That's a clever trick.
Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.
back
10 comments
I don't think it's a question of the medium but a question of the actor doing the censoring. If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal. I think one difference is the enforcement, Google can't censor an individual universally, just on their platform, whereas the government can enforce it universally with force/jail/etc.
Unfortunately, it becomes virtually universal when a small set of massive companies (with similar censorship ideas) control 99% of all our communications and social media.
I think this evades the spirit of the legal protections here, at least.
Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, and don't really have a solution here. Just pointing out how the current situation feels like dangerous territory.
Ironically, I think one promising solution is the Fediverse.
Or, more generally: given how subjective ideas about acceptable speech are, the only real solution is to break up giant gatekeepers like Google.
> If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal
FCC regulation of TV broadcast comes close, but apparently obscenity isn't protected under the First Amendment (perhaps you can tell I'm not a lawyer, or for that matter an American).
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
Yeah, there is this vague idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to certain categories of speech (yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is the classic example) that get stretched to fit this sort of thing.
I assume the reason for that is that the FCC grants a government-protected monopoly on wireless spectrum to a single entity. In the granting of a monopoly, they also demand extra "protections", in much the same way that there are regulations on other monopolies.
not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agree that that's a reasonable approach.
just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense. It's a very private piece of software that is NOT open source and is very obviously owned and managed by a single entity.
just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used.
side note: monopoly is a separate issue.
> just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used.
The first instance is property rights. The second is copyright, a privilege granted by the government at the expense of others' property rights. When a private party leverages copyright to conduct censorship it's ultimately the government that is responsible for violating the victim's freedom of speech. Google certainly has the right to grant or deny access to their services as they please, but that is not the same as having a natural right to decide how the software they develop is used after it has already been released to the public.
“just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense”
I think that’s precisely what’s starting to be discussed now at national levels, with investigations into Apple, Facebook and Google in the EU and the USA.
In many countries, utilities are commercial entities, but they can’t refuse to serve customers because of what they say. I can see a future where we think the same of the big players on the web: commercial, but still public utilities.
Problem of course is that many countries also fear a completely open internet. Providers already have to filter pornography, hate speech, etc. So, would we end up with commercial entities that cannot filter the content published on their platform to suit their norms, but must filter it to suit the norms of the government? If so, would that apply to all sites, including, say, Hacker News, or pro- or anti-abortus sites, or just to large ones? If so, what’s ‘large’?
I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act.
If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.
Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users.
If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually policing content that is brought to their attention afterwards.
It's the side effect of allowing a small number of largely unregulated companies to control so much of our communications. TV and radio using public right-of-ways like radio bands are much more tightly regulated to ensure "equal time". That's not the case for social media or mobile platforms and I suspect any attempt to regulate those would be met with a great deal of resistance. Not the least complaint would be that regulation has a history of keeping small players out, potentially further cementing the monopoly of a few companies. I don't know the answer to any of this, but I think it's something that will need to have an answer if our democracy is to survive.
The equal time doctrine was eliminated in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
>> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
And for good reason. It doesn't make sense to mandate equal time for mainstream and fringe positions, rational proposals and ones riddled with contradictions. Either some government censor is responsible for deciding which positions are "serious" enough to warrant equal time or the media eventually gets overwhelmed with nonsense and conspiracy theories. If you want to see where the "fairness doctrine" leads, just have a look at some of the less discriminating social media sites.
I am very anti-social-media-regulation. Partly for the reasons you mention and partly because I see greater regulation balkanizing the internet and driving us increasingly farther from the promise of an egalitarian open internet.
As for alternatives, I think we just need people to collectively decide that some other platform (ideally a decentralized one) is better than the incumbent. Facebook depends on its inertia. Suppose every Facebook use went cold turkey and switched to something else instead (let's say Mastodon for the sake of argument). In a year, nobody would be talking about Facebook's monopoly.
Where I think things get sticky right now, though, and I'll even say -the- reason we haven't seen innovation in social media, is that incumbents on the scale of Facebook have the capital sufficient to either buy or sue any plausible competition into the ground before the competition has a chance at taking their market share. Imagine a world where Facebook had been blocked from burying Instagram and WhatsApp with money!
I think I would be in favor of greater regulation against these winner-takes-all tactics on a more economic level, although exactly how that regulation would work in a way that was both fair and non-trivial to evade I don't know.
It seems like the obvious answer is modernized competitive market laws that prevent companies from leaving competition-mode and entering castle building-mode.
That's the problem of the all-private internet. There is no virtual street corner at which to protest. There is no internet post office to handle your mail. There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you.
There is only profit. The moment you become unprofitable for whatever reason you will lose everything. If tomorrow 51% of the world decided they hated left-handed people they would all find their accounts disabled, their website registrations suspended, their entire online presence forced into secrecy.
So far that's only happened, to my knowledge, to terrorists and white supremacists, but there is absolutely no legal reason why it can't happen to anyone else.
Yep, and this is the core problem that I think much of the debate around social networks and online services in general is missing - the debate typically centers around these entities' legal rights, and completely forgets the fact that the online scenario actually has very little equivalent in the real world.
The real world contains public spaces. It contains within it the recognition that some part of all of this around us, belongs to everyone.
And while that has been the center of much of the rhetoric about the internet since its inception, that rhetoric has never actually been true IN FACT. It's a mishmash of private entities controlling their piece of the puzzle.
I think, as another poster mentioned, if democracy is to survive, the concept of "some part of the internet and its services are a public good" must take hold.
Now, that's a scary-ass thing to say because unlike a piece of land, or drinking water, these things don't just "exist". They exist only as long as some entity pays for them, which means that such a statement implies things about who pays (government? subsidies? you pay but it isn't yours? special kinds of taxes?).
And yet I think avoiding dystopia requires going that way. I have no idea what it would look like.
Of course, there's an alternative.
Google/Twitter/FB/etc. can agree that they don't censor anyone unless that person breaks the law. That puts the discussion right back where it should have been in the first place: In the public, political sphere, where The People have the ability to influence the outcome.
But then, why would Google etc. do that? Too enticing, all that power.
>There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you.
speaking of shutting off water, this is happening in meatspace too: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-g...
And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways
Private companies can't censor "bad opinions"
But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake"
How is this disconnect rationalized?
It's worth noting that there's also a side that wants the opposite of that, to censor bad opinions, but not be able to refuse making a gay wedding cake.
Hypocrites are not limited to specific groups, they're universal.
No one is forcing Google or their employees to write hate speech on a cake or an app though, that's a pretty massive difference in analogies. Nor are people asking for a free-for-all where Google can't delete any speech on their platforms.
People were fine when they were deleting spam and had a limited content restriction policies against things like directly promoting violence or posting gore/cp and other obvious tier stuff.
I haven't heard many people pushing for governments to force Google et al to not be able to delete things from their platforms either - outside of some tiny fringes who don't understand how the internet works.
Which is therefore still consistently pro-freedom. Likewise compelled speech + censorship of an arbitrary and ever expanding list of wrongthink is consistently authoritarian.
I really don't see the contradiction in either of these worldviews.
It's the classic centralized top-down puppet-mastery of individuals choices vs embracing the chaos of freedom of individual choice (within some limited boundaries). This battle has been waged for as long as society has been around and is a natural side-effect of power structures.
I'm not saying all people making such arguments are making consistent arguments, but there's a consistent argument to be had that being forced to say (or write) something (say on a cake) and being forced to not say (or write) something are both compulsions in communication, and to be opposed to all compulsions in communication (to the positive or negative). I've heard several people argue that a cake shop should be compelled to sell a cake to a gay couple, but shouldn't be compelled to write two same-genedered names on it or compelled to craft a plastic figurine of two grooms or two brides for the top. I've heard it argued that if the gay couple wants "Susan and Jeff" and a little figurine of a bride and groom, or any other artistic expressions they'd do for a strait couple should be compellable, but the government shouldn't be able to compel artistic expressions or writing.
Now, I'd boycott the hell out of such an establishment, but as an abstract argument, I think compelled expression is a bad idea. It's really not that huge a step from compelled expression to re-education camps.
Twitter's service isn't that they write 140 character prose for you, and YouTube's service isn't that they create videos to your specification. It would be hypocritical to demand that YouTube be forced to create a custom video to your specifications (or a ghost writer forced to write a book for someone with whom they disagree) and yet the cake shop shouldn't be forced to write two same-gendered names on a cake. These people arguing against forced cake lettering aren't arguing for forced book creation or forced video creation.
Once again, refusing to make a gay wedding cake makes you a jerk and worthy of boycotting, but there is a consistent argument to be made simultaneously against forced expression and against forced silence.
Yeah, not so much.
The difference is in the legal definition of protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of a protected class -- ethnicity or disability for instance.
Removing an opinion or banning a user based on violation of an agreed upon term of service is not the same thing. Having an opinion does not make you a member of a protected class, and a private corporation is free to allow you or disallow you from use of their services to broadcast that opinion. Newspapers have been doing this since the dawn of print. Google could not, for example, ban someone for being Jewish.
You can argue about whether sexual orientation deserves status as a protected class, but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. It is a false equivalency.
You could make the argument that the "socially liberal" side that wants to censor hate speech, but protect gay people from discrimination is logically consistent.
A social liberal could argue on the point of protecting the rights of a marginalized minority. By censoring (for example) calls for violence, social liberals are protecting the safety of the targeted group. By requiring a cake shop to serve gay couples (or interracial couples, to throw in another example), social liberals are protecting a marginalized minority's access to services.
None of the reporting I saw on the wedding cake cases actually described the cakes.
Are we talking normal wedding cakes, that you can buy from nearly any baker, with some ordinary decorations, that just have two men's names instead of one men's name and one woman's name after the "Congratulations", and have two mass-produced little plastic men on top instead of one little plastic man and one little plastic woman?
Or are we talking something you'd get from a baker like Duff Goldman, which is a custom designed and made unique work of art specifically for you that captures the artist's interpretation of your wedding, and inherently is an act of speech on the part of the artist?
Its custom designed cake. That baker has been sued yet again because he refused to bake a trans-themed birthday cake.
I don't believe he has a problem selling cakes to anyone, just that he refused to design cakes with themes.
Size (importance) of the company. Can your electricity company disconnect you because they don't like what you're saying online using that electricity?
An electricity company is a utility however. They're a natural monopoly in a way that a "website" can't be
If [large social media platform] doesn't want that kind of content, it's not unreasonable to simply make one to soak up that "ignored" market segment. Reddit can't shut you down for hosting your own internet forum for instance
doesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.
Google removing apps with spam/malware is one thing, & not something people would actually complain about. That also doesn't apply to removing the fediverse apps. They don't contain malware, they're simply alternative social networks. If they're going to remove them for having content they consider inappropriate or whatever excuse they're using, they need to remove other social media apps like facebook & twitter, because they certainly both have plenty of that too. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to remove competitors to facebook/twitter. I also don't see what this has to do with a business refusing to make a cake. Businesses do have a right to refuse service. In this case if you're going to remove apps claiming they violate a specific violation, but don't remove other apps which will also inevitably be in violation the same way, it's reasonable for people to question it.
I have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).
How so?
The first hypocrisy is the defense of the right of a business to make arbitrary decisions w.r.t. service (not bake the cake), while simultaneously demanding that the business not have the power to refuse service (condemning private censorship).
The reverse position is not hypocritical in the same way, because condemning discrimination against customers on LGBT grounds is not at odds with censoring discriminatory speech - in fact, the two positions are aligned.
You could try to argue that private censorship is itself a form of discrimination, but most people who hold the second position would not concede that the people who practice hate speech are a minority worthy of protection - so for them, no discrimination is occurring.
A bakery is not a speech platform.
Allowing speech on your speech platform is not the same thing as compelling others to speech.
Comparing "allowing/disallowing the use of a tool" to spread YOUR message, to the "demanding that an artist/artisan create a message of YOUR liking" is very disingenuous. To be fair, I'm a libertarian and in a perfect world, you can do whatever and allow whoever you want to use/not use YOUR business. But this analogy of the gay wedding cake is simply not a good one.
It was the first one that came to mind, forgive me.
The basic thesis of my analogy was "you want 'free speech' forced upon private companies, but also want to allow them the freedom to dictate what content they allow under their 'brand'"
Oh I agree here. I think if you go into business to make cakes, you should vow to fulfill all your cake orders.
Likewise, if you say you're a webhost, you host websites.
If there's a legal issue, you report it. That's it.
There is a huge number of bakeries. What one doesn't want to do, others will.
Google is arguably in a monopolist situation. If they block your app or opinion, you're silenced.
Because it is illegal (and morally wrong) to treat people differently because of who they are, not what they say or do.
Being a gay is not a choice, the same way as being a black, a minority etc. Being an asshole is a choice on the other way, the same as being radical left or radical right. The former is protected the latter is not.
It's not a deliberate trick on anyone's part, but rather complexity induced contradiction. Similar destruction has happened to other rights - jury trial via plea bargains, equal representation via forced arbitration clauses, "papers please" via driving and flying, unreasonable search and seizure via web services, double jeopardy via overlapping jurisdictions, and of course federated government via pervasive commerce.
I doubt the US Government has any hand in this, other than not wanting to be the ones running social media.
Or another trick, just place it in another country and then you don't have to worry about the 1st amendment at all, and no I'm not talking about China. UK or Australia will do just fine.
This is not true at all, and neither is the comment you responded to.
The constitution doesn't apply to a location or a medium, it applies to an actor: the US government (and state/local subdivisions). The US government has to follow it everywhere, and nobody else has to follow it anywhere.
My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I think the parent was as well.
Americans do tend to run around quoting their first amendment rights like the whole world has them. As you say, it's strictly a US government thing.
While Australia for the most part enjoys free speech, it is not enshrined in the (AU) constitution. The government will occasionally order censorship[1], usually around whistle-blowing, investigations and court cases.
There was a protest in the major Australian papers last year about the erosion of press freedoms[2].
[1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/world/australia/australia... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50119559
Capitalism rests on a negative conception of freedom, so yes.
Actually, this doesn't work. There's a specific court doctrine called the State Actors Rule. If a private entity is working on behalf of the government, then all of the constitutional protections applied to the government also apply to that private entity within the scope of them being a state actor. For example, this is why it is unconstitutional for Donald Trump to block you on Twitter, or for the Air Force's esports team to block you from their Twitch streams. This also extends to physical venues and company towns.