Hank Green Asks About Free Speech and Censorship on Social Media
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2020
- RUclipsr Hank Green has a question: Can social media sites violate the first amendment? Join us as we search for an answer with Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao, author and activist Eli Pariser and ACLU attorney Mohammad Tasjar.
Learn More:
Ellen Pao's book: www.indiebound.org/book/97803...
Eli Pariser's book: www.indiebound.org/book/97801...
Hank Green's (non-tech related novel:) www.indiebound.org/buy-local/...
Subscribe to our channel! ruclips.net/user/crookedmedia?...
Crooked believes that we need a better conversation about politics, culture, and the world around us-one that doesn’t just focus on what’s broken, but what we can do to fix it. At a time when it’s increasingly easy to feel cynical or hopeless, former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor have created a place where people can have sane conversations that inform, entertain, and inspire action. In 2017 they started Crooked with Pod Save America-a no-bullshit conversation about politics. Since then, we continue to add shows, voices, and opportunities for activism, because it’s up to all of us to do our part to build a better world. That’s it. End of mission.
Want some 2020 pep talks, the most important things to do/know, and the occasional dog pic? Shoot us a text at (323) 405-9944
Written content at www.crooked.com
Follow Crooked on Twitter / crookedmedia
Follow Crooked on Facebook / crookedmedia
Follow Crooked on Instagram / crookedmedia
My new favorite Crossover. Hank is an absolute treasure.
OMG Crooked Media meets Complexly, my favorite media companies together.
Now no one should punish China American are the same by same media,
Get Hank as a guest on one of the Crooked Media podcasts. Any of them. I don't know which one lol. Maybe Lovett or Leave It would be the best fit.
My favorite Fox news..
YEEES
It happened! @Aliensinnoh - it just happened a few hours ago! I just watched it.
This was great, thanks. I'd watch a Hank Green/Priyanka crossover every week!
I LOVE hank green and crash course, what. A. Crossover
My thoughts exactly
First thing I said!!
Sci show>Crash course
All my dreams have come true: Priyanka content ✅; Hank Green ✅; Smart Lawyers ✅
The ultimate nerd(fighter) crossover episode!
PLEASE turn this into a podcast as well. I can’t say for sure I can get someone to watch, but I can definitely get them to listen.
Be nice to see social media embrace free speech, stop censorship of conservative thought, but allow you to set your preference for what you want to see. Let users rate content, that others can filter.
This was such a good video and the question was so important and it features Hank Green!!!! ❤ let there be more Priyanka and Hank interactions, please lord.
Here for hank, unexpected crossover!
Great video. Thank you for including Hanks critique of the light bulb animation. dftba
I got very confused when I saw Hank Green on Crooked... Like 2 favorite youtube things in one!!
Can we have Hank ask the question on every episode lol
I've been a vlogbrothers fan for years. I only just found out about crooked a few days ago. I'm very excited to see this cross over
Saw Hank but in a Crooked Media video and I gasped lol. So many good things in one video!
This is the combination of people I was looking for today on RUclips... this is awesome
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, DFTBA 🙅♂️
It is so hank to correct how they drew a light bulb 😂
I won't lie, that kind of bugs me. It's like being invited over for Thanksgiving dinner, and telling your host that they overcooked the carrots.
I thought it was a crack in the glass bulb, to be honest... Until he said it was supposed to be the filament. I agree, that's not how light bulbs work! Lol
I think part of Hanks involvement in this video was a bit of mentoring/advice about producing educational video (hence the "verg good, it didnt feel like 10 minutes" comment). Not a bad guy to give you some feed back on your new youtube channel :P
This needs SO MUCH MORE coverage...this is something EVERY activist needs to know on both sides.
This was a great concept - Ask Me Anything. Well-produced and informative. I’m sorry it didn’t go beyond this one episode. Guess you guys were trying out different ideas during the pandemic. Think about bringing it back-there are so many things we need to know more about!
I was looking at that light bulb at 3:13 and thinking it was inaccurate.
Thanks Mr. Green, I'm glad that I'm not the only geek here.
I just shared this in Tuataria.
Id love to learn about free speech but that is impossible on youtube sadly
I'm very glad Hank addressed the lightbulb ... it was bothering me.
The bookstore and library methapor is great. As someone who works with social media and frequently gets into discussions on their ethics I am gonna steal that.
But be careful with the comparison. Public libraries do not allow talking in public areas. They were designed to be public repositories of knowledge and spaces for individual study. I find the comparison to be more apples to oranges. In many ways private booksellers advance open public discourse more than public libraries.
This is ridiculous.
It is no one's place to decide what defines a 'public square'. If Twitter's influence on the discussion in negative because it is an influence in and of itself, then so would ANYONE's influence.
well, those articles were right! I did come here just because hank suggested it :)
if you dont want to be censored by a website just make your own, that's literally how the internet works. facebook and twitter aren't public squares they are private websites. you can freely sent anything over the internet without any social media site just start a server and hook it up.
This comment aged well...
Who else is excited for hank's new book 'A beautifully foolish endeavour'
Coming out July 7th and available for pre-order now.
Me! Me! - been preordered since it was available to do so!
What a time to be alive! Crooked Media and Hank Green... can Hank please do some Crooked Election Crash Courses? About how different states got to the system they have? And what difference commonwealth's being better represented would be? I'm looking at you CNMI!!!!!
Man i love that you did this thanks guys ❤️
I think another point about the public square that isn't addressed in this video is paid speech. Public square, to me at least, implies that all voices are equal and the best idea, smartest voices generally cut through. But on social media, you can spread messages and voices by paying for better distribution which defeats the concept of the public square entirely.
So ban the god damn payments, not the speech. Protect public forums, wherever they exist. Don't look for excuses to wave a white flag. I don't understand why, in a time like this, liberals would think free speech is the enemy. Nevermind your argument-- why in the hell did you choose that side??? You're letting the terrorists win. You're selling out the fundamental principles that liberalism used to be defined by, before we decided it was a good idea to define our political identity by the same superficial traits of race and gender that we ourselves aim to render politically obsolete. You and I are not the same, and that does not prevent us both from participating in negotiated self-governance as Americans. That is the thesis statement of liberalism. We don't have to be the same. I don't have to be as feminist as you, and you don't have to be as economically progressive as Bernie, and nobody is ever obligated to turn off a Cowboys game, a video game, or a Hank Williams Jr. Album to watch the PBS Newshour once a week or read the constitution once a month, but we can all still get together and participate in making a few big decisions together as a group. Cutting people off from that process is counterproductive. What are we trying to prevent here? Terrorist attacks? Actual violence? Bullshit. The ostensible target of censorship is "radicalization." In other words, people believe all the wrong stuff. So to fight that, we mix half the wrong stuff in with half the right stuff, and tell people to believe in that, because that's where their freedom is. That's the wrong kind of compromise. That's not what we are here to do as a liberal democracy. We are losing the war of ideas, not because we are allowing people the freedom to form the wrong ideas, but because we are not fighting on our own side. Is wrong to call Hillary Clinton a bad word? Sure, man. I guess. But I think the broader strategy of attempting to shove all of our challenges as a country into a blind spot so we don't have to look at them might be the greater moral peril. Maybe that matters more to people. Maybe that's why the Access Hollywood guy won. Just a thought. Please may I be allowed to express it?
That's all irrelevant. Free speech is a negative right, not a positive right.
I saw Hank Green and I saw the channel - and I rechecked it several times .. even as I type this.. I'm still not sure I saw it right.. 😱
I think companys that make a platform and call them selves platform and then act like a publisher should not call them selves platforms, since the social media can effect politics yes it should be a covered under the 1st amendment. Incitement to violence is not free speech.
CAN WE GET THIS CAPTIONED PLEASE? Accessibility would be awesome. I am super interested, and also super deaf. Captions would be greatly appreciated!
One of Crooked Media's best most informative productions ever.
RUclips should 'recommend' this video to more of their users.
What a great idea! Keep this series up
Wow thank you Hank for sharing this on Twitter and helping me discover this channel! I have SO much learning to do now! :D
Seeing Hank Green show up on this channel was a pleasant surprise.
It's criminal to censor. Especially when collusion and monopolies are part of the equation. Also add political contributions and their vested interest. It's also an abuse of Section 230.
This is completely incorrect.
They aren't private companies if they're publicly traded.
Whatever, we can say what we want.
TLDR - If you don't like the rules of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or anywhere else -- Go somewhere else.
Like when Standard Oil owned the source and distribution? Maybe not quite the monopolistic reality of the trust busters but it sure smells like it. Amazon.
@madcheeseknight - I was just about to say that but you said it perfectly. What they really want is to silence dissenting opinions. They tell you to start your own website then they go contact banks, web hosts, etc to get you shut down. Many of these people know this, but they pretend it isn't real. That's why they have no response to your comment.
"Let's apply the rules consistently." That is the main issue. The rules are usually not applied consistently.
Like the way Trogdor burninates the countryside consistently. ;)
I disagree. These plataforms should have competion and not regulation
What a crossover!!
Get Hank on Lovett or leave it pls
Great explainer!
Depriving someone of a basic right is wrong period.
Using Twitter or Facebook is a basic right? Wrong.
You found a Keemstar lookalike as your lawyer o.O
When two things you love converge ❤
WHAT a crossover
HAAAAAAAAAANNKK! I never expected this crossover!!!
Hank .green, thank you!
Freedom of speech in America has died today. January 11th 2021.
Is Hank Green related to John Green from the Crash Course History videos? He looks exactly like him.
They are in fact brothers! :)
Scishow is so non political, it's interesting to see Hank speak out in this context. It's also kind of fun and disorienting to see Hank in a crooked video.
Hank Green is on a Crooked Media video, and now my brain is broken...
People have to let off steam sometimes, also they get angry and say things they usually wouldn't. As long as nobody is in physical danger of violence you should be allowed to say anything you want regardless of who you offend. Also, I am European, the first amendment means nothing to me.
They can have and they will , corporations, banks and shadow government truly make the decisions in this world.
thanks. I didnt realize this was so unregulated and under capitalism just a place of monetizing everything instead of places to share.
Great topic and presentation. I did cringe a bit though when the narrator said "Free speech is a right we get from the government." That's not how the Constitution works.
More Yale Fried. Always more Yale Fried.
Is that a map of the Sword Coast directly behind him? I approve.
Tis a map of Narnia. You can get a better look at in in his vlog videos which come from a slightly different angle. ruclips.net/video/OCO8eoDWqHQ/видео.html
Comment for Algorithm
Getting kick of social media these days have become for many a badge of honor and is becoming cool and trending for many too...specially if it comes from Tweeter and Facebook.
I have to agree with Hank on this one...
That light bulb was pretty bad
It’s already turning into censorship
Nice job guys and girls :)
Ohh kayy! Well, everyone here is drifting towards my own conclusions. Will you hold a piece of the public square and allow a link to my rant here? (won't allow link in my main comment here.. but it does seem to work as posted in my reply to myself below. I encourage responses and retorts.)
We need to change the laws... your guests are working their way to realizing this, or coaxing us towards that realization.... I am already there. I like the idea of a crowd sourced social media platform... but I have no idea how to initiate something like that... and when our hardware companies ban our crowd sourced app as they did Parler.. because we actually DO uphold free speech in the constitutional sense... then where are we? Do we then need to make our own "crowd sourced phones"? I mean.. I kinda like where this crazy idea is headed.. it's kind of socialism... but what if socialism was just an "option" alongside capitalist platforms? I don't like the idea of the government running the alternatives because that kind of guarantees they will be shitty. Capitalism does kind of drive an urgency of development.. is there a way to cultivate that urgency and adroitness in development with a collectively run platform?
Bah.. nope.. it took the link out. That sucks. Where is my public square? Just show me where I can actually reach a few sets of ears. Any suggestions?
7:00 mark used to call FB utility!!!!
I am so in love with the ACLU right now.. he is bringing up soooo many points that I speak on. Just today I was wondering why there isn't a RUclips feed I can go to to just see what the newest videos are as they are being uploaded... I don't want my content filtered out so I can't see the weird arcane stuff and some guy rambling in his dilapidated half-rebuilt house. I want the videos with zero views lying in dark corners with hidden rough gems buried in them. On the flip side.. Facebook took away the "trending" bar when stuff they ostensibly "didn't like" started to trend... why was that a problem? Often it was my first exposure to things bubbling in the other political hemisphere, since I'm not in that one much. Now we have completely parsed them. Way to go shutting down "divisive speech", Facebook... that had the exact intended effect, didn't it now? Maybe that's an ironic joke, maybe it's the actual truth. I have no way of knowing.
It's not just the ability to restrict what we say... but also who hears us, that is a problem.
"Shadow banning" I think it is called, where they just "limit your reach" but don't bother to tell you. I moderate a Facebook group with 11,000 users... but typically, it's the same dozen that actually engage.. is our content even REACHING the rest of them?
But they are
Mohammad is dope!
I think it's a stretch to say Hank's novel is "non-tech related.
No THEY CANT
Hank? Tis he!
I bet I can teach you a thing or two about hidden history. My direct
ancestor is one of the reasons why we all have a U.S. 1st Amendment.
okay but i was sad priyanka didn’t drop the whole sliding into jon lovett’s twitter dms got me this job thing didn’t get into the video ;*(
Except the bar analogy dosnt hold up when we go back to the trump example. If trump cant ban me from twitter why can twitter ban me from his or other presidents posts? This is why its treated as a public square.
My counter question is how much discussion has to happen in a single place before it becomes, a defacto public square? Im sure we are alrady approaching the point where more conversation is happening online rather than off. Once we reach that point, if most people do most of their socializing on apps then that would have to be the public square... the issue is our founders didnt conceive people would do most of their talking in private spaces.
Most people dont even want to dicsuss anything approaching political questions like this in public. This is how we have such a big culture gap, we have created new levels of personal boundaries the prevent any meaningful communication.
Look familiar
What if you created an option for something like Captcha where you volunteer or are assigned like jury duty. Then we can slowly teach an AI what constitutes as hate speech while doing day to day online activities. If you set it up to something like twitter you can get a really good data set of sentences that are already made to be completely public. You could have a few offices that are not owned by any of the companies where flagged messages go to be screened.
Reddit, wanting more conversation but instantly banning certain groups. Reddit, we want more liberal conversation and anything else is not what we want.
I love crooked, love the podcasts but as an avid RUclips watcher I find it difficult to watch this I'm not really sure what it is but I'll keep it in my mind as to why. I want to give more constructive criticism rather than just say I don't like how this video is presented.
I didn't like the narration part, "now we'll look for a lawyer . . . " and show us their typing on the google page, ugh. Waste of time.
Easy question... If the site isn't owned by the gubbernment, then there's no amendment. A private company's site isn't a public square, it's a room in the building in the company, just like a room in your apartment. You want to protect your right of ownership to your own apartment, free speech in your apartment is not protected by amendments.
Hank also believes in censorship. Try writing a comment on crash course. 2 years ago, you could. Not anymore.
One: Hey, it's Hank. Two: Nice work, guys. Now, let's keep things basic as we try to reel back in all our misguided/headsuptheirbutted relatives and friends by making content a bit more day-in-the-life-of for them. Think all those preschool & kindergarten tv shows on pbs from the sixties. Haha
Your wrong this is a public square
Hank Green is wonderful! 👍 And I loved Mohammed's response and knowledge it really helps provide a framework for understanding the issue!
This is a good video.
3:56 His anology is totally wrong, unless the local bar was the only one in the world with many drinks available; it also told you what you can & can't talk about; kicked people off who didn't support your preferred politican** and also had control over most of the info you saw, hear & thus influenced your opinions by. Oh, and this local bar knew everything about you.
That's not a local Bar. Ted Cruz is the bomb on this issue (maybe Tulsi Gabbard too), IMO. Trump's recent Executive Order is a big step forward IMO but doesn't go far enough on the Misuse of Power; and playing by equal rules.
My view is that Big Tech should be regulated & checked to make sure that whatever rules they have, they are applied equally.
So at 6:17, that would need to apply to the black supremacy or racial shaming too. Whatever the standard is, make it equal, not based on feelings, biogotry or who has power over others. Because otherwise it encourages & enables "cool" bigotry, prejudice & blindness to it.
And they need to choose between being a platform or a publisher. And that Rules should all be about Behavioral standards, not opinion.
Because we are not infallible, and an elite should not be dictating what is unquestionable or not.
** Timcast: "Liberal Says They're Voting For Trump" Video Goes Viral But Gets Deleted??!
@
priyanka + hank = 🥺🥺🥺🥰🥰🥰
It is if the government is compelling social media to do so
How is the government doing that?
