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

31–40 of 41 posts

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

#31

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…

Please use HN’s reply feature to reply at HN. I do not reply to edit-replies as you’re using. I view them as a form of conversational warfare.

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

#32

Post by odessacubbage »

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…

hate speech is a legally meaningless category under us law. where are you drawing the basis for this distinction of 'protected speech' from? also importantly, it seems like racism is only viewed as needing moderation within one context. twitter is currently full of indians and chinese users posting what would ostensibly be considered virulently racist comments about eachother's ethnic groups and yet this is not subject to moderation. no one pulled facebook's ads when they enabled multiple ethnic cleansings etc. it seems like the only racism people in power care about is arguably the least consequential: facebook dads and edgy teens using too many gamer words.

there will never truly be a moderation solution that can actually handle racism in either language or substance. ban one slur and 1000 more will be invented while non offending speech and the spectrum of permissible thought are continually eroded by this absurd and ill-conceived 'scorched earth approach towards making people not say the n-word'

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

#33

Post by Natsu »

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.

I suspect it's because "hate speech" is not, in fact, a category of unprotected speech under US law. Most legal scholars agree with this point, including many who are absolutely not fans of hate speech, like Ken White of Popehat:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speec...

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

#34

Post by rbecker »

floatingatoll wrote: post #31
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…

Please use HN’s reply feature to reply at HN. I do not reply to edit-replies as you’re using. I view them as a form of conversational warfare.

I would if I could - my posts were rate-limited. It seems to only take 1-2 downvotes to get rate-limited to 2 posts/hour or less.

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

#35

Post by floatingatoll »

SubjectToChange wrote: post #25
talrobinson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I apologize for my poorly constructed argument. I should have spoken more clearly and I was in a rush. I'll probably screw this explanation up too, but the apology stands regardless.

Hate speech isn't Section 230 protected speech, in my opinion. Copying from above, with modified italics placement:

> any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

This is a list of forms of speech that providers, under Section 230, may safely disregard constitutional protections for. Racist speech and other forms of hate speech are, at minimum, 'otherwise objectionable'; and therefore they are not forms of speech protected by Section 230.

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

#36

Post by floatingatoll »

rbecker wrote: post #34
floatingatoll wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please use HN’s reply feature to reply at HN. I do not reply to edit-replies as you’re using. I view them as a form of conversational warfare.

I would if I could - my posts were rate-limited. It seems to only take 1-2 downvotes to get rate-limited to 2 posts/hour or less.

You'll want to email the mods about that, using the footer Contact link.

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

#37

Post by qtplatypus »

true_religion wrote: post #22
qtplatypus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That might be true but I would give the counter example of the adpocolips. Most companies don't want to look like they are for racism.

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

#38

Post by true_religion »

qtplatypus wrote: post #37
true_religion wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That might be true but I would give the counter example of the adpocolips. Most companies don't want to look like they are for racism.

Sure maybe not multinationals, but there was still a whites only bar in Alexandria till like 2005. Racists will find support from their own kind.

Honestly it would be better for this sort of thing to be banned from the top down by governments, but they seem loath to call any "white" nationalist group terrorists no matter how many weapons they bring to rally and how many people they injure.

White is in scare quotes, because you never know who they are counting aa such...

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

#39

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

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…

> 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.

You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.

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

#40

Post by Nasrudith »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #39
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…

> 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. You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.

The old guard Journalists tried to fabricate "techlash" out of thin air. They are lying and showing themselves to be hypocrites. Look at the softballs given to power and abusers but as soon as they see a scapegoat for their business sucking the knives come out.
Post reply on HN