Skip to comments.
Leaked Google Document Reveals Shift to Suppressing Free Speech
The Stream ^
| October 17, 2018
| Rachel Alexander
Posted on 10/17/2018 2:38:11 PM PDT by walford
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
"So far, big tech has rejected the label in order to retain their immunity from liability. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that tech firms have legal immunity for the majority of the content posted on their platforms."
Some of you will remember the days a dozen or more years ago when there were attempts to hold the hosts of message boards liable for content being posted by members. So if an anonymous user committed "internet suicide" by posting graphic/illegal content, the host would be held responsible. This was rightly rejected, because it would entail Admins, Moderators and even Server hosters to start policing content beyond threats to self/others, racial epithets, etc.
But the author rightly argues that when the hosts of Social Media volunteer to police content based upon politics, social perspectives, etc., they are taking responsibility to not only be liable for harmful language, but are obligated to provide free-speech access to anyone, regardless of ideology, religion or Party affiliation.
Hence, "hate speech" is defined by an increasing number of elitist Social Media hosts as anything that does not emulate Leftist dogma and/or exposes the hypocrisy of Democrat politicians.
They are fully aware that platforms originally intended to evaluate each others' faces or post pics of one's breakfast are being used for far more. Now users are able to bypass the Establishment Media, exchanging/vetting information directly.
This has meant, for example, that the general population is able to get information and PoV other than what Mad-Cow et al think we should know. Social Media are hosted -- according to Mark Zuckerberg in recent Congressional testimony -- in places that are overwhelmingly Leftist. They are outraged at our ability to use their platforms to inform each other rather than unquestioningly swallow whole what HuffPo, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times tell us.
So they are using various means, such as Shadow-Banning, de-monetizing, restricting access, and even kicking people off for publishing views that do not comport with the Democrat/Leftist narrative.
"The American tradition prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility. It creates space to debate all values. Even civility norms can be debated. The European tradition favors dignity over liberty. It values civility over freedom. It censors racial and religious hatred even where there is no threat of violence."
Certainly the Left on the East coast favors the European tradition and are wistful of the days when people trusted the aristocracy to absolve them of the responsibility of thinking for themselves.
But for Leftists on the East coast, it seems that they are attracted to the Chinese, North Korean and Latin American traditions in which the government has full freedom to do whatever, while the general population only does and says what is explicitly permitted. They would love to see a reverse Constitution that spells out how goverrnment is to be protected from the people.
Social Media has joined Academia, the entertainment industry, the press as being advocates for the elites at the expense of a feared, despised general population. This should be understood for what it is when regarding their actions.
1
posted on
10/17/2018 2:38:11 PM PDT
by
walford
To: walford
“But the author rightly argues that when the hosts of Social Media volunteer to police content based upon politics, social perspectives, etc., they are taking responsibility to not only be liable for harmful language, but are obligated to provide free-speech access to anyone, regardless of ideology, religion or Party affiliation.”
No, they are not obligated to provide access to everyone, they simply become legally liable for speech on their platform once they assume a certain level of editorial control.
Even if, for the sake of argument, they were to be regulated like a utility, as television networks are, they wouldn’t be obligated to provide access. The “Fairness Doctrine” is no longer in effect.
2
posted on
10/17/2018 2:48:24 PM PDT
by
Boogieman
To: walford
Well said.
Positively Orwellian, with algorithms.
3
posted on
10/17/2018 2:52:08 PM PDT
by
marktwain
(President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
To: Boogieman
So you would have no problem if AT&T cut off your access to communicate. Because “they are not obligated to provide access to everyone.”
4
posted on
10/17/2018 2:53:56 PM PDT
by
sergeantdave
(Teach a man to fish and he'll steal your gear and sell it)
To: walford
Mind Control To Major Tom.....
Mind Control To Major Tom.....
5
posted on
10/17/2018 2:57:49 PM PDT
by
Iron Munro
(If Illegals Voted Republican 66 Million Democrats Would Be Screaming "Build The Wall !")
To: Boogieman
The fact remains that there is a big difference from merely hosting content and having no responsibility for what users post — and deciding to edit, ban, delete content based upon social/political ideology.
The latter makes them subject to the same regulations that apply to Television/Radio etc. Hence, the operators of Social Media are finding themselves being questioned in Congressional hearings.
If this sort of social media censorship continues, their free-wheeling Internet laissez-faire status will end.
6
posted on
10/17/2018 3:01:44 PM PDT
by
walford
(https://www.facebook.com/wralford)
To: Iron Munro
7
posted on
10/17/2018 3:03:05 PM PDT
by
Klemper
(And then... and ONLY then... do they get their only chance to come back into America the legal way.)
To: walford
In the old Soviet Union, a pundit stipulated that they could engage in "free speech" any time they wanted. The issue was "freedom after the speech"!
To: walford
WUT???? Google’s been taken over by the Trump troops? /S
9
posted on
10/17/2018 3:06:14 PM PDT
by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
To: Iron Munro
“No, they are not obligated to provide access to everyone.”
