I don’t mind protecting these platforms from what’s posted on them. I even agree that they have the rights to have rules about what’s posted on them. Where I get heartburn is when they enforce their own rules unevenly. I believe that they have a legal duty for equal enforcement of their rules, like every other business does.
@@lupvirga To use Steve's example...imagine if a mall had a 'public court area', and only allowed people to talk about certain ideas and beliefs, but immediately had people removed by police and escorted out the building that were talking about the exact opposite.
The issue has always been that social media has *BOTH* protections where they can censor posts claiming liability, but also claim, "Were not publishers." They should be forced to state whether they are a publisher who can held responsible, or a platform which cannot. I'm sick of them using 230 to have their cake and eat it too! Let's not forget that Obama reminded us, "If it weren't for the federal government. Companies like Google and Facebook wouldn't exist!". The fact that those companies startups were only possible with taxpayer dollars should mean that they can't censor *ANY* speech, no matter if they claim it's "dangerous", or whatever. They exist because of the federal government. So they shouldn't be able to censor ...just like the federal government isn't allowed to censor free speech!
Absolutely agree. It's just a case of going after the money as the indivdual user is 9 times out of 10 judgement proof, and costs so much more to go after.
They aren't censoring 'claiming liability'. They are censoring to avoid being associated with the batshit crazy statements. Similar to advertisers saying 'we don't want our name associated with X (porn, swearing, etc...).
Worked for an ISP and hosted a variety of sites back when 230 came about. I have one problem with the rulings: the algorithmic selection process absolutely *IS* speech in the position of a publisher, just like a magazine chooses what articles to accept. That _specific_ subset of speech should absolutely be a point of liability for them. I do believe that there is a meaningful distinction between "they requested X, we gave our best answer" and "we push X because it benefits us to do so". The latter profits by externalizing the downsides to society as a whole, which is fundamentally unsustainable.
As a programmer I am grateful how they ruled. There is a slippery slope on what constitutes an algorithm. Everything from adding two numbers or beating grand masters at chess are algorithms. We couldn’t have any individualized discussion if algorithms we built in
@@jimmypatton4982 I'm a programmer as well (what I've been doing since working in the ISP world). The "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold much weight, because unlike software, in real life pretty much _everything_ is a slippery slope. Believe it or not, we somehow managed to have useful conversations before systems pushed things in our faces endlessly. I'm not even saying that we can't have suggestion mechanisms, but perhaps limit them to when someone _asks_ for them. But if it really comes down to a binary choice, personally I would opt to preserve society over drive corporate profits. I don't believe that it does, but without a functioning society you'll be free to write any algorithm you want -- right up until someone who disagrees with you shoots you for doing so.
I wonde if this ruling is an attempt for these giant tech platforms to avoid accountability not just for promoting terrorism, but also aiding and abetting mass murder by silencing those warning others about it. Those who know what I'm referring to know what I'm referring to...
ChrisAlas is right. It's their money, and their site. When you get an account to allow yourself to post, you sign an agreement that says you're granting them that right. If you don't WANT them to have that right, create your own site or just refuse to create the account.
Here is an idea. Any time a politician talks about "accountability" (punishing one person or company for what someone else does) just punish the politician. Make THEM "accountable" and see how they like being punished for what other people do. (Note: you can't sue Steve Leto for what I just wrote. Just me. This is a Good Thing).
But Steve isn’t acting like a publisher, policing your words and controlling what you are and are not allowed to say. Controlling what types of thoughts you are and are not allowed to share. If he did that, like the tech companies do, then he should be liable for any words he allows in his comments. After all, he would have given them the stamp of approval by allow them to remain when he chose to remove others.
@@himagainstill because it’s literally true. The companies monetize and profit off your content, politicize it, censor it, and broadcast it while allowing people to dox, smear and harass others without requiring legal identification behind the distribution. There is no recourse when people exploit animals, children, or defame others. There is no way to get justice. So now not only are the users not responsible, neither is the platform. This ruling is one of the worst decisions ever - EVER made in the history of mankind. People can now anonymously get away with anything and the platforms can’t be penalized or sued to stop the distribution of illegal or other harmful content.
Remember the old bulletin boards in the grocery store? Did we blame the grocery store if someone posted something? Maybe for leaving something up after then knew about it. Neighbor hood boards? library's? Do we hold the electric company liable if someone puts a sign up on a pole? Cities for signs put up on light poles?
Not true. If they are made aware of illegal content, they are still required to make efforts to remove it. They also are free to remove something they disagree with because free speech
The communications decency act(or whatever it is called) inherently gives online platforms, the legal authority to censor, moderate, or remove any content that in good faith they see as lascivious (dirty, sexy, or unclean), offensive, harmful, or detrimental to the public or their platform, without culpability to law suits for that censorship or moderation. As long as they have a good faith argument they can legally do it.
Please do a video about how judges are public servants and shouldn’t be able to declare contempt of court for insulting their egos. Or an even better subject is the fact that the judicial branch has no business modifying or creating laws like they have been doing for a long time
A bunch of platforms did some things in the past 8 years that were questionable pertaining to section 230 of which they've been accused of acting as a host and a publisher censoring what they didn't agree with using guideline strikes, account suspensions or bans or using algorithms to manipulate users into viewing what they want you to see.
They still do. Shadow bans are a thing, meaning you can still post but few if any people will see what you post. They aren't censoring you and stopping your right to speech, they're just limiting who sees your post... usually because it doesn't fit their narrative.
You're allowed to act as both a publisher (“information content provider”) and platform ("interactive computer service") simultaneously. The most obvious example is a news website with comment sections under each article. They're responsible for their article. They're not responsible for your comments. There is nothing to "accuse" them of. They can operate their website as they see fit.
People should be allowed to express their own opinions and the opinions of others in their social circles. As someone who used to be friends with a bunch of leftists and thus knows how they think of certain groups, I enjoy revealing such conversations to the people they looked down upon. The deal with censorship is that can have the benefit of removing 'evidence' of speech that would lead to canceling. This can be beneficial to the individual. It can also lead to individuals finding clever ways of expressing opinions which can be useful if actual government censorship were ever employed. Censoring opinions is one thing but censoring information is evil. People have a right to know about the world they live in.
@@ryelor123 You're allowed to express your opinion on your own property. Nobody can censor you. If you're on my property, I have the right to kick you out and take your words down if you write them. If you don't like it, that's too bad. And I don't know what cancelling has to do with anything. Section 230 doesn't give celebrities free exposure and new movie contracts like cancellation does.
@@Falcrist Under 230, you can't exercise "editorial control" over the content and then claim immunity under the safe harbor provision. For instance, you can have a rule that bans libelous statements but you can't enforce it in a manner that effectively allows some libelous statements to remain and others to be deleted depending on who is being libeled then try seek safe harbor in 230 when you get sued for libel. You've must either make an honest effort to moderate all libelous statements or not moderate them at all. Courts routinely decide that websites are curating content to such a degree that they incur liability for things like defamation or copyright infringement when they are seen to have a regime of capricious enforcement of their rules.
😂 something about human nature and our stronger urge to complain rather than compliment or otherwise express positivity lol. negative things stick out to us more so more negative emotions will tend to be expressed in a public forum, no?
I remember the days of the BBS. 300 baud modem, had to dial the number on your phone, and you could see the text rolling across your screen. The good old days😊
Still have my Hayes 1200 baud smart modem, used to access Compuserve, back in the 1980s. Those old teletypes had baud rates of 75 and 110, to IIRC. The serial data was actually sent and received electromechanically, so the "start bit" had to be long enough to let the teletypes motors spin up.
My issue has always been the double dipping of 230 protection while acting as a publisher with political censorship. If they are going to moderate they should keep it to illegal content only.
They don't act as a publisher. They acts as a host and moderator. As a private entity, they can decide what they'll permit and what they're censor. A publisher enters into a contract to *publish* content in exchange for a fee. That's not how Twitter operates, and for you (and many others) to use the word "publisher" as a basis for criticism is either uninformed or dishonest. They 'moderate' content according to their terms of service. They don't *publish* content under contract in exchange for a fee, reproduction rights, etc.
Because apparently corporations are people now, the platform corps have a 1A right to freedom of association, which means that if they don't want to be associated with your bullshit they don't have to be, and because they're not the government you can't assert your own 1A right to freedom of speech and press against them to force them to carry your bullshit.
@@RichardHarlos, they absolutely act as a publisher. Facebook and Twitter and RUclips make money by publishing what you and I have to say. There are small, local newspapers that you can pick up for free at your local library or on a rack at the front of the local grocery store. You, as a consumer, aren't paying for the publication. Advertisers are. That doesn't change the fact that it is a publication and the person who publishes it is a publisher. If these companies want to moderate and censor LEGAL things that they disagree with, they are curating content and acting as a publisher.
@@---cr8nw Making money from another person's content isn't sufficient to characterize them as a 'publisher'. Your insistence otherwise suggests that you have an agenda to fulfill and/or an axe to grind. If you own a laundromat, and you offer a bulletin board where people can post ads for good and services, and I decide that I want to put an ad up to offer tutoring services, does my posting an index card on the board necessarily imply that you're a publisher? No, it does not. You make money from people using your laundromat, where the bulletin board exists, and the existence of the bulletin board may draw people in who don't necessarily want or need to wash clothes, but none of these details are sufficient to characterize you as a publisher. 'Hosting' content is not equivalent to, or synonymous with, 'publishing' content.
@@RichardHarlos If a site edits/removes content they don't like, they are a publisher, and they take on liability for all content. Platforms have legal immunity, but can only remove illegal content.
This is another example of us blaming things for our failure to self govern. The problems we face do not come from things, the problems come from how and why people choose to use things, and that includes information; the most valuable thing of all.
The real issue is that our society is divided in a much more serious way than you realize. Its not political or cultural(in the traditional usage of that word) or racial. Its a division based on what mentality individuals have regarding the concept of respect and how its applied in social settings. Some people feel that everyone should be respected equally except when fighting them for dominance. Others feel respect should be tied to status as defined by institutions and still others see respect as something that should be tied to wealth. The problem is that these mentalities are so crucial for human survival that people can't just be re-programed easily. The real danger in our country is that those who have an institutional respect mentality have no limits on what they're willing to do. What makes it even worse is that that respect mentality is the most difficult one to assimilate into. And lastly, its also the respect mentality of the people who get to write history. You don't want people like that having power over human life. They'll use any excuse to get the power to undertake population control but they won't reduce all populations equally. They'll only reduce the populations of those who aren't like them. Basically most black people in America along with most poor whites, most Hispanics, and even a large part of the Jewish population are slated for elimination by the institutional class. And if you're not already part of that class, you can't join it since they know those who "look and act" like them are just infiltrators. There's a reason why this class is the one that keeps firebombing crisis pregnancy centers and keeps demanding more power in the name of changing the weather.
These lawsuits make as much sense as holding Craigslist responsible for people selling stolen or defective merchandise. It is practically impossible for a site to fully research and vet everything that anyone posts on it.
Craigslist doesn’t make buckets of money from ads or even take a percentage of the sale. Google and others make billions promoting and publishing content. I would argue that under those circumstances, you assume some liability for what you publish.
@@valentinius62 the intent behind silk road was clearly criminal. I'm sure if Twitter advertised itself as the best place to plan to an insurrection - they could be held liable
What I'd want is for the platforms to be transparent and not able to just give a non-answer as to why they have taken content off. A channel I watch has been demonetized and they have no idea why.
Is the video still up? There's no obligation for *any* kind of monetization for creators on RUclips. If their video is still up but they're not getting money from RUclips's advertisers, that's a non-issue as far as fairness and transparency. Unless they have a signed, written contract for a specific amount of monetization for that video, RUclips has done nothing wrong. It's crazy to me to depend on a site like RUclips with fickle and unclear rules as to what will and won't be monetized day-to-day. That's on the creator for banking on ad revenue they may not get, not RUclips. Like... if you were busking on a street corner, do you yell and interrogate anyone who doesn't drop money in your guitar case? That's exactly the same.
@@JustPlainRob They've demonetized his entire catalogue which means he will lose revenue until the issue is cleared up even though there is only one video which although truthful the woke mob may have found problematic.
@@JustPlainRob When video creators get a vague "Your video has been removed/demonetized/restricted because of violation of terms of service" email, and it take hour to days to reach a human who can even marginally say WHAT part of the terms of service were violated, it is a broken damn system.
@@JustPlainRob "to depend on a site like RUclips with fickle and unclear rules" -- DUH that's the whole point the person was making -- the rules shouldn't be unclear -- "if you were busking on a street corner, do you yell and interrogate anyone who doesn't drop money in your guitar case?" -- not even remotely the same -- the same would be a restaurant who let's you play a guitar on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant, but any money you make the restaurant gets a cut -- then at some later point they say you have to keep playing but you get no money and they refuse to tell you why
@@JustPlainRob being a content creator on RUclips is no different than owning a physical business that sells say, furniture. The furniture store has clear rules they must follow to stay in business. RUclips should be required to do the same thing. Have a clear set of rules so that a RUclips can follow them. I've seen videos on RUclips that a monetized where it shows 2 men having adult relations where they guess what type of toy is being shoved into them and yet I've seen videos be demonetized because of other sexualized content. Why is CNN allowed to show a shooting, but other RUclipsrs aren't? The rules are not clear and are not equal across the platform. All we're asking for is clear equal rules. Of course RUclips isn't required to monetize videos, but at the same time, if they are going to monetize videos, it should be equal rules for everyone.
I actually had heard about this ruling and didn't understand what most of it was about. Now, after watching this video, I truly feel I have gained knowledge and feel much better informed. Thank you!
Most of what i hear about the problem with 230 is about what they take down. If they have the right to remove legal speech then are they still a bulletin board or publisher. Thats the legal question i hear most often. My question is who gets to say if something is protected under 230.
All business has the right to remove any speech they want for ANY reason. They will always be able to control their PRIVATE business anyway they want. Just like a private business can kick you out and trespass you for any reason.
@@themanhimself3 doesnt 230 protections also come with the removal of that right to remove any legal speech? A business does have the right to do alot of things, depending on the state/country, to include removing a person and banning them from comming back. My understanding of 230 is there are limits on what a company can do and keep that protection. I could just be just misinformed about 230.
This is an odd case to go to the supreme court imo, because I would have thought they'd be reviewing twitters previous actions of arbitrary banning of users, and search results that were biased.
Like it or not, platforms can choose who they let post. This is their right as private companies. As for searches, you could never prove your claim, your feelings are not proof of any dishonesty.
The SC doesn't make rulings out of the blue. Like a trap-door spider, they have to wait for the right case to come to them. This protects Twitter, which is purely speech, from liability. Now, Google is pushing or restricting certain speech, something very different. They seem to me to know very well what they're doing.
@Tony Cook The "private company" argument has two problems: 1. Dishonesty. Failure to provide clear TOS, consistently applied, is a problem. Inability to explain how an action relates to the TOS is a problem. Section 230 protects GOOD FAITH efforts to police content, not arbitrary and capricious actions taken with no explanation. 2. State actors. When Twitter is censoring content because the government calls it "problematic," they are no longer a "private company." They are now a state actor, and censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.
@@tonycook7679 So censoring Stephen Crowder for saying something that Fauci from the NIH lied about Covid & is later proven to be that Stephen Crowder was telling the truth, or what about when Stephen Crowder was banned for quoting the CDC about Covid. RUclips, Facebook & Twitter all did their own version of suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story until over a year after it was finally reported by the mainstream media, or "Fake News" as Trump called them. I worked for a web hosting company & we did not actively police the websites we hosted as we couldn't check over 1,000,000 domains for anything that broke the laws for the state & country that the servers were located in. So in that case I think that section 230 would be correct as they were not acting like a publisher instead of a platform.
@@M167A1 The topic is whether or not these platform owners will be held liable for the content that people post on them. Of course the Left have been using these platforms to influence people, they have been in the past and will continue to in the future, but that's a different topic. This ruling is good for the reasons that Steve explained. The left can post what they like, but those leftists who wish to attack the platform owners for the posting of opposition to leftist rhetoric calling it 'hate speech' won't have any teeth. It's a victory. Not a defeat.
Really? You don't understand the 1st Amendment AT ALL. If they get immunity, then there should be NO LIMITS to content, other than what is already settled 1st Amend doctrine. The number of content creators de-monetized because liberals simply don't agree is astounding. You think this is a "win" for the Constitution? Or a "win" to protect your authoritarian liberal snowflake buddies?
@@1donniekak Without limits to Sec. 230, user posted material wouldn't be banned/demonetized/killed by algo's simply because liberals don't agree with the content. When you can't even say the word "Covid", "gun", "rape", et. al., without getting "in trouble" with platforms, something is WRONG.
This supreme court did what it always does, side with the corporations and government. It just so happens this decision also helps the people. As long as the supreme court doesn't abolish qualified immunity, civil forfeiture, and citizens united, (to name a few)it will never be for the people.
I'm pleased to hear this, many people have talked about suing sites like Gunbroker and Armslist, auction sites for guns. It's unfathomable considering those sites aren't selling guns and all firearms sold are from third party sellers AND MUST be shipped to a valid Federal Firearms Licensed dealer for the background check to be ran. Bravo SCOTUS.
@@Razmoudah you still have to doit. It's always been law the actual seller, depending on the state must so that. Say I bought a firearm online like that and I live in ct. In order to get it, it MUST first meet the requirement if state law or it won't be shipped period. It then must be sent to an ffl where I then go and do the background check and provide my permit
The legislation regarding content moderation should be modified. From Google redirecting people to forum moderators deleting and censoring alternative views while acting as often unpaid “helpful maintenance” when they are managing content based on their perspectives. They should be held liable.
There's a difference between a platform and a publisher. Have ALL media declare themselves as one or the other and let them sort themselves out. Publishers can editorialize according to their own changeable terms of service. Platforms are required to host ALL things (outside of illegal activities CP, Abuse, violence etc etc), have legal protection, but no editorialization abilities (outside of illegal activities).
You can't *require* a private company to post something they don't want to, and you should never try. It's their private platform which they're letting you use. You don't have, and shouldn't have, a right to use, post, or modify their site contents without their permission or in a way they don't like. If you don't like that, use a different site, or go outside and touch grass instead.
@@JustPlainRob Then they declare themselves a publisher. If they want the protections of 230, then they can declare themselves a platform. If they declare themselves a platform, then yes, they can require them to post it.
@@JustPlainRob Considering how many of these companies are literally propped up by government funds they really aren't 'private' in the first place, and even if they were, them having the ability to say "we don't want X posted here" means that they are BY LAW tacitly admitting that they are fine with Y. If someone posts something on a website that editorializes then the company absolutely should be held liable for that post. By removing X, but not Y they have shown a willingness to police their own website so if Y happens to break the law then it totally is on the company, for if X, then why not Y? So, yeah, we can absolutely require a private company to let any/all posts through (thus negating their own responsibility) or we can hold them accountable for the actions of their users. This is pretty simple stuff, but thanks to big business corruption they want to have both sides of it.
#2.5👍😤Interesting stuff! We have our city councel meetings on line to watch; but the comments are always blocked!! This relieves the site from any liability for comments. Unfortunatly it leaves the residences w/o any chance to let the councel know how we feel about the meeting content. Seems an unnecessary way for the County to protect itself from citizen input about city councel meetings they broadcast.
It's scary how many people in our country only believe in free speech for themselves but not others. I am conservative but want my liberal friends to be free to speak. With free speech comes responsibilities so the principle of not crying 🔥 in a crowded theatre applies.
My biggest issue with this is platforms like Facebook that knowingly allow scammers to run posts & ads and sellers peddling illegal merchandise then REFUSE to do anything about them.
YT also is in bed with spam-scam-posters ("claim your prize" BS)... No matter how many times you report these scammers, they never actually get deleted, and you can verify that by checking from an incognito tab (YT doesn't delete the scam posts, they only remove it from YOUR view, while you're logged in). OTOH, YT is more than happy to patrol comments for opinions posted by real people that YT disagrees with, and delete them on the spot (or shadow-block them).
Ebay, Amazon, Walmart and etc have a really hard time tracking down and getting rid of all you mentioned. They are not liable if the purchased is bad but they will try to compensate the buyer and banning bad actors.
It's worse than that IMO, I have friends who are authors, and get their ads for their books declined for "sexual content" for having a woman on them, which is no more lewdly dressed than what you'd see on the cover of any magazine. THEN I see ads all the time containing outright pornographic content.
... but so does Amazon !!! Buy this antenna that can get signal fro 2300 miles away. Want to get banned use the words earth curvature. Your account will get locked in about 3 minutes. Trust me! I happened to me. Only bigger scam enablers is Indiegogo and Only Fans
That's sort of how I see it too. Everyone is so offended about everything and wants it banned if they don't agree with. The reality is, if they are radical, racists, hateful, lack tact or class, etc- they just did you and others a big favor by showing themselves as someone to be avoided by other reasonable people.
@@kevinmach730 Yeah, that's true. We don't actually need people to be banned when public opinion will do that anyway. Mind you, the problem is that that could create more echo chambers where people just hide away in places where people agree with them. I try not to stay in an echo chamber myself, though it can be disheartening when I see the absolutely disgusting behaviour of people online. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., can make me think we will never change as a species. But we are changing, constantly, and that is something that will hopefully make things better for everyone and not just people who think they deserve more than others.
@Albo alt only one side keeps threatening to remove section 230 and that's Republicans because they get banned more often for their hate filled bigoted rants.
I used to go to the mall to be left alone from the pamphlet people. if a mall can trespass someone for making videos, then they should be able to trespass people form 'selling' in competition with the lease holders (stores). Much like you can toss comments or block people from posting on your blog, website, Facebook page, bulletin boars system (BBS for us older online types) etc. As for filters, well, they should not be allowed unless you are hosting, say, a PG rated page or something geared towards under 13 yr olds, etc. There is another attorney I follow on RUclips and he always says, "freedom is scary, deal with it".
Video and photos and a long history. I was watching a show recently that stated you can record video just as long as no audio is recorded, I bet this is true in some jurisdictions.
Super simple, let the individual decide what they like. Like the obvious, politics, llgtbghtv, and anything else. Less censoring by the government, more control for me. ALL platforms need this. Let the adults decide what they want to see.
If this had gone the other way, it wouldn't be long before there would be steps to charge and/or jail people for READING or WATCHING things that are posted.
Or a utensil manufacturer for somebody being obese, an automobile manufacturer for somebody driving into a crowd, or a gun manufacturer for somebody committing murder, a company that makes lighters being responsible for somebody committing arson, and the list goes on and on and on. There are a great many things that can be used to cause harm but in general that isn't the intent of those who created them and the responsibility lies only with those who used them in a harmful manner.
It’s good to see a lot of comments about these internet companies double dipping as a publisher and platform. RUclips, Twitter, etc needs to pick what they are and stick with it.
I have heard no better explanation of this issue than your video today. You have been able to distill 230 down to a level that I can follow and understand better than anything I have read or seen about 230. It was my concern that we would end up like other countries and states where speech is restricted to what the state/country permits.
You suggest a couple times a different ruling would mean turning RUclips *comments* off. Essentially, it would have turned RUclips *videos* off. Or at least forced them to censor and filter so much the platform would be unrecognizable.
Upvoted, yes, they would have to manually vet each video and the resulting selection would either upset many people or be bland or irrelevant, Show me a video without any downvotes and I will show you a video with no views.
@@andrewharrison8436 Well, Google removed our ability to see the downvote count (unless we are the person who posted the video), so it is hard for us to even find a video with no downvotes.
@MonkeyJedi99 Part of that was a personal decision or the fact the language code they use emulates all social media platforms that gives a thumbs up/like/heart but no dislike
If they're not liable, then they have no reason to censor anybody! I think that's fair! Let people post and comment and let them be responsible for what they say!
Just as the freedom of religion is meaningless without the freedom from other religions, the freedom of speech is meaningless without the freedom to listen or choose not to.
How this suit got standing in US courts still escapes me. 2 of the incidents that they cited happened in foreign countries which shouldn't have any bearing on US law. Would love clarification and it's a shame this ruling isn't more prominent in the news.
I think it's a win for Freedom of Speech. Trying to blame the platform for what a link or video might suggest is telling me we didn't have a right to say it. Yet others are allowed to say really scary stuff and nothing of them are silenced as others have been done.
I think the two foreign incidents were trying to be used as examples of why the court should rule in favor of the plaintiff. Of course, those examples ignore any existent discrepancies in culture, society, and laws between the US and the countries where they took place, which does make their relevance highly questionable.
@@HellNoMoreBiden It isn't a win as a platform already enforces it's own viewpoints which no longer makes it a public square platform. The platforms are the ones editing not the government and that is fine, except then it is no longer able to be a platform see @yugnok post "Recently a Twitch streamer was banned because some random person made an unkind comment while he was streaming. Didn't even seem aware that the comment was made and it was visible for a few seconds and disappeared. Nevertheless, banned." The pressure is coming down from above within the platform.
If an online platform takes the position that they are an active editor of the speech on their platform then they are responsible for the speech on their platform. They cannot selectively edit some things and not others and claim they are not responsible for speech they actively let through. That would be like a newspaper deciding that they will not publish a letter to the editor from some people that contains political views they do not agree with but will publish clear information in a letter to the editor containing the home addresses of the editors of a competitor newspaper. They would be legally responsible if someone took that personal information they irresponsibly allowed in their newspaper and used it for violence. Online platforms cannot have it both ways. They are either editors or they are not. Trying to claim benefits of both sides does not absolve them of the responsibility that they are taking editorial decisions on some of the speech on their platform therefore they are responsible for all of it. This is different than speech that is against the law. They have a legal obligation to censor that speech whether they want to or not.
What happens when that platform is bought by an investment group that decides it doesn't want you or anyone else talking smack about their other products they invest in? Is that a monopoly on free speech?
I agree... But for people to be held accountable they must be identifiable. The "original sin" in all the platforms that Steve is discussing in this video is that they allow anonymous or pseudonymous posting and there is a subset of people who feel safe spewing garbage if they can do so without the risk of being identified. My personal contribution to solving this problem is to use my real name in my postings and only post thoughtful well reasoned comments. I still get called an idiot from time to time by people hiding behind a pseudonym who clearly have no idea whet they are talking about.
@@snap-off5383 Fucken BS. Doxing someone, posting harmful/embarassing, private content about them online can absolutely harm. Employers google people first. It causes significant financial and emotional harm and leads to loss of life opportunities.
230 is good law. I should be able to have a public bulletin board, let others put stuff up on it, pull down any I disagree with and not be held liable for crimes done by others using it. Period.
The problem is that those websites such as RUclips for example acts as an editor that falls under 230. RUclips shouldn't be aloud to ban speech/people since RUclips can't be held liable thanks to 230!
And break the ability for the government to disregard the Constitution because it "isn't them" doing it? Nah, status quo continues. Time to get used to free America being the shadows of the slums/rural America the central government doesn't care about at the moment and "America" that is a crypto-authoritarian state until they can freely take the US Constitution out the case and burn it.
It goes back to newspapers. They aren't liable for the classified ads. But, they are free to exercise their rights to refuse to post an ad. Should a hotel be able to refuse to host (insert political party) convention?
Recently found your channel and I gotta say, you make amazing content. Its straight to the point and talks about some very interesting and important things. Thanks for the great videos Steve, I hope you keep them coming
@@eztv8128 Well, I get it half way through and risk missing a valid point but when he repeats to much I stop listening. It is pretty obvious his video are like a edited podcast. Sometimes not edited enough.
But if they push one political view, but stop the other view is different. And when they come out and say one political commit is wrong that should Not be protected! That is what has been going on!
I know you didn't say this Steve, you were relaying what people thought: I really dislike when people say they want twitter to go away. I know, a chunk of it is a cesspool & I'm not defending that. But there are MANY sites, that have this exact issue. And regardless of the cesspool portion, many people I follow- artists, like me, make money on twitter as it's the best place to do it for art. It's a social media site first so people are there regardless of what they want to post so it's the best place to share art, get non-artist eyes on it and make money. I've got accounts on many sites and none of them, come remotely close to twitter for commissions. As for this ruling, I'm glad someone has sense in this. Yes, platforms have a lot of bad info and people saying horrible things but burning it down for ALL people because there's a a few bad ones? That's a really, bad way to handle it.
It's time to jump off Papa Elon's hell wagon and join the rest of the sane people who liked Twitter over on Mastodon. We'll love to have your art there.
The case that held that a shopping center was a “quasi public forum” was Robins v Pruneyard Shopping Center (1980), a California case. The California Supreme Court made the decision based on the California constitution. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court which confirmed the decision. Because it was based on the CA constitution it became law in California - and soon after, the other two west coast states which adopted the California analysis - and not throughout the US. I was involved litigating these issues for years. It is the reason why California started having so many citizen initiatives on the ballot. The right to solicit signatures at privately owned shopping centers made it easier to collect the required number of signatures needed to get the get a measure on the ballot. BTW, we recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars for clients who had suffered a citizen’s arrest, by store managers or security, for trespassing, while they were collecting signatures. Cops quickly learned not to make those illegal arrests. Many store managers were slow to learn that content based restrictions on constitutionally protected expressive activity was not allowed. They sometimes tried to prevent signatures gathering at their location because they objected to the subject of the petition, like legalizing marijuana. We were able to take those arrests to court and to the bank.
They want to be a publisher by choosing what they ban. The choose of what is on their sites. But they also want the protection of 230. Right now they have both. Why couldn't they have to choose to be a publisher or a platform? If they censoring speech they are choosing to be a publisher not a platform.
The RUclips algorithm is how I discovered this channel and many others I regularly watch. And it all started from me searching for certain things or topics. Granted the algorithm serves up a lot of stuff I’m not that interested in but that is probably because I don’t answer the RUclips survey questions. But I does find stuff atleast related to stuff I have searched or channels I watch. The people at RUclips have done a pretty good job of creating a platform that keeps you interested and coming back.
It is not about what "might" get through, with respect to content moderation... it is what voices are silenced in attempting to achieve perfect moderation. Causing liability no matter what the website (or app) does. This is especially true for the Texas a Florida moderation prohibition laws.
We just had a large group of mutants try to destroy our US Capitol Building in Washington DC and kidnap our elected national leaders and hold them hostage and/or kill them based on MISINFORMATION and BRAINWASHING by RADICAL GROUPS in the United States, and this must be considered when it comes to a platform that is able to give these seditious and anarchistic groups a voice and a platform for outright lies, misinformation, and brainwashing... So once again a REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SUPREME COURT comes down on the side of seditious operators and hides behind some "website owner liability" case, but we know what their true motives are.
You have no right to free speech on a private website or Social Media platform. It's a private company, and private resources, and they get to dictate how they're used. Florida and Texas are trying to forcefully prevent constitutionally-protected(both state and federal) free speech, regardless of the companies' wishes, and I can't wait for them to get spanked for it.
I've only been watching for a few months, but it took the algorithm a while of recommending him because I also watch Legal Eagle before I caved in and watched one. Now, I prefer to come over here instead, but I've had the algorithm make several bad recommendations as well, which is why I tend to ignore them. My point here, though, is that it is ultimately up to the viewer to decide if they are going to watch the recommendation or not. Thus, it isn't the algorithm's fault what someone actually watches.
The issue with 230 is that these companies enjoy the protections of a platform while behaving like a publisher. So the question is; Where are the boundaries?
There are no boundaries. It's a false distinction. You are only responsible for what YOU say. If you run a website, you're responsible for the content you put on that site. If you make it a platform where users can post comments and content, you're still only responsible for the content YOU put on that site. You're not responsible for what other people say. If you run a news website that allows comments under the articles. You're responsible for the content of the articles, not the content of the comments. That's true even if you moderate the comments.
@@Falcrist this must have gone over your head. If you curate the content on the site, you are not a platform. It's not about the comments, it's about the content. The question is, what level of curation crosses the line from platform into publisher. The law does not make a clear distinction and that is where the dispute stems from.
@@anfiach It didn't go over my head. You simply don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read section 230. "If you curate the content on the site, you are not a platform." This is false. No provider or user of an interactive computer service (which you call a platform) shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It doesn't matter if you moderate or otherwise remove comments you deem objectionable. You're not responsible for those comments. You're responsible for what you post to the site. You're not responsible for what others post.
You think?! That is just corporate asses being protected. Doesn't have anything with freedom of speech. Have you been to youtube and how they enforce THEIR political and economical views, (or facebook, or whatever). If an user shares facts about something that aren't agreed upon by the party (see twitter before musk buyout), they get censored,a nd falsely labeled and fakenews or propaganda. Facts, not theories, facts. Sharing facts that oppose a narrative, gets the person publishing them a lot of trouble. Even recently on youtube, Dr.John Campbell was silenced for a period of time because his facts presenting videos debunk the narrative.
Publishing and carrying are axiomaticly mutually exclusive. This Cronenberg abortion of an idea that you can combine the two and not screw everything up is insane, malicious, and/or stupid.
Yes and no. Getting rid of 230 would be bad but the way its being used right now is bad as well. Its to easily used to silence dissent without repercussion. Remember all the info that came out from the twitter files about government involvement in twitters censorship. The government isn't allowed to use private actors to bypass the first amendment.
RUclips algorithms are how I found your channel. :) I agree the hosts should not be held accountable - online or in real life. Not unless a site is themselves actively promoting illegal activity.
@@Metal_Auditor Since when does "but we don't have the manpower" serve as an excuse for special legal privileges? Either we are all equal under the law or some of us are above others.
Thank you for getting to the point on your videos. I rather enjoy your videos and almost always watch your entire videos. It's so nice that you're not "clickbait" style. When you do something like this that I'm interested in but don't really have the time to watch. I can watch the first minute, get the story, then come back later and learn the details.
Fundamentally I agree with section 230, A hosting service should not be held liable for what other people say. HOWEVER, I also believe that they then should not be allowed to censor posts at the same time. You can either be protected and allow all posts OR you can censor posts and be held liable. I subscribe to the common carrier approach.
This is the right answer... *and give the USER moderation tools to curate their own experiences themselves.* Section 230 actually explicitly aimed to do that part.
And they have to comply with other laws, including obscenity laws that ban pornography in most jurisdictions ... .🙄 Its not just one law they have to obey.
230 already requires that, the courts have just chosen to ignore the fact that these companies are acting as publishers by silencing specific opinions. In the past, Twitter actively silenced political speech at the request of politicians, while refusing to take down CP when the lawyer for the victim notified them, with Twitter requiring an actual court order to remove it. The government probably allowed them to ignore the platform/publisher distinction _because_ Twitter was directly taking orders from the FBI in a workaround of the 1st amendment.
The question isn't "230 or not 230?", it's, how do we build better, more specific laws that regulate what things they are doing inequitably and unethically, without touching the free speech debate. Imo we should replace 230 with a bevy of more specific regulations that target tech companies' bad behavior.
Many years ago a judge in Duval County Florida threatened me with a contempt of court charge for comments made by other people on my RUclips channel. The video in question was related to a public records lawsuit that I was the plaintiff in at that time. Due to the judges threats and fear of arrest I disabled all comments for that video. It’s the only time I’ve ever disabled comments.
Oh look, another bot saying the same tired alt-right talking point... No, they're perfectly allowed to censor unpopular, hateful, or illegal content. Section 230 even requires a good-faith attempt to remove illegal content to be protected under it. It's a private site, which they can moderate and curate to any standard they want, and you or others have no right to use or speak on their site in a way they don't like.
@@themanhimself3 no you cannot have the rights of a platform and publisher It makes them invulnerable It's a violation of the law With no culpability for their actions which is why in case you haven't noticed all the censorship Of opinions the don't agree with
@@johndemore6402 They are absolutely allowed to censor anything they want for any reason. Maybe you should actually read the laws. I know you struggle with comprehension but it's really not that hard.
The issue with twitter is theyre constantly moderating comments and discussions, even going so far as to blackmail you to change them. The issue isnt people tweeting things and being wrong, and twitter not being held responsible for that. The problem IS twitter and other social media platforms allowing only 1 opinion and claiming its the law of the land, taking the role of an editor. They should be held responsible for that. I can give specifics. The twitter files for one.
Guilt by association? The role of moderator is its own point. The selective censoring of viewpoints is a separate point. To say that 'moderating is bad' because 'Twitter files' is a guilt by association fallacy. Twitter is a private entity. It sets its own rules (terms of use/service) and people either agree to those terms and use the service, or they don't agree and they refrain from using the service. It's pretty simple. Voluntary. Nothing implicitly fair about what gets allowed and what doesn't. People who don't like it are free not to use it.
@Richard Harlos The issue with "moderating" is that they're doing it at the behest of the government. If they're doing that, it makes them complicit in the government's violation of your First Amendment rights. That's what the Twitter files were about was the federal government attempting to sway a presidential election through social media. Twitter was then not held responsible because "they're a private company they can censor who they want" except they're not acting on their own. They're acting on behalf of the federal government. As do all social media companies. "Won't someone rid me of this journalist?" says the government censor. Keep that in mind as you're defending people going out of their way to undermine our democracy.
Fuck, so does RUclips. I bet you this will get a warning for using F... ...Holy C !! I can say fuck but not dummy? ... Let's see ... ... Dummy OK if not associated with post, hmmm? Hiayaa !!
Twitter is afraid the government will start creating "hate speech" laws if any violence gets attributed to them. They also don't want the FBI messing with them too much. Another thing is that they don't want a lot of lives to be ruined due to posting opinions that would be used against the individual. A big fear they have is that the government will demand that people have a "right to be forgotten" that would involve forcing them to not only delete evidence but also hunt down screenshots of evidence. People echoing the unspoken views of the upper class is a good thing. The lower classes deserve to know how the institutional class sees them. Finding black people online and saying "you do realize that all this climate change stuff is just a power-grab by institutions in order to enact massive population control on anyone who's not like them" isn't very effective. But posing AS a member of the institutional elite and expressing that desire in a hostile manner to black people and poor whites really helps get the message through more effectively.
I remember back when anonymity was fairly easy to achieve. Back in the days of dialup ISPs (where you got random IP addresses), you could get a free dialup account with fake information, use that to create a throwaway email address, and use that to create ANOTHER fake dialup account which you could then use to do whatever. Yes, there were probably logs, somewhere. But it made the trail convoluted enough that most people and law enforcement agencies would just give up unless it was a serious threat. And then there were web proxies, back before they had means to detect such things. Nowadays smart website operators block proxies and there are legal means to demand site operators log and retain all information about a specific user. While anonymity can sometimes still be achieved through proxies, if the site operator is smart (and to cover their legal butts) they'll block them.
In the heyday of dialup it was very slow, difficult, and complicated to trace a phone call, so you could get away with a lot. Having bulk free ISP time like AOL, NetZero, and some local providers was how I got up to my online shenanigans which eventually taught me about computers and networks enough for it to become my career.
@@R_C420 Yes, but the prevalence of cameras nowadays makes that nearly impossible as well. As late as 2004 to 2005, totally unsecured WiFi networks were still common, and cameras were also fairly rare. People often didn't secure their networks because older WiFi had poor range and early security protocols like WEP degraded that range even further, along with hurting performance. Me and some friends used to war drive and look for open networks. We were ethical and never even looked for anyone's data. We mostly just wanted to see how stupid people were. Some left their routers on default passwords, or left printers open as well.
@@JustPlainRob This is very true. Back then they pretty much had to catch you while you were on the line. There was no real way of doing otherwise because they had to have a search warrant to do so ahead of time. You could get away with nearly anything _once_ .
The only concern I have is the Government using social media companies as an end around to Federal law.
I don’t mind protecting these platforms from what’s posted on them. I even agree that they have the rights to have rules about what’s posted on them. Where I get heartburn is when they enforce their own rules unevenly. I believe that they have a legal duty for equal enforcement of their rules, like every other business does.
the thing is, Platforms are moderated by humans, and they have opinions and make mistakes.
@@lupvirga You'd be surprised how many of them are mainly moderated by AI.
@@lupvirga I realize this. But sometimes it’s pretty blatant. Sometimes they don’t even try to hide it.
@@lupvirga To use Steve's example...imagine if a mall had a 'public court area', and only allowed people to talk about certain ideas and beliefs, but immediately had people removed by police and escorted out the building that were talking about the exact opposite.
@@lupvirga humans have also invented pretty good ways to recognize and mitigate the impacts of their own biases
The issue has always been that social media has *BOTH* protections where they can censor posts claiming liability, but also claim, "Were not publishers." They should be forced to state whether they are a publisher who can held responsible, or a platform which cannot.
I'm sick of them using 230 to have their cake and eat it too! Let's not forget that Obama reminded us, "If it weren't for the federal government. Companies like Google and Facebook wouldn't exist!". The fact that those companies startups were only possible with taxpayer dollars should mean that they can't censor *ANY* speech, no matter if they claim it's "dangerous", or whatever. They exist because of the federal government. So they shouldn't be able to censor ...just like the federal government isn't allowed to censor free speech!
This became abundantly clear during the BS over 19.
Absolutely agree. It's just a case of going after the money as the indivdual user is 9 times out of 10 judgement proof, and costs so much more to go after.
This is definitely the problem that needs addressed!
Them (the platforms) claiming it is about liability is total BS. It is more about politics.
They aren't censoring 'claiming liability'. They are censoring to avoid being associated with the batshit crazy statements. Similar to advertisers saying 'we don't want our name associated with X (porn, swearing, etc...).
Worked for an ISP and hosted a variety of sites back when 230 came about. I have one problem with the rulings: the algorithmic selection process absolutely *IS* speech in the position of a publisher, just like a magazine chooses what articles to accept. That _specific_ subset of speech should absolutely be a point of liability for them. I do believe that there is a meaningful distinction between "they requested X, we gave our best answer" and "we push X because it benefits us to do so". The latter profits by externalizing the downsides to society as a whole, which is fundamentally unsustainable.
As a programmer I am grateful how they ruled.
There is a slippery slope on what constitutes an algorithm. Everything from adding two numbers or beating grand masters at chess are algorithms.
We couldn’t have any individualized discussion if algorithms we built in
@@jimmypatton4982 I'm a programmer as well (what I've been doing since working in the ISP world). The "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold much weight, because unlike software, in real life pretty much _everything_ is a slippery slope. Believe it or not, we somehow managed to have useful conversations before systems pushed things in our faces endlessly. I'm not even saying that we can't have suggestion mechanisms, but perhaps limit them to when someone _asks_ for them. But if it really comes down to a binary choice, personally I would opt to preserve society over drive corporate profits. I don't believe that it does, but without a functioning society you'll be free to write any algorithm you want -- right up until someone who disagrees with you shoots you for doing so.
I wonde if this ruling is an attempt for these giant tech platforms to avoid accountability not just for promoting terrorism, but also aiding and abetting mass murder by silencing those warning others about it.
Those who know what I'm referring to know what I'm referring to...
its so nice that someone had to pay lawyer fees to take that case all the way to the supreme court
Organizations typically pick up the bill for Supreme Court cases
Can you teach me how to talk with my tongue in cheek :)
Do you have any clue how any cases make it to the supreme court? Have you read any of the cases this year, or any other year? Silly child...
Arrest everyone, fine everything, divide us. Evil won't ever create anything, because Redundancy is the Lord's work.
@@DudeSoWin Evil created Bureaucracy. Take a number and stand in that line to get to the next line.
It's also redundant. 😈
The issue comes when big tech decides what’s allowed to be on the site and what isn’t.
If it's their website then yea they can...
@@ChrisAlas i really hope u kept saying that during the uproar over the rule changes on twitter after musk bought it
@@Nemean-se5k Big business is allowed to make mistakes - and pay dearly for them.
I only get upset when the goobermint bails them out.
ChrisAlas is right. It's their money, and their site. When you get an account to allow yourself to post, you sign an agreement that says you're granting them that right. If you don't WANT them to have that right, create your own site or just refuse to create the account.
@@Nemean-se5k I don't really care about Twitter
Too many people are unwilling to discuss anything anymore, so the point of free speech is lost on them.
Here is an idea. Any time a politician talks about "accountability" (punishing one person or company for what someone else does) just punish the politician. Make THEM "accountable" and see how they like being punished for what other people do. (Note: you can't sue Steve Leto for what I just wrote. Just me. This is a Good Thing).
But Steve isn’t acting like a publisher, policing your words and controlling what you are and are not allowed to say. Controlling what types of thoughts you are and are not allowed to share. If he did that, like the tech companies do, then he should be liable for any words he allows in his comments. After all, he would have given them the stamp of approval by allow them to remain when he chose to remove others.
Comments can be moderated by the channel owner. Steve can remove comments ( and probably does. Maybe with a word filter)
@@timothymusson5040 Oh hey it's a bad "platform/publisher" take in a 230-related video's comments. Who would have guessed?
@@himagainstill because it’s literally true. The companies monetize and profit off your content, politicize it, censor it, and broadcast it while allowing people to dox, smear and harass others without requiring legal identification behind the distribution. There is no recourse when people exploit animals, children, or defame others. There is no way to get justice. So now not only are the users not responsible, neither is the platform. This ruling is one of the worst decisions ever - EVER made in the history of mankind. People can now anonymously get away with anything and the platforms can’t be penalized or sued to stop the distribution of illegal or other harmful content.
Remember the old bulletin boards in the grocery store? Did we blame the grocery store if someone posted something? Maybe for leaving something up after then knew about it. Neighbor hood boards? library's? Do we hold the electric company liable if someone puts a sign up on a pole? Cities for signs put up on light poles?
The grocery store didn't pick and choose what is put on the board. Social media does.
yes if they moderated it, they are a publisher
otherwise let everyone make phone calls like the phone company
@@dynodon9182 That's the point. Social media shouldn't be choosing what gets posted.
@@dynodon9182 nonsense. If you put up an ad for prostitution the super market would take it down.
And did we blame gas stations for what was written inside the bathroom stalls?
If these platforms are not liable for what members post, then they have NO moral or legal basis for censoring anything that anyone posts.
You got it!!
They have a financial incentive.
People will leave and the service won't be able to fund itself.
Not true. If they are made aware of illegal content, they are still required to make efforts to remove it. They also are free to remove something they disagree with because free speech
Incorrect. RUclips does censor.
The communications decency act(or whatever it is called) inherently gives online platforms, the legal authority to censor, moderate, or remove any content that in good faith they see as lascivious (dirty, sexy, or unclean), offensive, harmful, or detrimental to the public or their platform, without culpability to law suits for that censorship or moderation. As long as they have a good faith argument they can legally do it.
Please do a video about how judges are public servants and shouldn’t be able to declare contempt of court for insulting their egos. Or an even better subject is the fact that the judicial branch has no business modifying or creating laws like they have been doing for a long time
A bunch of platforms did some things in the past 8 years that were questionable pertaining to section 230 of which they've been accused of acting as a host and a publisher censoring what they didn't agree with using guideline strikes, account suspensions or bans or using algorithms to manipulate users into viewing what they want you to see.
They still do. Shadow bans are a thing, meaning you can still post but few if any people will see what you post. They aren't censoring you and stopping your right to speech, they're just limiting who sees your post... usually because it doesn't fit their narrative.
You're allowed to act as both a publisher (“information content provider”) and platform ("interactive computer service") simultaneously.
The most obvious example is a news website with comment sections under each article. They're responsible for their article. They're not responsible for your comments.
There is nothing to "accuse" them of. They can operate their website as they see fit.
People should be allowed to express their own opinions and the opinions of others in their social circles. As someone who used to be friends with a bunch of leftists and thus knows how they think of certain groups, I enjoy revealing such conversations to the people they looked down upon.
The deal with censorship is that can have the benefit of removing 'evidence' of speech that would lead to canceling. This can be beneficial to the individual. It can also lead to individuals finding clever ways of expressing opinions which can be useful if actual government censorship were ever employed.
Censoring opinions is one thing but censoring information is evil. People have a right to know about the world they live in.
@@ryelor123 You're allowed to express your opinion on your own property. Nobody can censor you.
If you're on my property, I have the right to kick you out and take your words down if you write them. If you don't like it, that's too bad.
And I don't know what cancelling has to do with anything. Section 230 doesn't give celebrities free exposure and new movie contracts like cancellation does.
@@Falcrist Under 230, you can't exercise "editorial control" over the content and then claim immunity under the safe harbor provision. For instance, you can have a rule that bans libelous statements but you can't enforce it in a manner that effectively allows some libelous statements to remain and others to be deleted depending on who is being libeled then try seek safe harbor in 230 when you get sued for libel. You've must either make an honest effort to moderate all libelous statements or not moderate them at all. Courts routinely decide that websites are curating content to such a degree that they incur liability for things like defamation or copyright infringement when they are seen to have a regime of capricious enforcement of their rules.
Sometimes I think there is more discontent on the internet than content.
😂 something about human nature and our stronger urge to complain rather than compliment or otherwise express positivity lol. negative things stick out to us more so more negative emotions will tend to be expressed in a public forum, no?
More malcontents than contents?
🤣🤣🤣
High Five!😂
Antisocial media.
I remember the days of the BBS. 300 baud modem, had to dial the number on your phone, and you could see the text rolling across your screen. The good old days😊
Still have my Hayes 1200 baud smart modem, used to access Compuserve, back in the 1980s. Those old teletypes had baud rates of 75 and 110, to IIRC. The serial data was actually sent and received electromechanically, so the "start bit" had to be long enough to let the teletypes motors spin up.
When Steve started to tell the story about having a bulletin board, I thought he was about to tell us he was a Sysop!
I miss tradewars.
My issue has always been the double dipping of 230 protection while acting as a publisher with political censorship. If they are going to moderate they should keep it to illegal content only.
They don't act as a publisher. They acts as a host and moderator. As a private entity, they can decide what they'll permit and what they're censor. A publisher enters into a contract to *publish* content in exchange for a fee. That's not how Twitter operates, and for you (and many others) to use the word "publisher" as a basis for criticism is either uninformed or dishonest. They 'moderate' content according to their terms of service. They don't *publish* content under contract in exchange for a fee, reproduction rights, etc.
Because apparently corporations are people now, the platform corps have a 1A right to freedom of association, which means that if they don't want to be associated with your bullshit they don't have to be, and because they're not the government you can't assert your own 1A right to freedom of speech and press against them to force them to carry your bullshit.
@@RichardHarlos, they absolutely act as a publisher. Facebook and Twitter and RUclips make money by publishing what you and I have to say. There are small, local newspapers that you can pick up for free at your local library or on a rack at the front of the local grocery store. You, as a consumer, aren't paying for the publication. Advertisers are. That doesn't change the fact that it is a publication and the person who publishes it is a publisher. If these companies want to moderate and censor LEGAL things that they disagree with, they are curating content and acting as a publisher.
@@---cr8nw Making money from another person's content isn't sufficient to characterize them as a 'publisher'. Your insistence otherwise suggests that you have an agenda to fulfill and/or an axe to grind.
If you own a laundromat, and you offer a bulletin board where people can post ads for good and services, and I decide that I want to put an ad up to offer tutoring services, does my posting an index card on the board necessarily imply that you're a publisher?
No, it does not.
You make money from people using your laundromat, where the bulletin board exists, and the existence of the bulletin board may draw people in who don't necessarily want or need to wash clothes, but none of these details are sufficient to characterize you as a publisher.
'Hosting' content is not equivalent to, or synonymous with, 'publishing' content.
@@RichardHarlos If a site edits/removes content they don't like, they are a publisher, and they take on liability for all content. Platforms have legal immunity, but can only remove illegal content.
This is another example of us blaming things for our failure to self govern. The problems we face do not come from things, the problems come from how and why people choose to use things, and that includes information; the most valuable thing of all.
The real issue is that our society is divided in a much more serious way than you realize. Its not political or cultural(in the traditional usage of that word) or racial. Its a division based on what mentality individuals have regarding the concept of respect and how its applied in social settings. Some people feel that everyone should be respected equally except when fighting them for dominance. Others feel respect should be tied to status as defined by institutions and still others see respect as something that should be tied to wealth. The problem is that these mentalities are so crucial for human survival that people can't just be re-programed easily.
The real danger in our country is that those who have an institutional respect mentality have no limits on what they're willing to do. What makes it even worse is that that respect mentality is the most difficult one to assimilate into. And lastly, its also the respect mentality of the people who get to write history. You don't want people like that having power over human life. They'll use any excuse to get the power to undertake population control but they won't reduce all populations equally. They'll only reduce the populations of those who aren't like them. Basically most black people in America along with most poor whites, most Hispanics, and even a large part of the Jewish population are slated for elimination by the institutional class. And if you're not already part of that class, you can't join it since they know those who "look and act" like them are just infiltrators. There's a reason why this class is the one that keeps firebombing crisis pregnancy centers and keeps demanding more power in the name of changing the weather.
These lawsuits make as much sense as holding Craigslist responsible for people selling stolen or defective merchandise. It is practically impossible for a site to fully research and vet everything that anyone posts on it.
its not practically impossible, its totally impossible.
Yeah, but that defense didn't work for the guy who started Silk Road.
Craigslist doesn’t make buckets of money from ads or even take a percentage of the sale. Google and others make billions promoting and publishing content. I would argue that under those circumstances, you assume some liability for what you publish.
Unless it's conservative speech.
@@valentinius62 the intent behind silk road was clearly criminal.
I'm sure if Twitter advertised itself as the best place to plan to an insurrection - they could be held liable
What I'd want is for the platforms to be transparent and not able to just give a non-answer as to why they have taken content off. A channel I watch has been demonetized and they have no idea why.
Is the video still up?
There's no obligation for *any* kind of monetization for creators on RUclips. If their video is still up but they're not getting money from RUclips's advertisers, that's a non-issue as far as fairness and transparency. Unless they have a signed, written contract for a specific amount of monetization for that video, RUclips has done nothing wrong.
It's crazy to me to depend on a site like RUclips with fickle and unclear rules as to what will and won't be monetized day-to-day. That's on the creator for banking on ad revenue they may not get, not RUclips. Like... if you were busking on a street corner, do you yell and interrogate anyone who doesn't drop money in your guitar case? That's exactly the same.
@@JustPlainRob They've demonetized his entire catalogue which means he will lose revenue until the issue is cleared up even though there is only one video which although truthful the woke mob may have found problematic.
@@JustPlainRob When video creators get a vague "Your video has been removed/demonetized/restricted because of violation of terms of service" email, and it take hour to days to reach a human who can even marginally say WHAT part of the terms of service were violated, it is a broken damn system.
@@JustPlainRob "to depend on a site like RUclips with fickle and unclear rules" -- DUH that's the whole point the person was making -- the rules shouldn't be unclear -- "if you were busking on a street corner, do you yell and interrogate anyone who doesn't drop money in your guitar case?" -- not even remotely the same -- the same would be a restaurant who let's you play a guitar on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant, but any money you make the restaurant gets a cut -- then at some later point they say you have to keep playing but you get no money and they refuse to tell you why
@@JustPlainRob being a content creator on RUclips is no different than owning a physical business that sells say, furniture. The furniture store has clear rules they must follow to stay in business. RUclips should be required to do the same thing. Have a clear set of rules so that a RUclips can follow them. I've seen videos on RUclips that a monetized where it shows 2 men having adult relations where they guess what type of toy is being shoved into them and yet I've seen videos be demonetized because of other sexualized content.
Why is CNN allowed to show a shooting, but other RUclipsrs aren't? The rules are not clear and are not equal across the platform. All we're asking for is clear equal rules. Of course RUclips isn't required to monetize videos, but at the same time, if they are going to monetize videos, it should be equal rules for everyone.
There’s nothing supreme about this court!
I actually had heard about this ruling and didn't understand what most of it was about. Now, after watching this video, I truly feel I have gained knowledge and feel much better informed. Thank you!
So, you only read headlines... Got it... Why would you publicly admit that?
Did not hear about this ruling! Thanks for the update, relieved it went this way.
A huge victory for freedom of speech! “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend the the death your right to say it” Voltaire.
It prevents liability but does not prevent censorship.
Ben sunbathing on the roof of the Turbine car.
Nice catch! ❤
Great ruling!
Now hold tech platforms liable for their censorship and editorializing like they were publishers, instead of platforms!
The first amendment should prevail for all, and not just the privileged few.
Ben atop the turbine car.
Most of what i hear about the problem with 230 is about what they take down. If they have the right to remove legal speech then are they still a bulletin board or publisher. Thats the legal question i hear most often. My question is who gets to say if something is protected under 230.
All business has the right to remove any speech they want for ANY reason. They will always be able to control their PRIVATE business anyway they want. Just like a private business can kick you out and trespass you for any reason.
@@themanhimself3 doesnt 230 protections also come with the removal of that right to remove any legal speech? A business does have the right to do alot of things, depending on the state/country, to include removing a person and banning them from comming back. My understanding of 230 is there are limits on what a company can do and keep that protection. I could just be just misinformed about 230.
Not all speach is popular - that's why we have a protection 👍👍💪
This is an odd case to go to the supreme court imo, because I would have thought they'd be reviewing twitters previous actions of arbitrary banning of users, and search results that were biased.
Internet-related cases are new territory. The SC takes cases based on import, not whether they want to overturn law.
Like it or not, platforms can choose who they let post. This is their right as private companies. As for searches, you could never prove your claim, your feelings are not proof of any dishonesty.
The SC doesn't make rulings out of the blue. Like a trap-door spider, they have to wait for the right case to come to them. This protects Twitter, which is purely speech, from liability. Now, Google is pushing or restricting certain speech, something very different. They seem to me to know very well what they're doing.
@Tony Cook The "private company" argument has two problems:
1. Dishonesty. Failure to provide clear TOS, consistently applied, is a problem. Inability to explain how an action relates to the TOS is a problem. Section 230 protects GOOD FAITH efforts to police content, not arbitrary and capricious actions taken with no explanation.
2. State actors. When Twitter is censoring content because the government calls it "problematic," they are no longer a "private company." They are now a state actor, and censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.
@@tonycook7679 So censoring Stephen Crowder for saying something that Fauci from the NIH lied about Covid & is later proven to be that Stephen Crowder was telling the truth, or what about when Stephen Crowder was banned for quoting the CDC about Covid.
RUclips, Facebook & Twitter all did their own version of suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story until over a year after it was finally reported by the mainstream media, or "Fake News" as Trump called them.
I worked for a web hosting company & we did not actively police the websites we hosted as we couldn't check over 1,000,000 domains for anything that broke the laws for the state & country that the servers were located in. So in that case I think that section 230 would be correct as they were not acting like a publisher instead of a platform.
This of course is another victory for upholding the American constitution and I'm 100% behind that always being the case.
Without 230 there would be no user posted material.
@@M167A1 The topic is whether or not these platform owners will be held liable for the content that people post on them. Of course the Left have been using these platforms to influence people, they have been in the past and will continue to in the future, but that's a different topic. This ruling is good for the reasons that Steve explained. The left can post what they like, but those leftists who wish to attack the platform owners for the posting of opposition to leftist rhetoric calling it 'hate speech' won't have any teeth.
It's a victory. Not a defeat.
Really? You don't understand the 1st Amendment AT ALL. If they get immunity, then there should be NO LIMITS to content, other than what is already settled 1st Amend doctrine. The number of content creators de-monetized because liberals simply don't agree is astounding. You think this is a "win" for the Constitution? Or a "win" to protect your authoritarian liberal snowflake buddies?
@@1donniekak Without limits to Sec. 230, user posted material wouldn't be banned/demonetized/killed by algo's simply because liberals don't agree with the content. When you can't even say the word "Covid", "gun", "rape", et. al., without getting "in trouble" with platforms, something is WRONG.
This supreme court did what it always does, side with the corporations and government. It just so happens this decision also helps the people. As long as the supreme court doesn't abolish qualified immunity, civil forfeiture, and citizens united, (to name a few)it will never be for the people.
I'm pleased to hear this, many people have talked about suing sites like Gunbroker and Armslist, auction sites for guns. It's unfathomable considering those sites aren't selling guns and all firearms sold are from third party sellers AND MUST be shipped to a valid Federal Firearms Licensed dealer for the background check to be ran. Bravo SCOTUS.
Especially as getting rid of those sites will just drive those auctions underground, where they are much less likely to be regulated at all.
@@Razmoudah Like they're not underground already? Hooboy.
@@NathanTarantlawriter Only fools and criminals avoid using an FFL.
@@jimnaden5594 "Only fools and criminals oppose the Queen." -Benedict Arnold, probably
@@Razmoudah you still have to doit. It's always been law the actual seller, depending on the state must so that. Say I bought a firearm online like that and I live in ct. In order to get it, it MUST first meet the requirement if state law or it won't be shipped period. It then must be sent to an ffl where I then go and do the background check and provide my permit
The legislation regarding content moderation should be modified. From Google redirecting people to forum moderators deleting and censoring alternative views while acting as often unpaid “helpful maintenance” when they are managing content based on their perspectives. They should be held liable.
... James Reyne - Always The Way ... WOW!! Thank you!!
There's a difference between a platform and a publisher. Have ALL media declare themselves as one or the other and let them sort themselves out. Publishers can editorialize according to their own changeable terms of service. Platforms are required to host ALL things (outside of illegal activities CP, Abuse, violence etc etc), have legal protection, but no editorialization abilities (outside of illegal activities).
Nothing is more scary than seeing people pleading for the government to force them to disseminate opinions they disagree with.
Yikes.
You can't *require* a private company to post something they don't want to, and you should never try. It's their private platform which they're letting you use. You don't have, and shouldn't have, a right to use, post, or modify their site contents without their permission or in a way they don't like.
If you don't like that, use a different site, or go outside and touch grass instead.
@@JustPlainRob They should require membership fees then. That will prevent them from becoming a public square.
@@JustPlainRob Then they declare themselves a publisher. If they want the protections of 230, then they can declare themselves a platform. If they declare themselves a platform, then yes, they can require them to post it.
@@JustPlainRob Considering how many of these companies are literally propped up by government funds they really aren't 'private' in the first place, and even if they were, them having the ability to say "we don't want X posted here" means that they are BY LAW tacitly admitting that they are fine with Y. If someone posts something on a website that editorializes then the company absolutely should be held liable for that post. By removing X, but not Y they have shown a willingness to police their own website so if Y happens to break the law then it totally is on the company, for if X, then why not Y?
So, yeah, we can absolutely require a private company to let any/all posts through (thus negating their own responsibility) or we can hold them accountable for the actions of their users. This is pretty simple stuff, but thanks to big business corruption they want to have both sides of it.
#2.5👍😤Interesting stuff! We have our city councel meetings on line to watch; but the comments are always blocked!! This relieves the site from any liability for comments. Unfortunatly it leaves the residences w/o any chance to let the councel know how we feel about the meeting content. Seems an unnecessary way for the County to protect itself from citizen input about city councel meetings they broadcast.
It's scary how many people in our country only believe in free speech for themselves but not others. I am conservative but want my liberal friends to be free to speak. With free speech comes responsibilities so the principle of not crying 🔥 in a crowded theatre applies.
My biggest issue with this is platforms like Facebook that knowingly allow scammers to run posts & ads and sellers peddling illegal merchandise then REFUSE to do anything about them.
YT also is in bed with spam-scam-posters ("claim your prize" BS)... No matter how many times you report these scammers, they never actually get deleted, and you can verify that by checking from an incognito tab (YT doesn't delete the scam posts, they only remove it from YOUR view, while you're logged in).
OTOH, YT is more than happy to patrol comments for opinions posted by real people that YT disagrees with, and delete them on the spot (or shadow-block them).
Ebay, Amazon, Walmart and etc have a really hard time tracking down and getting rid of all you mentioned. They are not liable if the purchased is bad but they will try to compensate the buyer and banning bad actors.
It's worse than that IMO, I have friends who are authors, and get their ads for their books declined for "sexual content" for having a woman on them, which is no more lewdly dressed than what you'd see on the cover of any magazine. THEN I see ads all the time containing outright pornographic content.
... but so does Amazon !!! Buy this antenna that can get signal fro 2300 miles away. Want to get banned use the words earth curvature. Your account will get locked in about 3 minutes. Trust me! I happened to me. Only bigger scam enablers is Indiegogo and Only Fans
Thats why police dept have cyber crimes units..
Run for Judge make America great.
The most wonderful thing about these decisions is that they continue to allow the idiots to self- identify
That's sort of how I see it too. Everyone is so offended about everything and wants it banned if they don't agree with. The reality is, if they are radical, racists, hateful, lack tact or class, etc- they just did you and others a big favor by showing themselves as someone to be avoided by other reasonable people.
You mean this might be a free country? *GASP*
@@kevinmach730
Yeah, that's true. We don't actually need people to be banned when public opinion will do that anyway. Mind you, the problem is that that could create more echo chambers where people just hide away in places where people agree with them.
I try not to stay in an echo chamber myself, though it can be disheartening when I see the absolutely disgusting behaviour of people online. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., can make me think we will never change as a species. But we are changing, constantly, and that is something that will hopefully make things better for everyone and not just people who think they deserve more than others.
@Albo alt only one side keeps threatening to remove section 230 and that's Republicans because they get banned more often for their hate filled bigoted rants.
Like you! lololol
I used to go to the mall to be left alone from the pamphlet people. if a mall can trespass someone for making videos, then they should be able to trespass people form 'selling' in competition with the lease holders (stores). Much like you can toss comments or block people from posting on your blog, website, Facebook page, bulletin boars system (BBS for us older online types) etc.
As for filters, well, they should not be allowed unless you are hosting, say, a PG rated page or something geared towards under 13 yr olds, etc.
There is another attorney I follow on RUclips and he always says, "freedom is scary, deal with it".
Video and photos and a long history. I was watching a show recently that stated you can record video just as long as no audio is recorded, I bet this is true in some jurisdictions.
Once again, we have a great expose, and explanation from Mr L, it's a shame that we in the UK haven't got such an erudite guy like Mr L
Super simple, let the individual decide what they like. Like the obvious, politics, llgtbghtv, and anything else.
Less censoring by the government, more control for me.
ALL platforms need this.
Let the adults decide what they want to see.
Glad it was unanimous !
If this had gone the other way, it wouldn't be long before there would be steps
to charge and/or jail people for READING or WATCHING things that are posted.
@@alt5z Yeah, it would've ended up being the death of social media.
Without this ruling, it would be like suing a pen manufacturer for libelous statements written in ink...
Or a utensil manufacturer for somebody being obese, an automobile manufacturer for somebody driving into a crowd, or a gun manufacturer for somebody committing murder, a company that makes lighters being responsible for somebody committing arson, and the list goes on and on and on. There are a great many things that can be used to cause harm but in general that isn't the intent of those who created them and the responsibility lies only with those who used them in a harmful manner.
Same with gun manufacturers. People who make the gun cannot be held responsible for what others do with the gun.
It’s good to see a lot of comments about these internet companies double dipping as a publisher and platform.
RUclips, Twitter, etc needs to pick what they are and stick with it.
I love watching car chase videos! It ensures that I'll never run. No way do I want to be Pitted!!!
Don't want my car rolled for trying to stop at an exit instead of stopping on a narrow shoulder of a highway.
Arkansas state patrol!
@@robertheinkel6225 Yeah, they sure do a lot of Pitts don't they.
I have heard no better explanation of this issue than your video today. You have been able to distill 230 down to a level that I can follow and understand better than anything I have read or seen about 230. It was my concern that we would end up like other countries and states where speech is restricted to what the state/country permits.
We were close. It's never safe to have SCOTUS make a ruling.
Instead, we are restricted to what is approved by Google, Facebook, etc. This is not really any better.
@@ligafftheindifferent3495 maybe not but at least feds aren't locking people up for shit posting, yet
This is about forcing twitter to censor again all about musk buying it democrat revenge on musk.
@@ligafftheindifferent3495 ....as suggested (wink, wink) by the State..
It's short-sided to ignore the publisher versus platform argument. This was a loss for the population, a win for big tech.
Steve's music example: Yeah, huge win for folks everywhere. I've discovered a fair number of independent musicians on YT.
About 95% of the music I have on my phone are groups or people I had no idea existed until I started looking up music on YT.
You suggest a couple times a different ruling would mean turning RUclips *comments* off. Essentially, it would have turned RUclips *videos* off. Or at least forced them to censor and filter so much the platform would be unrecognizable.
Upvoted, yes, they would have to manually vet each video and the resulting selection would either upset many people or be bland or irrelevant,
Show me a video without any downvotes and I will show you a video with no views.
@@andrewharrison8436 Well, Google removed our ability to see the downvote count (unless we are the person who posted the video), so it is hard for us to even find a video with no downvotes.
@MonkeyJedi99 Part of that was a personal decision or the fact the language code they use emulates all social media platforms that gives a thumbs up/like/heart but no dislike
It would have destroyed the internet as we know it.
Actually, since S.230 is also what allows platforms to filter/censor/moderate user content, it actually would have turned YT videos off.
If they're not liable, then they have no reason to censor anybody! I think that's fair! Let people post and comment and let them be responsible for what they say!
Thank you Steve.
Finally...another former BBS SysOp who understands the origins of Sec 230
As always. I appreciate your analysis of the decisions.
Just as the freedom of religion is meaningless without the freedom from other religions, the freedom of speech is meaningless without the freedom to listen or choose not to.
I agree with your position… .. thank you…
Thank you for making this video and helping me to understand this case and what the different outcomes mean.
How this suit got standing in US courts still escapes me. 2 of the incidents that they cited happened in foreign countries which shouldn't have any bearing on US law. Would love clarification and it's a shame this ruling isn't more prominent in the news.
The Google case was decided not on 230 but on narrow grounds of the plaintiffs not showing a proper damage.
The businesses involved in the lawsuit are based in the USA so that is why USA has the jurisdiction.
I think it's a win for Freedom of Speech. Trying to blame the platform for what a link or video might suggest is telling me we didn't have a right to say it. Yet others are allowed to say really scary stuff and nothing of them are silenced as others have been done.
I think the two foreign incidents were trying to be used as examples of why the court should rule in favor of the plaintiff. Of course, those examples ignore any existent discrepancies in culture, society, and laws between the US and the countries where they took place, which does make their relevance highly questionable.
@@HellNoMoreBiden It isn't a win as a platform already enforces it's own viewpoints which no longer makes it a public square platform. The platforms are the ones editing not the government and that is fine, except then it is no longer able to be a platform see @yugnok post "Recently a Twitch streamer was banned because some random person made an unkind comment while he was streaming. Didn't even seem aware that the comment was made and it was visible for a few seconds and disappeared. Nevertheless, banned." The pressure is coming down from above within the platform.
If an online platform takes the position that they are an active editor of the speech on their platform then they are responsible for the speech on their platform. They cannot selectively edit some things and not others and claim they are not responsible for speech they actively let through. That would be like a newspaper deciding that they will not publish a letter to the editor from some people that contains political views they do not agree with but will publish clear information in a letter to the editor containing the home addresses of the editors of a competitor newspaper. They would be legally responsible if someone took that personal information they irresponsibly allowed in their newspaper and used it for violence. Online platforms cannot have it both ways. They are either editors or they are not. Trying to claim benefits of both sides does not absolve them of the responsibility that they are taking editorial decisions on some of the speech on their platform therefore they are responsible for all of it. This is different than speech that is against the law. They have a legal obligation to censor that speech whether they want to or not.
What happens when that platform is bought by an investment group that decides it doesn't want you or anyone else talking smack about their other products they invest in? Is that a monopoly on free speech?
Thank you for this! 🙏
People need to be accountable
I agree... But for people to be held accountable they must be identifiable. The "original sin" in all the platforms that Steve is discussing in this video is that they allow anonymous or pseudonymous posting and there is a subset of people who feel safe spewing garbage if they can do so without the risk of being identified. My personal contribution to solving this problem is to use my real name in my postings and only post thoughtful well reasoned comments. I still get called an idiot from time to time by people hiding behind a pseudonym who clearly have no idea whet they are talking about.
Posters, not owners of servers.
@@snap-off5383 Posters may not be identified or may be located anywhere in the world, but can do harm to American citizens.
@@hueycaesar Speech cannot harm.
@@snap-off5383 Fucken BS. Doxing someone, posting harmful/embarassing, private content about them online can absolutely harm. Employers google people first. It causes significant financial and emotional harm and leads to loss of life opportunities.
230 is good law. I should be able to have a public bulletin board, let others put stuff up on it, pull down any I disagree with and not be held liable for crimes done by others using it. Period.
Be mindful when going to other countries. They have different rules when it comes to free speech.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Edit: Appreciate the difference! Be respectful in Rome!
Also don't be a dumb ass and bring your weed to Russia and then involve the media and Western governments in trying to secure your release.
You are free to express whatever speech that government desires.
Thanks captain obvious.
This is terrific coverage, thanks you
This is great news.
The problem is that those websites such as RUclips for example acts as an editor that falls under 230. RUclips shouldn't be aloud to ban speech/people since RUclips can't be held liable thanks to 230!
And break the ability for the government to disregard the Constitution because it "isn't them" doing it? Nah, status quo continues. Time to get used to free America being the shadows of the slums/rural America the central government doesn't care about at the moment and "America" that is a crypto-authoritarian state until they can freely take the US Constitution out the case and burn it.
It goes back to newspapers. They aren't liable for the classified ads. But, they are free to exercise their rights to refuse to post an ad.
Should a hotel be able to refuse to host (insert political party) convention?
Recently found your channel and I gotta say, you make amazing content. Its straight to the point and talks about some very interesting and important things. Thanks for the great videos Steve, I hope you keep them coming
Yeah, bit he tends to ramble on afterwards. He need shorter content. Yes, RUclips encourages it but stop. I find he can cut most his in half.
@@JLilliquist He just talks like a regular guy man idk why its a problem for you either way, its his channel so he can talk however he wants.
@@eztv8128 Well, I get it half way through and risk missing a valid point but when he repeats to much I stop listening. It is pretty obvious his video are like a edited podcast. Sometimes not edited enough.
Absolutely the right decisions. I'm shocked by how many "Americans" wanted it to go the other way.
But if they push one political view, but stop the other view is different. And when they come out and say one political commit is wrong that should Not be protected! That is what has been going on!
I know you didn't say this Steve, you were relaying what people thought:
I really dislike when people say they want twitter to go away. I know, a chunk of it is a cesspool & I'm not defending that. But there are MANY sites, that have this exact issue.
And regardless of the cesspool portion, many people I follow- artists, like me, make money on twitter as it's the best place to do it for art. It's a social media site first so people are there regardless of what they want to post so it's the best place to share art, get non-artist eyes on it and make money.
I've got accounts on many sites and none of them, come remotely close to twitter for commissions.
As for this ruling, I'm glad someone has sense in this. Yes, platforms have a lot of bad info and people saying horrible things but burning it down for ALL people because there's a a few bad ones? That's a really, bad way to handle it.
Platforms like Facebook can go back to supporting human trafficking without worry.
It's time to jump off Papa Elon's hell wagon and join the rest of the sane people who liked Twitter over on Mastodon. We'll love to have your art there.
Facebook is much worse than Twitter. Mainly due to Zuckerberg.
To me, Twitter is like a TV channel or radio station.
I don't like it, so I don't tune in / log in.
The case that held that a shopping center was a “quasi public forum” was Robins v Pruneyard Shopping Center (1980), a California case. The California Supreme Court made the decision based on the California constitution. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court which confirmed the decision. Because it was based on the CA constitution it became law in California - and soon after, the other two west coast states which adopted the California analysis - and not throughout the US. I was involved litigating these issues for years. It is the reason why California started having so many citizen initiatives on the ballot. The right to solicit signatures at privately owned shopping centers made it easier to collect the required number of signatures needed to get the get a measure on the ballot.
BTW, we recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars for clients who had suffered a citizen’s arrest, by store managers or security, for trespassing, while they were collecting signatures. Cops quickly learned not to make those illegal arrests. Many store managers were slow to learn that content based restrictions on constitutionally protected expressive activity was not allowed. They sometimes tried to prevent signatures gathering at their location because they objected to the subject of the petition, like legalizing marijuana. We were able to take those arrests to court and to the bank.
Too bad CA still has fake legalization unlike WA and CO. Nothing required here.
"Pruneyard Shopping Centre." Why does that conjure up images of a mall that only caters to people that are 75 or older?
@@jasonross6727 Prunes? Should they not be in Florida instead.
Now if only the arrogant ruling political party in Canada paid/pays attention to this and of course the Canadian Courts!
They want to be a publisher by choosing what they ban. The choose of what is on their sites. But they also want the protection of 230. Right now they have both. Why couldn't they have to choose to be a publisher or a platform? If they censoring speech they are choosing to be a publisher not a platform.
The RUclips algorithm is how I discovered this channel and many others I regularly watch. And it all started from me searching for certain things or topics. Granted the algorithm serves up a lot of stuff I’m not that interested in but that is probably because I don’t answer the RUclips survey questions. But I does find stuff atleast related to stuff I have searched or channels I watch. The people at RUclips have done a pretty good job of creating a platform that keeps you interested and coming back.
Surveys? Thank god I never get those !!
It is not about what "might" get through, with respect to content moderation... it is what voices are silenced in attempting to achieve perfect moderation. Causing liability no matter what the website (or app) does. This is especially true for the Texas a Florida moderation prohibition laws.
We just had a large group of mutants try to destroy our US Capitol Building in Washington DC and kidnap our elected national leaders and hold them hostage and/or kill them based on MISINFORMATION and BRAINWASHING by RADICAL GROUPS in the United States, and this must be considered when it comes to a platform that is able to give these seditious and anarchistic groups a voice and a platform for outright lies, misinformation, and brainwashing... So once again a REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SUPREME COURT comes down on the side of seditious operators and hides behind some "website owner liability" case, but we know what their true motives are.
You have no right to free speech on a private website or Social Media platform. It's a private company, and private resources, and they get to dictate how they're used.
Florida and Texas are trying to forcefully prevent constitutionally-protected(both state and federal) free speech, regardless of the companies' wishes, and I can't wait for them to get spanked for it.
Those laws are unconstitutional. There's no right to have your ideas published on the most popular private property of others.
Thanks, Steve!
Thanks to the Supreme Court for getting one right for a change
The only reason I found your channel 6 years ago was because I watched another lawyer channel also
6 years of watching steve is impressive lol. i also just remembered i’ve been watching him since like 2018 😂 time flies with good content…
I've only been watching for a few months, but it took the algorithm a while of recommending him because I also watch Legal Eagle before I caved in and watched one. Now, I prefer to come over here instead, but I've had the algorithm make several bad recommendations as well, which is why I tend to ignore them. My point here, though, is that it is ultimately up to the viewer to decide if they are going to watch the recommendation or not. Thus, it isn't the algorithm's fault what someone actually watches.
The issue with 230 is that these companies enjoy the protections of a platform while behaving like a publisher. So the question is; Where are the boundaries?
Wherever the platform owners choose.
@@JLilliquist that's a problem.
There are no boundaries. It's a false distinction.
You are only responsible for what YOU say. If you run a website, you're responsible for the content you put on that site. If you make it a platform where users can post comments and content, you're still only responsible for the content YOU put on that site. You're not responsible for what other people say.
If you run a news website that allows comments under the articles. You're responsible for the content of the articles, not the content of the comments. That's true even if you moderate the comments.
@@Falcrist this must have gone over your head. If you curate the content on the site, you are not a platform. It's not about the comments, it's about the content. The question is, what level of curation crosses the line from platform into publisher. The law does not make a clear distinction and that is where the dispute stems from.
@@anfiach It didn't go over my head. You simply don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read section 230.
"If you curate the content on the site, you are not a platform."
This is false. No provider or user of an interactive computer service (which you call a platform) shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
It doesn't matter if you moderate or otherwise remove comments you deem objectionable. You're not responsible for those comments.
You're responsible for what you post to the site. You're not responsible for what others post.
Very well said.
This is a victory for humanity.
Good thing for free speech. If it went otherwise social media would’ve censored way more than it already does
You think?! That is just corporate asses being protected. Doesn't have anything with freedom of speech.
Have you been to youtube and how they enforce THEIR political and economical views, (or facebook, or whatever).
If an user shares facts about something that aren't agreed upon by the party (see twitter before musk buyout), they get censored,a nd falsely labeled and fakenews or propaganda.
Facts, not theories, facts. Sharing facts that oppose a narrative, gets the person publishing them a lot of trouble. Even recently on youtube, Dr.John Campbell was silenced for a period of time because his facts presenting videos debunk the narrative.
Don't worry, the DPCA will take care of all the censors' needs.
Publishing and carrying are axiomaticly mutually exclusive.
This Cronenberg abortion of an idea that you can combine the two and not screw everything up is insane, malicious, and/or stupid.
@@jeffbergstrom The phone company doesn't ban or restrict you from holding those discussions though. That is an important distinction.
Yes and no. Getting rid of 230 would be bad but the way its being used right now is bad as well. Its to easily used to silence dissent without repercussion. Remember all the info that came out from the twitter files about government involvement in twitters censorship. The government isn't allowed to use private actors to bypass the first amendment.
RUclips algorithms are how I found your channel. :) I agree the hosts should not be held accountable - online or in real life. Not unless a site is themselves actively promoting illegal activity.
Like Twitter not taking down all pedophilic content yet?
That waathe point. Goolag's algorithm was promoting terrorist videos
If a newspaper runs a defamatory opinion piece, the newspaper is still liable. Why doesn't the same apply to RUclips, exactly?
@@snex000 because that opinion piece had to be reviewed and approved by an editor. RUclips doesn't have the manpower to do that.
@@Metal_Auditor Since when does "but we don't have the manpower" serve as an excuse for special legal privileges? Either we are all equal under the law or some of us are above others.
Good morning 🌞 from Ohio 🌄 and hello 👋
Steve, you hit it out of the park with " What is the wrong speech"
Thank you for getting to the point on your videos. I rather enjoy your videos and almost always watch your entire videos. It's so nice that you're not "clickbait" style. When you do something like this that I'm interested in but don't really have the time to watch. I can watch the first minute, get the story, then come back later and learn the details.
Fundamentally I agree with section 230, A hosting service should not be held liable for what other people say. HOWEVER, I also believe that they then should not be allowed to censor posts at the same time. You can either be protected and allow all posts OR you can censor posts and be held liable. I subscribe to the common carrier approach.
This is the right answer... *and give the USER moderation tools to curate their own experiences themselves.* Section 230 actually explicitly aimed to do that part.
problem is then you get flooded with spam and irrelevant subjects
And they have to comply with other laws, including obscenity laws that ban pornography in most jurisdictions ... .🙄
Its not just one law they have to obey.
@@niyablake what's does this have to do what people post? Are you saying you want companies to filter content because you don't want to get spam?
230 already requires that, the courts have just chosen to ignore the fact that these companies are acting as publishers by silencing specific opinions. In the past, Twitter actively silenced political speech at the request of politicians, while refusing to take down CP when the lawyer for the victim notified them, with Twitter requiring an actual court order to remove it. The government probably allowed them to ignore the platform/publisher distinction _because_ Twitter was directly taking orders from the FBI in a workaround of the 1st amendment.
The question isn't "230 or not 230?", it's, how do we build better, more specific laws that regulate what things they are doing inequitably and unethically, without touching the free speech debate. Imo we should replace 230 with a bevy of more specific regulations that target tech companies' bad behavior.
Many years ago a judge in Duval County Florida threatened me with a contempt of court charge for comments made by other people on my RUclips channel. The video in question was related to a public records lawsuit that I was the plaintiff in at that time. Due to the judges threats and fear of arrest I disabled all comments for that video. It’s the only time I’ve ever disabled comments.
I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t troll.
Yeah, most people have nothing else to live for. Wouldn’t want them to go out into public.
The problem now is the publishers
Have it both ways and censor what they don't like or disagree with
That's within their rights to do.
Oh look, another bot saying the same tired alt-right talking point...
No, they're perfectly allowed to censor unpopular, hateful, or illegal content. Section 230 even requires a good-faith attempt to remove illegal content to be protected under it.
It's a private site, which they can moderate and curate to any standard they want, and you or others have no right to use or speak on their site in a way they don't like.
@@themanhimself3 no you cannot have the rights of a platform and publisher
It makes them invulnerable
It's a violation of the law
With no culpability for their actions which is why in case you haven't noticed all the censorship
Of opinions the don't agree with
@@johndemore6402 They are absolutely allowed to censor anything they want for any reason. Maybe you should actually read the laws. I know you struggle with comprehension but it's really not that hard.
@@themanhimself3 which one the legal one or the one they rewrote that is in violation of the law
Section 239 needs to go away.
America will be great again! Long live freedom
The issue with twitter is theyre constantly moderating comments and discussions, even going so far as to blackmail you to change them.
The issue isnt people tweeting things and being wrong, and twitter not being held responsible for that.
The problem IS twitter and other social media platforms allowing only 1 opinion and claiming its the law of the land, taking the role of an editor. They should be held responsible for that. I can give specifics. The twitter files for one.
Guilt by association? The role of moderator is its own point. The selective censoring of viewpoints is a separate point. To say that 'moderating is bad' because 'Twitter files' is a guilt by association fallacy. Twitter is a private entity. It sets its own rules (terms of use/service) and people either agree to those terms and use the service, or they don't agree and they refrain from using the service. It's pretty simple. Voluntary. Nothing implicitly fair about what gets allowed and what doesn't. People who don't like it are free not to use it.
@Richard Harlos The issue with "moderating" is that they're doing it at the behest of the government. If they're doing that, it makes them complicit in the government's violation of your First Amendment rights.
That's what the Twitter files were about was the federal government attempting to sway a presidential election through social media.
Twitter was then not held responsible because "they're a private company they can censor who they want" except they're not acting on their own. They're acting on behalf of the federal government. As do all social media companies.
"Won't someone rid me of this journalist?" says the government censor.
Keep that in mind as you're defending people going out of their way to undermine our democracy.
Fuck, so does RUclips. I bet you this will get a warning for using F... ...Holy C !! I can say fuck but not dummy? ... Let's see ... ... Dummy OK if not associated with post, hmmm? Hiayaa !!
Twitter is afraid the government will start creating "hate speech" laws if any violence gets attributed to them. They also don't want the FBI messing with them too much. Another thing is that they don't want a lot of lives to be ruined due to posting opinions that would be used against the individual. A big fear they have is that the government will demand that people have a "right to be forgotten" that would involve forcing them to not only delete evidence but also hunt down screenshots of evidence.
People echoing the unspoken views of the upper class is a good thing. The lower classes deserve to know how the institutional class sees them. Finding black people online and saying "you do realize that all this climate change stuff is just a power-grab by institutions in order to enact massive population control on anyone who's not like them" isn't very effective. But posing AS a member of the institutional elite and expressing that desire in a hostile manner to black people and poor whites really helps get the message through more effectively.
It's not against the law to promote only one opinion. Otherwise Fox News would be out.
Those platforms act like publishers, and should be treated as such.
Thanks for sharing this key update that we all need to know!
The clerks, under guidance from the justices, pick the cases that the Supreme Court hears
I remember back when anonymity was fairly easy to achieve. Back in the days of dialup ISPs (where you got random IP addresses), you could get a free dialup account with fake information, use that to create a throwaway email address, and use that to create ANOTHER fake dialup account which you could then use to do whatever. Yes, there were probably logs, somewhere. But it made the trail convoluted enough that most people and law enforcement agencies would just give up unless it was a serious threat. And then there were web proxies, back before they had means to detect such things. Nowadays smart website operators block proxies and there are legal means to demand site operators log and retain all information about a specific user. While anonymity can sometimes still be achieved through proxies, if the site operator is smart (and to cover their legal butts) they'll block them.
In the heyday of dialup it was very slow, difficult, and complicated to trace a phone call, so you could get away with a lot. Having bulk free ISP time like AOL, NetZero, and some local providers was how I got up to my online shenanigans which eventually taught me about computers and networks enough for it to become my career.
But now you can get a second hand phone and find free wifi.
@@R_C420 Yes, but the prevalence of cameras nowadays makes that nearly impossible as well. As late as 2004 to 2005, totally unsecured WiFi networks were still common, and cameras were also fairly rare. People often didn't secure their networks because older WiFi had poor range and early security protocols like WEP degraded that range even further, along with hurting performance. Me and some friends used to war drive and look for open networks. We were ethical and never even looked for anyone's data. We mostly just wanted to see how stupid people were. Some left their routers on default passwords, or left printers open as well.
@@JustPlainRob This is very true. Back then they pretty much had to catch you while you were on the line. There was no real way of doing otherwise because they had to have a search warrant to do so ahead of time. You could get away with nearly anything _once_ .