I'm more aligned with Kevin on this topic and don't have much more to add than this article that summarizes my exposure to the cases of my past 30 years.
Https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1036731 The grey sidebar summarizes my understanding. Once you add a TOS, the company can do more restrictive things as long as they are willing to deal with the corporate reputation risk. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 11:16 PM Kevin M., <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:27 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Right - so this is a very cogent and helpful analysis showing why this is >> a high stakes discussion. I think you do not emphasize enough the role of >> teaching consumers of this new media how to evaluate the quality and >> credibility of a source than I think is warranted. When I was a kid there >> was a lot of “fake news” in school books and encyclopedias about, say >> Thomas Jefferson and his relationship to slaves, or Andrew Jackson and his >> relationship to Indians. The solution was not to ban purveyors of that >> false information, but to teach people how to read more critically, and to >> fight the bad information with better information. Still, it is probably >> true that the internet makes information so easily available that a smaller >> percentage of those who read the information are motivated and competent >> enough to evaluate it. >> >> But, even granting almost all of your point, that does not really address >> my point. I am not arguing for free speech absolutism after all. Given the >> extra power (and danger) of information on the internet, which makes >> regulating the most dangerous forms of information more important, we still >> have the problem of determining the characteristics that make certain kinds >> of information so dangerous that they should be prohibited (or, to >> recognize your point, less easily accessible)? As I say, I am very >> prepared to conclude that Jones is in the Red Zone - but I also know that >> even if he were just in the Yellow Zone I disagree with him so much that I >> might be in danger of voting to ban him anyway. What I need to be more >> comfortable with banning (or at least discriminating against) a particular >> information source that I don’t like is some criteria that I am convinced >> can be used fairly with all potential sources of information - including >> those I agree with. >> > > I admit that I am overheated and my lungs are full of smoke and my head > aches, but I still need you to explain to me how Jones’ free speech rights > have been denied him? He still streams, he still has an app (why iTunes > didn’t ban that, God only knows), he still has Twitter (posted today, > Jack’s reasoning for that one lacks all logic), and even if you stripped > him of all access to technology, he’d still be breathing scampi in > somebody’s ear whether they wanted to listen to him or not. > > Free speech is an issue when somebody is denied the same access as > everybody else. He wasn’t denied access; he was given it and abused it, > violating the respective TOS of several media outlets who banned him. You > can argue that suspensions due to TOS violations tend to be almost > arbitrary if not capricious in nature, but Jones wasn’t banned for trivial > reasons, and even if he was, if those reasons fell within the parameters of > TOS violations, that’s that. It still doesn’t strip him of any rights. > Jones does not have the right to a Facebook account; nobody does. Same with > YouTube. And most people need to be dragged kicking and screaming to > Pinterest, so his removal from that one doesn’t seem to be worthy of the > ACLU stepping in. > > The question is one of access (both in who is allowed to post media and > how many people could potentially view the media), but I don’t think there > is a clause in the first amendment guaranteeing private businesses must > grant access to all. Nevertheless, social media did grant Jones access, but > they took it away. Again, did they do so due to mounting public pressure or > merely as part of their much hyped sweep of “fake news”? Debate that all > you want; I’m not seeing a slippery slope here. > > To Tom’s point, there is also nothing legally forcing digital media to > coherently organize media or label it as BS or verified or whatever... it > does seem as though that is what the public wants, so some sort of (I > hesitate to use the phrase) ratings system will probably be utilized at > some point, as well as modifications or restrictions to the algorithms > determining “similar” media. But Alphabet and the others have to tread > lightly, because once they are more directly in charge of the oversight of > content posted on their digital media, issues of corporate liability are > raised; such changes will occur slowly, and I suspect much of it will lack > transparency. > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:55 PM Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:50 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, I think it pretty clearly is a free speech issue (though not, for >>>> the obvious reason, a First Amendment issue). Labeling it thus does not >>>> mean Facebook et al are in the wrong; free speech is not an absolute value, >>>> and we accept limitations on it all the time. I think there is a good >>>> argument to block Jones, but I think it does have to be placed within the >>>> free speech debate. >>>> >>>> I am always worried when speech is limited (anywhere) in response to >>>> pressure from emotionally charged majorities. In a country that has >>>> historically placed the highest value on free speech, I think we have to be >>>> prepared to err on the side of too much rather than too little. Again, that >>>> does not mean it is wrong to ban Jones on FB - a good argument can be made >>>> that his poison nonsense is clearly over the line of what is acceptable. >>>> >>>> The problem for me is that the line being used here is not clearly >>>> defined. I reject the notion that the line is whatever the loudest majority >>>> feels it to be at the current moment. I would prefer some set of concrete >>>> criteria be provided that users of social media could consider in advance. >>>> I would prefer that rather than banning Jones in toto, specific instances >>>> in which he has violated those criteria in the past are banned, and he (and >>>> everyone else) are given maybe 3 strikes in the future before they are >>>> permanently banned going forward. >>>> >>>> What are the criteria? I am not sure - and that is what makes me >>>> nervous about this situation. Should we man all “hate speech”? I don’t even >>>> know what that is. I hate Donald Trump - having posted that on this corner >>>> of social media, should I now be banned? Use of the “N-Word” to express >>>> threat and devaluation is anathema to me, but no, I do not want to see >>>> Richard Pryor or rap music banned. Anti-semitism is appalling and >>>> disgusting, but, again, no, I do not want to see Shakespeare banned. >>>> >>>> Probably no set of criteria would ever be perfect - but any set would >>>> be better than a vague sense of “most of us really don’t like that shit.” >>>> Expression which is harmful or incites serious harm towards others is >>>> probably a good place to start, though that already is plenty ambiguous. >>>> Expression which is non-transparent (where the real source/funding is >>>> hidden or distorted) might also be part of useful criteria - although, for >>>> someone who signs his posts on this site as “PGage” that might seem a bit >>>> hypocritical - and at least underlines the difficulty. >>>> >>>> Questions with easy answers: >>>> 1. Is Alex Jones reprehensible? (Yes) >>>> 2. Does Facebook have the right to ban Alex Jones? (Yes) >>>> >>>> A question with more difficulty answers: >>>> 3. How do we protect not just the right of but the access to free >>>> expression of very unpopular people? >>>> >>>> I think anytime anyone’s ability to express themselvs is limited (even >>>> when justified) we have to spend a lot of time thinking long and seriously >>>> about answers to question #3. >>>> >>> >>> We have to recognize the differences here from mass media. Facebook and >>> Google (including YouTube) have acquired incredible power in a short time. >>> With all the capital and labor spent on the technical side, there has been >>> virtually no effort to think of their roles on the policy side. Government >>> has followed way behind as most elected officials are older and see those >>> services as distractions for young people rather than the replacement for >>> mass media and major drivers of the news. When these and other social media >>> platforms were introduced everybody had rosy visions of what they could >>> bring: connecting people by interest regardless of geographical location, >>> sharing news in real time, getting around censorship in restrictive >>> countries. Nobody in these companies thought about massive fraud through >>> bots, bullying by bigots, encouragement of violence, etc. The companies set >>> up terms of service and suspend/expel violators but that's always a gray >>> area. Going forward these companies are going to have to come up with >>> workable guidelines to preserve free speech principles while keeping users >>> from being traumatized by what goes into their feeds. >>> >>> The problem with Alex Jones on social media is different from what would >>> happen on mass media. Social media is about clicks, likes, recommendations, >>> and the role of algorithms. If we were dealing with mass media, then the >>> Alex Jones story would be like ABC exiling Roseanne. But it's not like >>> that. As I wrote before, anybody can Google Alex Jones or Infowars, go to >>> his website and watch all the videos they can stomach. >>> >>> What the social media platforms are doing are recommending Alex Jones >>> based on keywords. A UNC professor named Zeynep Tufekci has been >>> publishing, presenting at conferences, and tweeting about YouTube and >>> polarization. If you do a YT search for a topic and find a video to watch, >>> a list of recommendations will be in a column on the right of the video. >>> That recommendation list is generated by algorithms. What she found is that >>> YT's recommendations tend to be toward more radical videos. >>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html>(LINK) >>> Watch a video about the Holocaust and videos from Holocaust deniers will >>> show up. Watch one for vegetarianism and videos for veganism will show up. >>> Watch a news story about Sandy Hook and an Alex Jones denial video will >>> show up. And if you have YT set to autoplay it just pops up and you watch. >>> >>> So YT has to deal with this: a middle school student is given homework >>> to do a report on Sandy Hook (or 9/11 or the moon landing). While doing >>> research they go to YT and watch a couple of videos based on autoplay. Then >>> they turn in a report saying we don't know if Sandy Hook actually happened. >>> Who is responsible for the student's failure? We can look among ourselves >>> and think the situation far fetched but we are all older, well educated, >>> and discerning. We can't say that about tweens and teens. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > >> -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