Don’t be so certain of that. It depends on whether or not the internet and Google’s monopoly of it can be considered to be the “public square”. Jack Dorsey repeatedly referred to Twitter as the public square in his congressional testimony.
In 1947 the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that a company could not forbid a Jehovah’s Witness from handing out literature in their public square, even though the entire town was owned by the company.
Google and Twitter do not have the right to censor their users, it’s “settled law”!
10
posted on
10/17/2018 3:06:54 PM PDT
by
Junk Silver
("It's a little hard to herd people onto trains when they're shooting at you." SirLurkedalot)
To: walford
George Orwell “1984”
Down the memory hole
11
posted on
10/17/2018 3:07:46 PM PDT
by
cpdiii
(Cane Cutter, Deckhand,Roughneck, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist: THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
To: walford
Interesting, all these leaked Google documents lately. Are these Google employees that are leaking them? I dont know, but for some reason I find that hard to believe. Google is a tight liberal bastion.
What if someone else somehow has access to these documents, and is dripping them out slowly?
Say someone who has already expressed their dissatisfaction with the way Google provides search results. Maybe someone with access to everything?
Probably wishful thinking...
12
posted on
10/17/2018 3:10:53 PM PDT
by
EarlyBird
(There's a whole lot of winning going on around here!)
To: walford
We need a “Right to be Forgotten” law here, similar to what the EU just implemented. Some in congress, addicted to big tech’s $, are quietly trying to submit a very wattered down version, to head a good bill off at the pass.
Under the radar.
Going on right now.
To: Boogieman
“No, they are not obligated to provide access to everyone, they simply become legally liable for speech on their platform once they assume a certain level of editorial control.”
While your point is true corporate-owned social media has become the de-facto public square and if Americans are to remain free, laws will have to crafted that ensure that social media sites that have a monopolistic position cannot infring upon the rights of Americans. You may not like it but it is coming because the tech masters of the universe need to be brought to heel.
14
posted on
10/17/2018 3:21:52 PM PDT
by
WMarshal
(America First)
To: EarlyBird
Interesting, all these leaked Google documents lately. Are these Google employees that are leaking them? I dont know, but for some reason I find that hard to believe. Google is a tight liberal bastion. In even the most doctrinaire Leftist environment, you will find right-wing people who keep their heads down and their opinions to themselves. Most of the time.
15
posted on
10/17/2018 3:30:20 PM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
("Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire)
To: PapaBear3625
Oh, I know all about that. I work in a very liberal university where chalkings of Trump on the sidewalks brought out the university police.
But would I risk my job and my retirement fund to leak damaging documents about the university when it could be traced back to me?
No, I would not.
16
posted on
10/17/2018 3:37:16 PM PDT
by
EarlyBird
(There's a whole lot of winning going on around here!)
To: sergeantdave
You are exactly right. These internet Kings need to be treated as utilities, not media.
Break them up ala Ma Bell.
17
posted on
10/17/2018 3:38:36 PM PDT
by
weston
(As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing)
To: All
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/16/facebook-deletes-disabled-veterans-page-without-warning-after-taking-300000-for-ads/
“October 11th Facebook shut down thousands of Facebook accounts for their political opinions stating that they dont have a legitimate political argument.
...Facebook took down our Facebook page, cutting off all contact we had with the millions of people who signed up to follow us, the millions of people who liked what we were sharing online. We had a coveted, verified blue check mark, 3.5 Million fans, and I invested over $300,000 in ads at Facebooks own request, nearly begging us to spend spend spend just to reach our fans
whom they kept making more difficult to reach with every passing year.
...Facebook also deleted my other business page. I own a coffee company called Military Grade Coffee Company [which donates 10% of all profits back to veteran organizations]. We dont post politics, we sell coffee and support veteran charities. Facebook is maliciously attacking my way of life because of my beliefs, and they dont care. The New York Times even stated that Facebook made this calculated move to silence thousands of voices (and millions of forwarded messages) because of the upcoming midterm elections.”
18
posted on
10/17/2018 3:39:20 PM PDT
by
walford
(https://www.facebook.com/wralford)
To: WMarshal
Amen. The big Tech companies are effectively monopolies in their individual areas....Facebook, Twitter, Youtube/Google, utterly dominate their respective spheres. They need to either be broken up or barred from censoring in any way, anything but clearly illegal speech (ie terrorism, child porn, making terroristic threats).
They are making so many enemies with their assembling of private information about people and censorship as well as the fact that they are monopolies, that before long they will be severely regulated by the feds. They’re just too arrogant to stop making enemies - thus ensuring there will be political support to regulate the hell out of them.
19
posted on
10/17/2018 6:01:22 PM PDT
by
FLT-bird
To: EarlyBird
A person on the inside can do a HECK of a lot more ‘mischief’ than a hacker on the outside.
20
posted on
10/17/2018 6:07:04 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson