censorship Googles Sued For Censoring Conservative PragerU

[Weak1ings]

          Basically, PragerU, a non-profit conservative organization is suing Google for their content being blocked by Youtube in its "Restricted Mode," Citing that it infringes on their freedom of speech from the 1st US amendment.  Their videos are also demonetized though to a extent I do not know.  The demonetization could simply be missed revenue by having it not show up for the lost viewership.  I think this is relevant because Internet censorship is something we should all be extremely interested in and if its happening, should respond to appropriately.

 

Quote

Washington times excerpt:

 

"

 

The company, founded in 2011 by conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, filed the suit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PragerU claims in the lawsuit YouTube has restricted more than 30 of its videos, labeling some as “inappropriate.” That has prevented the company from collecting ad revenue and blocked viewers who have certain parental settings.

“One need only compare the censored PragerU videos with those that are produced by speakers with different political identities or viewpoints to understand just how arbitrary and discriminatory Google/YouTube’s conduct is,” PragerU said in a lawsuit.

 

Google did not respond to an email request for comment."

...

" The site alleges other videos discussing the same issues by Al Jazeera, Buzzfeed, Bill Maher and the History Channel were not censored, despite some of those talks containing profanity or graphic depictions of mature content. "

 

 

 

 

Washington times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/prageru-accuses-google-censoring-educational-sites/

 

The blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/25/conservative-prageru-sues-youtube-google-over-video-censorship-somebody-has-to-fight-goliath?utm_content=buffer3240a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

The hill:

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356966-prageru-sues-google-youtube-for-censoring-conservative-videos

[vanished]

Quote

Basically, PragerU, a non-profit conservative organization is suing Google for their content being blocked by Youtube in its "Restricted Mode," Citing that it infringes on their freedom of speech from the 1st US amendment. 

another one that doesn't understand how this works... when will it end?

 

Freedom of speech means you can stand on the street-corner and say whatever you want, and no one can shut you up or take you away.

It does not mean you can go up to someone's house or business and demand they build you a pedestal from which to shout whilst on their property.

[Weak1ings]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

another one that doesn't understand how this works... when will it end?

Never   Google should be able to choose what it wants to have, if it stops too much, Youtube will die.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

another one that doesn't understand how this works... when will it end?

It could set a precedent, though.

Google has a ton of power to where the government could apply shit to it.

 

Also, PragerU is hardly conservative. Try classical liberalism.

[PocketNerd]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It could set a precedent, though.

Google has a ton of power to where the government could apply shit to it.

 

Also, PragerU is hardly conservative. Try classical liberalism.

You do understand that you're saying Corporations are their own government, right?

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, PocketNerd said:

You do understand that you're saying Corporations are their own government, right?

Explain how.

[PocketNerd]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Explain how.

Maybe not exactly their own government (translating my own thought is a little hard) but if this actually applies to Google, then Google becomes an entity of the Government. Which then, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that all Corporations are entities of the Government. Then, considering that Corporations are people (from a legal standpoint) then that would imply that we're all the Government.

[PlayStation 2]

3 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Maybe not exactly their own government (translating my own thought is a little hard) but if this actually applies to Google, then Google becomes an entity of the Government. Which then, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that all Corporations are entities of the Government. Then, considering that Corporations are people (from a legal standpoint) then that would imply that we're all the Government.

??

I said this case, if it goes through, could present a legal precedent, not that Google is part of the government.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It could set a precedent, though.

Google has a ton of power to where the government could apply shit to it.

 

Also, PragerU is hardly conservative. Try classical liberalism.

The issue is where do you draw the line between corporations that can control their own platform and corporations with such broad reach they have to be treated like the government/public property.  And additionally, regardless of where that line is drawn, how can the government (or whoever it would be) approach some company and say "yeah you know what, your'e too big now, you are not allowed to filter your own stuff".  Seems like a rights problem to me.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

The issue is where do you draw the line between corporations that can control their own platform and corporations with such broad reach they have to be treated like the government/public property.  And additionally, regardless of where that line is drawn, how can the government (or whoever it would be) approach some company and say "yeah you know what, your'e too big now, you are not allowed to filter your own stuff".  Seems like a rights problem to me.

