Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#2Ironically, 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.
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#3This 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 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
Racism is offensive content under these terms. If the publishers do not exercise their Section 230 rights to deny service to racist content and the racists that post it, Google will exercise their Section 230 rights to deny service — to restrict their 'banner ad' dialect^ of speech — to racist content and the sites that contain it.
To cut off the usual replies that try to invoke 'free speech' and 'but what about an unrelated example that doesn't include hate speech':
Racism is hate speech, and hate speech is not a form of protected speech. The only slippery slope to be considered here is 'what is considered hate speech?'. Racism is, unquestionably, hate speech. There is no slippery slope for racist speech. It's already at the bottom of the pit.
If this article were about content other than hate speech, it would be interesting. As it stands, it's just 'we shouldn't demonize racism' in the usual 'first amendment' style of overcoat.
Dissecting the article in specific, I find:
> Google threatened to demonetize The Federalist news outlet on the grounds that readers were leaving “racist” comments that advertisers didn’t want to be associated with.
Google threatened to withdraw service from a news outlet over racist user comments.
> The Federalist was targeted only because of its readers’ comments
Google was reacting only to the racist comments and not to the content published by the site operators themselves.
> the alternatives were to either ban comments altogether, moderate/censor them, or make them more difficult to access
Google identifies several technical solutions, but then we have here this most interesting appendix from "The Sociable" itself:
> — all of which discourage real engagement
This phrase suffix attempts to frame "take action against racist comments" as "unrestricted speech is the only 'real' form of engagement". This is false. Racist comments discourages real engagement. Discouraging racist comments discourages racist engagement. Racist engagement is not "real" engagement. It's just racist engagement.
> This means that publishers have to make their sites Google-friendly
"The Sociable" would like to remind you that the issue here is that Google is hostile to "racist comments" — yet, somehow, it's not interesting to them that a major news outlet, The Federalist, was found to have such a degree of racism in their user comments that Google bothered to react at all.
^ Hieroglyphics and GIFs both prove that images are a form of speech. So, then, are banner advertisements.
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#4This 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.
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#5This 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 any criticism pointing to their own toxicity as racism, as otherwise they would risk losing their position.
I think, we need to distinguish actual racism (i.e. treating people differently based on their skin color) from criticism on specific social justice politics that are extremely inefficient, divisive, and make the problem worse in the long term.
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#6This 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…
They already don't apply this equally.
As a White man, why should I care if racists' free speech is respected? Anti-White racists already enjoy almost total freedom to threaten, insult, denigrate, humiliate and ostracize us. So what have I got to lose?
At the moment, it's open season against people like me while if someone as pale as I am says something that could even be deliberately misinterpreted as slightly offensive to another group, they're made out as the latest earthly incarnation of Lucifer himself.
If the purpose of 230 is to protect this dynamic, to hell with it.
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#7This 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.
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.
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#8This 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…
[dead]
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#9This 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…
[deleted]
Re: Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments
#10This 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 dextralt's post is now flagged, let me reproduce what they cited:
Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution. 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. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...