Hahahaha. Hank the Influencer. I guess he is! Great video :)
Loved Hanks comment about the lightbulb, he just couldn't help but correct the scientific inaccuracy lol
Hank Greeeeen
I feel like one of the problems with government regulation of social media would be which government regulates it. While most big social media sites are based in the USA, their users are international, and the rest of the world doesn't want America's government interfering in our lives any more than they already do. If instead you want an international coalition of governments to regulate it, I point you to how flawed and ineffective the UN has become. Such groups don't work when there's a power imbalance like we have with the USA, Russia and China compared to the rest of the world.
Currently, public spaces are regulated by governments, and social media is regulated by individual companies. Sure, I didn't vote for the CEO of Facebook, but I also didn't vote for anyone in the US Government. Either way, it is important to have different entities controlling these spaces, because otherwise you end up with a state monopoly. Currently you can protest things happening in public spaces on social media, and protest things happening on social media in public spaces. That separation is vital.
Look to US streets right now if you don't think a government can or will misuse their regulatory powers. A government that tear gases and shoots its own citizens would happily shut down discourse on social media if they wanted to, and with the legalised corruption you call "political donations" and "lobbying", I'd rather know which company is responsible (Facebook, Twitter, Google) than have to guess which unknown lobbyists made the decisions.
Here is what the false assumption is with your argument: Your whole argument rests on the belief that very powerful Big Tech (control what most of us see, hear & thus think) will not misuse their power or have anti-equality policies.
Unlike Govt, Big Tech is very powerful (power over information) and yet is Un-accounatble; Unelected; totally Un-transparent
But I can give you lots of examples of that.
And Govt Regulattion is only about Enforcing Consistent Ethical Standards; INS. Such as:
(1) Same ethical rules for everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, politics. Big Tech Companies does the opposite, ask me for examples.
(2) It would mean Big Tech could not delete videos just because it wasn't supporting the right poltical candidate, but didn't violate ToS. Here is a recent example of RUclips doing this, with absolutely no breaking of ToS:
ruclips.net/video/M82J3Dxkx6s/видео.html
(3) It would protect the Public from Misuse of Power of Big Tech, esp what arbitrary opinions they suppress or make viral. Free Speech by powerful interests is the same ethical issue whether Govt or very powerful Corporations are doing it.
Would you support Laws that are like that?
Some of those things is what Trump is doing in his recent Executive Order, even if it doesn't have Laws that enforce Equality of Ethics, which I support (everyone plays by the same rules, whatever they are).
It is an attempt to force Big Tech to either be a Platform or a Publisher. So either choose to be a partisan political player & accountable; or be a Platform.
@@pebblepod30 you misunderstand my points. I accept that "big tech" may misuse their powers, and that we have no electoral power over them.
However, "big tech" is not one entity, but several CEOs and companies. Where one of them misuses their power in one way, another will not. If we give one government (who many of us still don't have electoral power over) the power to regulate all tech, then that is one entity regulating everything, and that is where it becomes dangerous. So long as we have a range of people in charge of our spaces, we will allow a range of views to be heard.
It's the same reason privatised monopolies are bad. Public (for Americans, Federal) monopolies are just as bad.
Your main flaw in your argument is that you believe the US government is accountable or transparent - both have been thoroughly disproven in the last few years.
Furthermore, the US electoral system is also so overly complicated and fundamentally flawed that I would argue that compared to a country with real democracy (See New Zealand, where I live) your government isn't even elected by the people. As a reminder, your president lost the popular vote, something that is usually the core of other countries' electoral systems.
@@Andythewestie
Firstly, no that is not a flaw in my argumemt, because I am talking about the VALUE OF THE PRINCIPLE, not arguing for perfection (were you get everything you want, and nothing you don't, which is impossible because the world doesnt revolve around you or me):
Even if the Govt or Laws aren't perfect, the Constitution & Laws are created to put a limit on the misuse of Power VS the Govt doing what they were elected to do.
The same Principle I am appling to anyone with Power over others:
It needs to have some Accountability built in. The more power, the more important it is.
Likewise, I am arguing that normal legal Principles are that Corporations should not be a Law unto themselves; yet Big Tech Corporations do behave like that.
If your arguing that a Principle is useless if it doesnt create perfection, then the whole legal system & Constitution would need to be thrown out.
This is the exaxt sane situation that other Big Corporations were in, in the past.
I am not American, but Tulsi Gabbard would have been my preference.
DFTBA
I can’t believe theses fools are begging for Big Tech censorship. Totally worthless conversation