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

21–30 of 41 posts

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

#21

Post by true_religion »

benjaminpkane wrote: post #17

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.

Legally you are right, but I think it's a congressional inquiry so lawmakers are looking to see the flaws in the laws application in real life.

If there are flaws, then it needs to be patched or abandoned.

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

#22

Post by true_religion »

qtplatypus wrote: post #18
henryfjordan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am sure there are plenty of companies that would support what some consider racist content. Heck, remember segregation was popular back in its day and the poeple who voted against desegregation are still alive.

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

#23

Post by dextralt »

floatingatoll wrote: post #16
rbecker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Oh reeeeeeeeeeally? You didn't think it was "needed"?

>Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

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

#24

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#25

Post by SubjectToChange »

talrobinson wrote: post #4
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…

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

They make the argument hate speech is not a form of protected speech, but it is.

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

#26

Post by SubjectToChange »

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.

Where did you ever get this idea? Hate speech is still protected under law. Of course Google doesn't have the same restrictions as the government, the could probably choose to censor anything containing the word "banana", but that doesn't change the status of free speech in general.

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

#27

Post by manfredo »

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…

What does racism have to do with it? The crucial part of section 230 is [1]:

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Meaning, if someone makes a defamatory comment on foo.com the person who made the comment is liable not the operators of foo.com. And crucially Section 230 makes it so this holds true regardless of whether foo.com moderates comments or not. Foo.com can remove content unrelated to whatever Foo.com is about. Prior to Section 230, Foo.com had to moderate no content, otherwise it might be held liable for the content users submit to the site.

Foo.com can remove racism, but not because racism isn't protected speech. As far as government is concerned, there's no distinction between "hate speech" and any other form of speech [2]. Foo.com can remove it because it's a private company. Protections for speech for the most part only apply to the government curbing speech. Foo.com, Google, Facebook, and so on are private companies they can ban whatever arbitrary content they want - not just hate speech or racist speech. They could suddenly decide that cat photos are forbidden and ban any users and groups that post pictures containing cats. None of this is illegal, nor would it make them liable for users' content.

What's controversial here is that Google is making users curate their own comments in compliance with what Google wants. It's outsourcing its moderation to its own users. But there's really nothing new about this. Reddit has been massively successful in pushing most moderation responsibilities onto its own users. If moderators of a subreddit don't keep their subreddit clean, the whole subreddit gets shut down or has moderators removed. These news here is that Google is starting to emulate this model.

1. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat....

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

#28

Post by ocdtrekkie »

joshuamorton wrote: post #15
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 commen…

> a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230

This ignores the factual reality that Google is a monopoly in several verticals, and the number of companies that can ignore Google is actually zero. Every company needs to be in Google's good graces whether it be for advertising or app installation on mobile phones or search visibility.

Even all of Google's direct competition in any given market needs to support Google in other markets. Google is inescapable and compliance with their policies is as mandatory as actual law.

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

#29

Post by dang »

dextralt wrote: post #23
floatingatoll wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh reeeeeeeeeeally? You didn't think it was "needed"? >Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is…

Please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN. We've asked you this before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#30

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #28
joshuamorton wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 commen…

> a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230 This ignores the factual reality that Google is a monopoly in several verticals, and the number of companies that can ignore Google is actually zero. Every company needs to be in Google's good graces whether it be for advertising or app installation on mobile phones or search visibility. Even all of Google's direct competition in any given m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN