Google search is unbelievable frustrating these days. And yeah the free speech concerns are very real. There needs to be a level of critical mass for any company that deals in communications where they are held to the same standards as the government. If >25% of the population uses your company for some form of communication censorship should be prohibited but of course we seem to be rapidly moving in a vastly different direction.
> If >25% of the population uses your company for some form of communication censorship should be prohibited
IRL, that kind of regulations exist all over the world but they don't tend to mandate no censorship, instead they mandate censorship in the name of national security.
Unfortunately, the national security aspect is not exactly baseless. It all started with the Arab Spring, when the more authoritarian countries realised that they don't have control over the communications as they used to and the less authoritarian countries realised that foreign powers can curate the content their population sees(through fake accounts or owning the platform).
Anyway, IMHO censorship should never be an option and to deal with issues of security we just need openness. That is, platforms with significant reach should be mandated to have open algorithm and verifiable data which can be investigated against faul play. For example, 3rd parties should be able to look into the recommendations and moderation actions of YouTube.
This sort of shallow minded statement always boils down to “but we should still censor the stuff I don’t like and of course I assume everyone agrees with me”
Sorry but it’s obvious you’ve never worked on this issue. It’s not easy.
It's far from shallow minded. In Germany that's actually how the law is interpreted.
The theory is that under an indirect third party effect free speech becomes effectively limited, if large companies censor people. As a result they can be compelled not to do so within reason. For example, if a social media platform bans you, you can sue them and they have to show that they have sufficient reason and that they gave you opportunity to appeal etc. If they fail, they have to unban you.
The german term you want to look for is "mittelbare Drittwirkung". On this particular topic there is an interesting case from the Bundesgerichtshof about facebook accounts that were banned. German press release: https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/do...
I find interesting that you’ve inserted that in, when they bring in the idea that these companies should actually be held accountable under the 1st Amendment. Probably one of if not the strongest codification of our right to freedom of speech in history.
I’m not quite convinced you’ve worked on this issue before yourself. What is the solution you’ve been working on?
Sorry for rolling my eyes a bit at this “what’s your solution?” Playground challenge.
Anyone who has worked at f/m/a/g has worked on global application of local ideals and the user base each being enraged you don’t apply their local ideals globally.
“Obviously the first amendment” is a great example of this.
Don’t be sorry, I was already laughing at your “it’s obvious you’ve never worked on this issue” comment far before this, because I’m still not convinced you’re any more knowledgeable in this field.
I’m well aware people get upset when companies outside of their culture don’t follow said culture to a tee. However, we are talking of a US company censoring US presidential candidates in a way directly contradictory to the laws they abide by. This is local ideals being applied to a local business, so excuse me if I’m a little less than sympathetic to the plight of Google dealing with an “enraged” foreign user base when they can’t even please a local one.
Additionally, if your account is supposedly no longer active, due to an anti-censorship protest, why are you replying? And in a way that tries to sideline the problem of mass censorship by moving the problem to “but the people complain otherwise, they want this”?
Let me ask you. Why are you so confrontational about this. Why are you trying to do a bunch of “oh gotcha” style comments that sound sorta silly.
I’ve worked in this in search quality and android. At a leadership level. I don’t anymore. That’s all.
We don’t just think “hey the first amendment!” We think it terms of practical utility return for users and the company. While attempting to accommodate hyper fluid and often incoherent local requirements. That’s it. It’s not a grand conspiracy.
> If >25% of the population uses your company for some form of communication censorship should be prohibited
Looking forward to the unlimited hardcore porn era on daytime TV.
(obviously you're going to reply "well that should still be censored, it's just that people should be allowed to say the fourteen racist words and not the seven dirty words, because those are different categories of thing that I refuse to examine")
What's wrong with hardcore porn on daytime TV? I mean I wouldn't watch that channel (but I don't watch TV anyway), but some people maybe would. Right now they can open porn website any time of the day, so what's the difference? Actually, is porn even really disallowed on TV in your country, or just nobody wants it?
I just laugh at the idea because it's getting us closer to full on Idiocracy where we all just dwell in our little state-owned cubicle apartments and every channel is porno or monster trucks
Would it be reasonable to restrict non-language information differently from language information? Where language information is any version of language - spoken language, written language, video depictions of written language, sung language, etc.
IMO most of the problem with restricting language information is that it can stop ideas from spreading, which is functionally very limiting for democracy from
a distributed computational perspective.
Does the same problem apply to non-language information? Especially for things other than real events (e.g. police actions, a protest, etc).
It seems possibly much easier to draw the line within e.g. video depictions than it is within language information.
So libertarians sometimes forget that a democracy is the will of the people. Now this can be ignored some, but when you push the "You can do whatever you want whenever you want because freedom" eventually you'll find that the average voter has happily decided to implement authoritarianism and the libertarian type is now the first with their back against the wall.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom, everything is a choice of how much authority one submits to and allows to control ones life. I hope it is a reasonable amount, because as it tilts too far one way or the other chaos ensues and death follows.
So, since you failed to actually respond my question and just reply with platitudes, that’s a resounding yes.
And to quickly cover your inaccuracies, because even spending this time is too much:
You described Anarchism. Anarchism doesn’t equal Libertarianism. Anarchists have no morals or base set of laws. Libertarians work from the founding documents of the USA and the basic premise of “don’t hurt others”.
The USA is not and has never been a democracy. We were a republic, that grew into a democratic republic. Thus we are not “the will of the people”. We are “the will of the elected officials chosen by the people”.
> because those are different categories of thing that I refuse to examine
Let me examine them for you:
Freedom of expression is the right to express any opinion. Pornography is not an opinion, and therefore there is no free-speech right to it. Beliefs like "race X is inferior" are opinions, and therefore protected (though threats like "kill all X," and actions like discrimination, are not). The manner in which speech is expressed can be restricted—"your honor, I blew up the Twin Towers to express my belief that the US is the great Satan, it was free speech" won't fly in court. But these restrictions must be neutral to the content of the speech.
There is one additional restriction commonly considered to apply to free expression: the government is allowed to criminalize lying (saying something you know is untrue). Defamation, fraud, false advertising, etc can be regulated.
> The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.
If I say "politician X deserves to be killed," that's protected speech because I'm expressing an opinion. If I say, "look, politician X is in the room with us, get him!" I am going beyond opinion, and the government can punish me for breaking the law.
