Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

sociable.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#11

Post by henryfjordan »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Ironically, if nobody but Google can benefit from Section 230 immunity, because people must obey Google's content moderation rules in order to remain viable in Search and Ads, then it's even more fuel to remove Section 230 to level the playing field.

Or break Google apart. In a perfect market, ad companies would compete and their terms around UGC would be a part of that competition. Since Google is basically the only game in town, break them apart until they are no longer in a position to dictate what speech is acceptable on the internet.

Google should absolutely have the right to say no to running ads on sites they think are objectionable. The issue is that there's not a healthy market.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#12

Post by floatingatoll »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #7
talrobinson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this being down-voted? It’s a thoughtful argument.

It’s an argument that pulls in a bunch of political baggage and just isn’t relevant to the source article. If Google does indeed have a double standard - if they demonetize other websites for hosting nasty comments while defending their right to host nasty comments themselves - that’s bad regardless of what Section 230 permits.

For whatever it's worth, I would support the concern you're describing if it were simplified to remove the whole Section thing entirely. Specifically:

"It would be a double standard if Google refuses to display advertising on other third-party websites alongside racist user content, but then displayed advertising on their own first-party websites alongside racist user content."

Google clearly states that they have automated detection of racism, so highlighting examples of Google displaying for-profit advertising on racist speech in Google Groups posts or YouTube comments would be vastly more meaningful an argument that they're applying a more restrictive standard to their customers than they apply to themselves.

Either Google does hold those of their own sites that display advertising on user content to the same burden of moderation that they demand from the advertising customers — or they do not, and are therefore hypocritical to do so with others. Whether or not section 230 exists, or is applicable, it simply doesn't matter.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#13

Post by ribosometronome »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #7
talrobinson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this being down-voted? It’s a thoughtful argument.

It’s an argument that pulls in a bunch of political baggage and just isn’t relevant to the source article. If Google does indeed have a double standard - if they demonetize other websites for hosting nasty comments while defending their right to host nasty comments themselves - that’s bad regardless of what Section 230 permits.

There is no double standard in arguing that platform creators shouldn't be legally liable for racist user comments while simultaneously arguing that platform creators don't need to be paid for hosting racist user comments.

I'm not a Googler, but my impression was that Google mostly holds themselves to this standard. Youtube routinely demonetizes videos with questionable content and blocks ads aimed at racist keywords.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#14

Post by qtplatypus »

I am worried that US senators confuse 230’s protection from legal action which some mystical barrier that protects you from all consequences.

It’s like the people who claim that moderation infringes on free speech. “Not running ads” is not the same as legal action.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#15

Post by joshuamorton »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Ironically, if nobody but Google can benefit from Section 230 immunity, because people must obey Google's content moderation rules in order to remain viable in Search and Ads, then it's even more fuel to remove Section 230 to level the playing field.

[I work at Google, unrelated to Ads, I'm not a lawyer, views are my own, caveat emptor, etc.]

This pushes the limits of my section 230 knowledge, but I think you've got this backwards. A company that wants to comply here needs Section 230 to exist, a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230.

Section 230 immunity isn't necessary for things that are completely unmoderated. If the comment sections are literally entirely unmoderated, they fall under the pre-existing statute (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc).

However, if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#16

Post by floatingatoll »

rbecker wrote: post #10
floatingatoll wrote: post #3

This post is a poorly disguised argument that racist speech does not create hostile environments for non-racists, and misapplies one aspect of Section 230 while ignoring another that counters their own argument. Section 230 explicit grants Google, and publishers, the authority to restrict speech when it is offensive: > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material th…

> Racism is hate speech, and hate speech is not a form of protected speech. You mean in the US? If so, which Supreme Court case are you basing this on? Edit: As dextralt pointed out, I ask not because I expect HN posts to adhere to scientific journal standards, but because that claim is contrary to every Supreme Court decision in recent history, so I have trouble figuring out how you got that idea. Edit 2: As dextral…

I didn't think this would be needed in this post, but since you've asked for advice on the law —

Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer, I have not prepared citations for your review, please seek legal counsel if you’re considering actions based on my opinion, etc etc.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#17

Post by benjaminpkane »

Legally, the playing field is even. The question is whether Google makes money from hateful content posted by users on their platforms. And then the topic indirection comes up.

This article avoids the distinction between law and economy at all costs because it would invalidate its entire thesis. I am not convinced Google is guilty of a double standard here.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#18

Post by qtplatypus »

henryfjordan wrote: post #11
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Ironically, if nobody but Google can benefit from Section 230 immunity, because people must obey Google's content moderation rules in order to remain viable in Search and Ads, then it's even more fuel to remove Section 230 to level the playing field.

Or break Google apart. In a perfect market, ad companies would compete and their terms around UGC would be a part of that competition. Since Google is basically the only game in town, break them apart until they are no longer in a position to dictate what speech is acceptable on the internet. Google should absolutely have the right to say no to running ads on sites they think are objectionable. The issue is that ther…

Google doesn’t want to dictate what is acceptable content on the internet. The people who buy ads don’t want to be associated with racism.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#19

Post by dextralt »

floatingatoll wrote: post #3

This post is a poorly disguised argument that racist speech does not create hostile environments for non-racists, and misapplies one aspect of Section 230 while ignoring another that counters their own argument. Section 230 explicit grants Google, and publishers, the authority to restrict speech when it is offensive: > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material th…

>The only slippery slope to be considered here is 'what is considered hate speech?'

And who exactly gets to decide what is considered racism? It is an open secret that current definition used by the people in the media, academia and those who decide the policy of social media and other platforms, does not apply equally to all people.

Enter reddit's new content policy, that was as far as I know the only time those unwritten rules got written:

>"While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate."

This bit got okayed by a lot of people before it was published. And after it was, and have received A LOT of backlash, this rule went back to being unwritten. But rest assured that it is still there, and on every other major social media platform too. Because if it wasn't, the hordes of rabid identarians that thrive on reddit and twitter would have to be acknowledged.

EDIT: this comment, like the other two that brought this up, will end up [dead] within minutes.

Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments

#20

Post by floatingatoll »

john_moscow wrote: post #5
floatingatoll wrote: post #3

This post is a poorly disguised argument that racist speech does not create hostile environments for non-racists, and misapplies one aspect of Section 230 while ignoring another that counters their own argument. Section 230 explicit grants Google, and publishers, the authority to restrict speech when it is offensive: > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material th…

Unfortunately, the term "racism" has almost completely lost its meaning. In 2020, we have a large group of people who's professional existence 100% depends on finding and combating racism, as well as plugging themselves as a wealth redistribution middleman in the name of equality. It's the Cobra Effect [0] all over again. If you pay people to find racism, they will find racism, alright. They will also try to frame an…

Replacing "racism" with "racist speech" is indeed more accurate, though I'll leave it unedited to keep the context for your comment intact.
Post reply on HN