a Government employee of the Government which we pay for with our Tax.
I don't consider websites that censor legal speech as platforms. Those are publishers.
Legally they aren't publishers. If you want platforms that don't censor at all go to 4chan or something.
they are neither they are being tyrannical
If that speech violates the terms as a subject matter that is prohibited from being published on their platforms by users that agree to those terms…. Is not censorship.
@@Sinful_Josh If they have terms of things that are and are not prohibited than they are publishers.
@@elinope4745 Sorry but no. a site has the right under rule 230 to determine what content is acceptable on their site. What they do not have the right to do is edit or editorialize on the someone's post in a way that alters the original intent or meaning.
For example, based on your logic, I should be allowed to go onto a forum on a churches site and posting things that if I was saying the same things while in their church they would have me thrown out or arrested.
That it is wrong for the church to be able to prevent me from telling them their are all going to hell or going all Westboro Baptist Church on them, and they are censoring my legal free speech.
The church can delete all my posts as well as block me from their site. What they cannot do is edit my posts to make it appear that I am saying something other than what I had originally posted.
What if we took away corporate personhood? No longer afford companies the luxury of being considered living entities.
A group of people don't lose their first amendment rights no more than a individual. No matter what the group calls themselves they still have a right to pool resources and speak.
@@agisler87 Take a look at how public unions work. They want to control private businesses and demand union membership dues on those who don't want to be included as a membership. Several of them have been called out in the past for bullying and threatening non-members into signing the agreement. Not only that, the dues from all members are spent on progressive, political views of a select few (a.k.a. union leaders).
This will happen right after cops and politicians lose immunity.
@@agisler87 As the rights are afforded to the individuals, a corporation that uses its influence outside of a 100% consensus is committing fraud, as it is manipulating individuals rights and adding an additional number that does not exist, no different than voter fraud.
I don't think this is as big an issue at all. The concern is REACH, not SPEECH. WE make those companies powerful enough that we feel they are 'censoring' us. I've abandoned all the major social media platforms except this one. And I'm building my OWN website so I can put things I want without it being removed.
Good luck if it becomes big.
Just look at what happened to Parler.
You’re right, reach is the problem. And the fact is, Twatter, Facebook and TH-cam own the majority of the space in social media BUT the people that run these companies share views with people in charge of companies further up the same chain like Amazon or the government, making it very hard for newer, non-establishment competitors to actually succeed once they start getting too big
You're a gullible fool to believe these children's rhymes: "reach not speech." Censoring political speech on one of the big social media sites is the equivalent of Greyhound denying transportation to travelers. Greyhound is a private company but cannot turn away customers because of the political affiliation, nor should Twitter et al be permitted to ban users because of political speech.
Your domain host can cancel you, read the terms of service for your domain provider👍
@@barefootjakejake7765 -> Exactly, and they have too.
@ItzMikeOmg no this is worse than communism....
I'm on the fence about this.
On one hand restricting freedom of speech makes it easier to punish critics, but on the other hand not censoring crazy people who spread lies to the gullible and whip them into violent action also hurts society as a whole; examples being the Christmas 5g tower bombing and the capital assault.
if were gonna allow these people a platform to spread their crazy then we need to be more proactive about making sure these people don't do any harm.
So lying about someone else publicly is a crime that is supposed to be able to be prosecuted in a court of law. The courts have made this more complicated than it needs to be. And the individual harmed by the lies needs to be bringing the case in a certain time period.
@@benjaminstalcup we did that with Donald Trump's cases against the election and that didn't result in anything, people still rioted and committed domestic terrorism
It is so frustrating and disheartening, to see how ill-informed and gullible, that YOU folks are. I pray you will learn the truths we have to deal with...
Republican bad
Sound like you want to silence your political opponents but are ok with the lies from your side. Shameful way to view free speech.
Still happening, especially today.
If they are the platform they claim to be they should stop banning conservatives. They want the political protections of being considered a platform when they want to act like they are not a platform. They need to be one or the other as they can not be both as they are mutually exclusive.
If they have editorial control then they are publishers and thus subject to the same laws regarding publishers.
Big Tech social media companies are de facto monopolies have official public pages and therefore are public forums subject to the 1st Amendment.
Yutub and gurgle also censor items that don't fit their agenda.
Keep an open mind---and people will throw garbage in it.
I got my Facebook account suspended, after me and another person argued by comments about vaccination. Facebook immediately afterward suspended my account because it said someone reported that my username wasn't my real name. Facebook guidelines state that you can use a name that you go by, which I did. Facebook demanded that I submit a copy of my driver's license, and then they never actually made my account not suspended.
Fck Zuckerberg & fck Facebook anyways.
You are better off
We would all be better off without it.
@@jupitercyclops6521, yep.
Can we sue for this
The public square is the internet. Banning Trump from going online would be bad, banning him from a publisher like Facebook is not the town square.
I'd love to see an updated opinion on this now that it appears that social media platforms have been acting as partisan agents of government.
How can we give immunity to Twitter through section 230, and then turn around and say we can't regulate who they let on. It should be one or the other.
Ideas are nothing but ideas until they are implemented. The market should be able to decide, however, the ability to create platforms is nontrivial and costly. These social media platforms have built their platforms based on the idea of inclusion, but are now excluding based upon their arbitrary choices. If this isn't false advertising, can't imagine what is.
Show me a single ad that says that they will never take down a post or ban a user.
These are private companies but they have become so influential that a new approach is required. All speech that is not within the long established limitations must be permitted so that all ideas can be vetted in the "public square." Any other system leads to authoritarianism as part of a vicious cycle that infantilizes the electorate in order to further contract liberty. The lack of solutions to the Constitutional and anti-trust issues of actions by Google and FB lead me to believe that the only solution is to nationalize these companies and strictly adhere to 1st am law under fully transparent civilian oversight.
When Big tech and the Government seem to be working together yes it is a big problem to our first amendment. We have Australia getting rid of Google has their server after removing information. I too have found this hard to watch while you go around the houses to explain something so simple!!👎🏻
Getting rid of google as their server ಠ_ಠ ?
1:57
Host: Bob did you have something to add?
Bob: No
Facebook is not free. It offers a person access to the largest social media platform in the world in exchange for information about the user, which it monetizes in the form of selling and using that information for profit.
MODERATION IS NOT CENSORSHIP.
CENSORSHIP IS NOT MODERATION.
BUT THE BIG TECH COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THE MODERATION.
IMHO WHEN THE COMPANY MODERATED IT DENIES THE DISCUSSIONS THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT.
USERS WILL EXPRESS OTHER OPINIONS , PRESENT DIFFERENT FACTS TO CONSIDER.
LET THE MARKET DECIDE WITHOUT COMPANY (CONGLOMERATE) INTERFERENCE.
It’s simple but unpopular, we stop using these platforms.
When everyone tried to switch to Parler, they closed them down. The monopoly men have sabotaged the free market. Same reason Walmart & McD's stayed open during the plandemic but mom & pop's all got driven out of business. The free market is rigged just like our voting system.
@@gan5045 exactly! San Francisco and the Bay Area are getting ready to become the next Detroit because the shutdown of small businesses have turned that area into a collection of bedroom communities surrounding ghost towns. Look for big tech to migrate to Texas where they will be shut down every two years due to blackouts
@@edwardmiessner6502 From what I understand, China owns most of Cali, so they won't have to relocate. Automation will replace most of the jobs. Most Americans don't understand the strangle hold we are in right now.
Section 230 protects the platforms from their users saying bad things. So, if the platforms are going to enjoy such legal protections, then the platforms should be legally bound to be allow their users to speak freely, as in a public square, without restriction or censorship.
It is a stretch to flip it and say that Section 230 was enacted specifically to allow platforms to restrict, censor, and control their user's content. It is really a stretch to argue that Section 230 was actually meant to allow platforms such as the Prodigy BBS to subjectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously censor user speech/content, just because the trial judge made an argument that Prodigy was liable for their user's content/speech since Prodigy's profanity filter opened the door to liability via that form of that one specific/objective form of content control.
Paul Sherman argues the latter, where Section 230 is supposed to allow for the platforms to censor user speech/content - which definitively chills speech. Yet, confusingly, he also argues that repealing Section 230 is what would chill speech.
Thinking the Earth is Flat is fundamentally the Flat-Earthers problem... I'm not sure why the liberal guy at 2:30 asks "How often do I have to hear this" - Your ears aren't sacred. If you don't like hearing something. Go somewhere else, ignore it, or try to educate your opponents. Why is this guy so soft?
The problem with people claiming their 1st amendment rights is that they refuse to acknowledge that even though they have their 1st amendment rights it does not absolve them of any consequences of their free speech. Those that constantly scream that their 1st amendment rights are being violated are usually trying to escape the consequences for them violating the rights of others
Boycott big tech...
If their rules suck....why are you there ?
Opt out ! Cancel the contract !
it would take all to do so at this time and doing so would cause them to shut down due to no money coming in to fund the tyranny
I see this video was censored.
3k views in 3 months? You Tube sure knows how to bury content!
It’s only the right of a private company to sensor you when they don’t like what you say. But it’s a human right when a whole country bans your whole platform according to Twitter.
“It’s impossible to compete with Twitter”….. lol.
Another KICK ASS presentation by inst for j
If they censor, they become editors. How can they be 230 immune??
How about you actually try reading the law? Or are you too stupid to understand such a short and simple passage?
@ 37:00 But what happens between 2021 and 2041 if you can't get your view out? Think people! There is too much at stake here to take a wait and see attitude.
United States v Schenck in 1919 "Fire in a crowded theater" case was an abomination and was eventually overturned.
Well then, how come nobody yells it anymore?
@@buttercuptaylor7135 - yeah, nobody is anti-war anymore and everyone thinks conscription in WW1 was a good. wait....no they don't
The entire public doesn't have access to your living room. Free accounts for the public to communicate like a town square, that square (communication medium), must be subject to the laws of the country of the citizens using it. Otherwise the companies must charge.
They are, they sell the information you give them to third parties
What you're suggesting is unconstitutional.
Social medias are not censoring anyone. If the USER wants to find the person responsible for their being censored, just look in a mirror. you will then see the person who checked off the box in the T.O.A. agreeing to community standards as set forth by the platform.
Yeah these terms of service contracts are out of control. Its going to take massive 2nd amendment exercise to rein in this situation.
As a FREE user of big tech companies we all sign a terms of use policy.
A contract that says what we can and cannot do on their platform.
Abide by their terms of use or do not use them.
Nobody is preventing us from going out on a street corner and speaking. That would be censorship.
Just because we have free speech does not require anybody to give us a platform.
If we pay for an internet domain name and create our own blogs. Then there are pretty much no limits what we can say or post.
See 4chan or 8chan.
Been around for years. People say all kinds of things. It is really difficult to get booted from them.
I will use a couple of analogies.
Society expects us to adhere to certain norms.
Would any of us expect to be able to swim naked in a fitness club pool?
Why not?
Not wearing clothing is our choice a matter of free speech.
We would be asked to leave by the management.
Why because we signed an license agreement or contract with the pool when we paid for our membership.
Would any of us think that we could stand up in a restaurant and begin a racist tirade and not be asked to leave by the management?
Absolutely not.
We would expect to get thrown out or even arrested in both cases.
Would that mean that the fitness club or restaurant is CENSORING our right to free speech?
Absolutely not.
We enter a unwritten social contract when we go into an establishment such as restaurant or a store. About how we will act. If we step outside of the norms then we will be asked to leave.
FB and T are no different.
Just because we might be in the privacy of our home sitting naked on a beanbag chair eating cheetos.
When we log in we have entered a virtual establishment.
Some parts are private rooms others are open spaces where we can meet old friends or discover new ones.
Just because the space is virtual does not mean societal norms no longer exist.
Exactly
That's the thing, Facebook and Twitter are not news agencies and their users are not employees. There is no editorial rights for Facebook to decide what users can or cannot talk about. Thats like saying restaurant owners can gag customers for speaking how they dont like. Just not the case. We are customers not employees, Facebook has no legal right to restrict our speech.
Ya, well let us all know what that obscure law is that allows the enforcement of laws meant specifically for all the countries governments and enjoins businesses as well.
I think most reasonable people acknowledge that a private business can indeed set certain standards and the First Amendment does not apply. That said, I don't think you can make a rational argument that you should get protection as though you're a public utility while at the same time saying all we're not public this is a private business. One or the other, take the protection and open up to a free and open exchange of ideas, or do away with the protection, and these social media sites can be held liable for their content.
The other aspect is violating the contracts of their content providers by their extreme, irrational, and very biased censorship.
I'm not comfortable with the level of political bias on display here. One of the lawyers effectively said that he wouldn't want Donald Trump deciding what is fair.
I was under the impression that the IFJ was non-partisan. If you are going to display unbalanced bias, please make that clear.
So turn it off
Im a bit dubious of the fact that these 2 guys are so perfectly simpatico on this issue who are they REALLY trying to convince? Will there even BE a message in 20yrs if we throw our hands up & jus wait it out?
Just because things may change in future is no reason not to ensure that today's "public squares" are not as open as yesterday's. After all progress requires open discussion of new ideas and if we close off the public from having access to those discussion today then maybe things won't be different tomorrow.
I was a little disappointed in the beginning but it definitely got better.
With respect to the "it's free" argument while true in monetary terms I think that's too narrow a perspective. These companies that provide the services are not charities. They profit off your membership, e.g. through advertising. In exchange for your participation they provide you with their services. So, their is definitely a contract there even if no money ever changed hands.
I think the issue is that they do not apply their rules consistently. You mentioned that Trump was kicked off Twitter because he "incited" violence and while that did not meet the legal threshold of incitement Twitter doesn't have to follow those rules. That's fine. However, there are leaders of countries that are literally calling for terrorists to kill some demographic that are still on Twitter.
You mentioned the benefit of having "clear bright lines" so that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not. Twitter's rules and certainly the application of those rules is the antithesis of that.
Section 230 protects companies that engage in editorial control from being sued for things that other people say which pass through their filter. I think that protection should only be extended to companies that apply their rules consistently without fear or favor.
Another issue is the lack of transparency. Section 230 should require companies to be transparent about the process they use to determine whether to filter content. Particularly for the automated filters. e.g. every company that filters content provided by others should have to provide feedback for rejected content that explains what is wrong, e.g. use a slur, etc.
Section 230 protections should also be withdrawn if a company censors things that they claim are false but end up being true.
If the goal of section 230 is to encourage an open internet then as it stands it gives companies the wrong incentives as there are no costs or risks for those companies that are trying to close off sections of the internet.
As you've mentioned elsewhere in your videos incentives are key.
"Editorial Decision" implies that social media is a publisher and therefore liable for defamation and threats on their platform. Further, in the case of so-called covid misinformation, if these decisions are made at the behest or threat of the government. This "chilling effect" can make social media a state actor and then restricted by the constitution.
WAR
Unless somebody can be charged for what they say, then it shouldn't be censored when big tech provide public forums... and I am not talking about the censoring of swearwords.. especially in "restricted by age group" forums, which by the way if we shelter our children they will only grow to be weak. We are a resilient species, relax a little.. if people have no place to express their frustrations then where else is there for it to go other than to escalate? Most of the places that people converse in Hatred are centered on these topics anyway, not pervading others "observational awareness"... Ironically though a book can tell people they are going to burn in hell for eternity and it flies completely under the radar....
In fact learning to get around the "filters" is what taught me to go beyond "walking on eggshells" to "walking on Mercury"......
An exercise to witness censoring for yourselves is create a new account and go back to look for previous posts & comments.... they even go so far as to trick you into believing that it remains posted, when your 'posting" account is the only one that can see it....
The only problem with Facebook and Twitter is that you use them. If you don't like that solution then start your own social media company and only let those you want on platform, but don't make more laws because you can't have it both ways.
"start your own social media company" We tried that; Gab. They shut it down. These aren't private entities competing in an open marketplace. These are state monopolies that own the marketplace and act as the agents of government. You know what that's called?
Gab and Parler turned out well didnt they?
When you purchase a information device ie an I phone, I pad, Mack computer, etc and want to hear from the other side then the manufacturer of the device (that you own (apple)) withdraws the ability for you to see it (removal of apps from the store) what choice do you have? Stand in the line that is ominously ending in that dark building up ahead......
Don't buy it.
Zukerburg is a punk kid
Just stop using them, and shut them down, we really don't need them, we lived just fine before them and we can live just fine without them, DON'T LET THEM RULE OUR LIVES, WAKE UP
Mill was referring to "good faith" arguments that are wrong. Not the dishonest or deluded. Free speech doesn't apply to dishonest and fraudulent speech.
then why is it called free speech one can say what ever they feel its the smooth brains who follow the dishonestly and fraudulence
If it's fraudulent then it's a crime and doesn't need any extra restrictions. Whether it is dishonest or delusional is a subjective opinion and you really don't want to give anyone else the power to decide whether your speech is dishonest or delusional.
👀
Good point
38:00 ironic he says this when his whole argument is based on tech progressing faster than the law, which is a very unusual recent situation that is unlikely to persist.
In the balance of free speech,,, there is opinion and there is also fact. All opinions should be allowed,, and voiced,, and listened to at least once or twice to glean the point of view,,,,, is there some valid perspective that I have over looked? However,,, fact is a different category. How many votes were cast and by who? I can count those. There is a finite number. And if I cannot count them myself,,, then what authority or authorities shall I trust,,,, BUT THE CORE IS A FINITE NUMBER,,, after they have been counted 3 times by a trusted counter, it moves into the realm of fact.
Vaccines, in general, do not cause disease. Vaccines do not have mercury in them. Vaccines are a fact. Some vaccines work slightly better than other vaccines,,,, but again,, they have all run through a peer review gauntlet. Most, multiple times,,,, vaccines and the safety of is a fact.
Now when opinions are voiced, and they are opinions, but stated as a fact. No. Opinions are not facts. Someone telling me that the Theory of Evolution is 'just' a theory,, is wrong. Their opinion has edged into fact. Evolution is fact. Sandy Hook school shooting is fact. Trump lost is fact. These are not debatable,,, these are not opinions,,, and they can and should be treated callously. All opinions are good to voice,,, all 'opinions' that are presented as a fact ? Should be censored and erased. And the dividing line is can it be factually supported. Not an opinion masquerading as fact.
I also am in lust/love with M. Hildreth. Nice to look at and substance between the ears,,,, bestill mine heart,,,
ok my opinion you just beat a dead horse for the separated last line of your opinionated facts
The analogy of a concert stage doesn't fit here, imo the closest thing is public photos and privacy rights. When you leave your home and venture into any public place your right to privacy is vacated. And so it goes with any business who opens their platform to the public, they vacate their rights to police speech or censure. It really boils down to FCC and OTA television. There should be general rules to follow and that's it. Anything more than that is plain communism. The people in congress are not think tanks, quite the opposite, more like tankless.
?? Those two thing are nothing alike.
Public photos is regarding right to privacy.
Businesses being forced to broadcast a persons statements that violate the terms and policies that person agreed not to break to be able to use other people’s programs, code, platforms.
Congress shall make no law and the laws which govern society come from either nature or the institutions of government.
No corporation, company, or big business has the false authority to create false laws that violate the inalienable rights of the of the American citizenry.
If the government cannot do it, a corporation certainly
Corporation’s are not vested with the power to create the laws which govern society, nor can they infringe upon the inalienable rights and liberties that lie beyond the governing institutions of men.
Corporations have meddled enough with American law and legislation, thanks to the greediocies of our own diseased institutions of greed ridden governance.
A line should have been drawn long ago.
If the nation doesn’t stop the diseased influence and greediocy of the almighty dollar the almighty dollar is going to destroy this entire country. Just like it has thoroughly destroyed and deluded our government and businesses.
There are many reasons why that I go onto Twitter, or TikTok or TH-cam. Just one of them is to check on the news. I do not go to Tiktok for news. The public square is very large now, but it is "the public." I think we also need private squares to converse one on one, to me that is email, or in a closed group setting, like Patreon, a little public at times, but not the same as Twitter.. and Patreon has the potential of paying me. Yet even Patreon thinks they can keep me from publishing anything that I want to publish, I think that is wrong, but it is what it is.
The fire in a crowded theater term is popularly misunderstood. They still protected speech that was comparable to that. Even when speech is shown to be dangerous, it is still protected by the first amendment.
I think about what I would do if someone started yelling fire in a crowded theater. I mean its dark in there. If there was a fire that was immediately threatening me. I would already know. I'm not going to panic and start climbing over people for the door. I'm going to think "what's this guy yelling for?" Even if he was screaming carbon monoxide or something imperceptible that is immediately threatening he doesn't seem credible. Usually people tasked with delivery of evacuation instructions deliberately try not to incite panic. I don't think I would buy it.
Yeah but you CAN yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded threatre so long as you follow it with "FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!!!" and then exhortations to accept Jesus. It's doubly protected because it's free speech and the free exercise of religion. I'm sure if put to the test the Gorsuch-Barrett Court will confirm. Yeah I don't like it but hey what can you do? 🤷
I think in general people are not wanting to hold these big tech companies accountable for speech, quite the opposite they're wanting free speech for all that use these platforms. Don't hide behind 2:30 when it's convenient for you but sensor especially in a bias manner when it's also convenient for you. You can have the protection but stop censoring political speech you do not like.
its not only political speech if you tell some on to go eat their moms rooster then you get banned for telling them to go eat a bird then its censorship and yes i have proof of it happening
@@GiznoFux
I don't doubt it I was censored and put in Facebook jail for 5 days after making a derogatory comment to a fictional character, because I was "bullying". When I appealed the ridiculous conclusion, they reversed the decision and decided I was indeed correct, but still kept me in Facebook Joe for the 5 days, and gave me no avenue to fix the problem.
theamericanstatesassembly.net
Used Google translate
Used Facebook invite scammers :
Love scam
Gambling
Scam money
Rob you
RALEIGH NC 919💯
You’re lucky they didn’t ban you for this.
Social media being free, it is a monopoly on free content. If I wish to try and make money on some types of information, if it is all free on social media, I can not hope to make money on it. Yet, social media is for profit, it profits from selling ads.