Corporations can act much like a person in that they are allowed many of the legal rights a person has.

Here I'm pointing at how people on this forum generally like to see governments tell a company what to do. While I genuinely wish someone had a legitimate case against Google (and I'm sure it wouldn't take much to find it), I'd much rather see how it'd play out and how PragerU handles this.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Corporations can act much like a person in that they are allowed many of the legal rights a person has.

Here I'm pointing at how people on this forum generally like to see governments tell a company what to do. While I genuinely wish someone had a legitimate case against Google (and I'm sure it wouldn't take much to find it), I'd much rather see how it'd play out and how PragerU handles this.

Wait I think I've lost the train of thought here...

 

• I said (or meant, even if I didn't explicitly say) that this company has no case against Google since freedom of speech does not apply to a company controlling their own platform (just like the forum for example)
• You said "

  It could set a precedent, though.

  Google has a ton of power to where the government could apply shit to it.

  "
• I took this to mean you thought freedom of speech could potentially be applied, but perhaps I was mistaken...

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Wait I think I've lost the train of thought here...

 

• I said (or meant, even if I didn't explicitly say) that this company has no case against Google since freedom of speech does not apply to a company controlling their own platform (just like the forum for example)
• You said "

  It could set a precedent, though.

  Google has a ton of power to where the government could apply shit to it.

  "
• I took this to mean you thought freedom of speech could potentially be applied, but perhaps I was mistaken...

I guess where I'm trying to go with it is that Google has a lot of overarching power towards the public, and that if they want to act the way they do, something should challenge them.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I guess where I'm trying to go with it is that Google has a lot of overarching power towards the public, and that if they want to act the way they do, something should challenge them.

so I was right, you're saying Google is so large and powerful that they should have free speech rules applied to them?

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

so I was right, you're saying Google is so large and powerful that they should have free speech rules applied to them?

Yeah, basically. Admittedly my argument is all over the place.

[vanished]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Yeah, basically. Admittedly my argument is all over the place.

Ok, I wanted to make sure we were on the same page

So, to that I would say this:

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The issue is where do you draw the line between corporations that can control their own platform and corporations with such broad reach they have to be treated like the government/public property.  And additionally, regardless of where that line is drawn, how can the government (or whoever it would be) approach some company and say "yeah you know what, your'e too big now, you are not allowed to filter your own stuff".  Seems like a rights problem to me.

 

[WMGroomAK]

Is it just me or do other people sometimes also accidentally read demonetization as demonization? 

 

OT:  This gets to one of those complicated portions with the internet, how it is set-up and Google as a successful corporation...  Does Google have a right to determine what content they will allow on their platforms and what they will deny?  I would say that they do, however as a company with far reaching social impacts that supposedly tries to encourage free & open communication I would hope that they would only censor the most abhorrent content if any...  This gets to that problem of what is abhorrent content though and who determines that, which is a gray area where what I may consider to be abhorrent, someone else might consider perfectly fine...  Ideally, the internet should be a platform that allows for free speech and the trade of free thoughts where if you disagree with someone you can present an articulate argument to counter it and have a productive discussion.  In real life however, the internet tends to feel like the exact opposite.  As for this case, not really sure and I think it could be argued both ways rationally in a court of law.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Ok, I wanted to make sure we were on the same page

So, to that I would say this:

 

Alright, feel like I should answer that.

There does need to be a line to where political influence or any real public influence should be drawn. It's one thing to prefer one candidate for another (just using an example) but it should be an entirely different thing to intentionally censor and/or defame someone using false information, especially for your side's gain when you have a lot of public influence.

[Anjelllo]

I wanna hear google’s reasons for doing that. I’m not a youtuber but I’ve heard youtube’s censorship and demonitization strategies are wack (3klikphilip’s vid is pretty explanatory) . I think they’d probably have more luck if they claimed they didn’t break youtube’s terms of service, but their current strategy probably won’t work out in their favor, as google is just demonitizing them and age restricting it(their vids are still watchable). I really wish youtube had more competition, as right now it’s sort of an abusive monopoly.

[vanished]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Alright, feel like I should answer that.

There does need to be a line to where political influence or any real public influence should be drawn. It's one thing to prefer one candidate for another (just using an example) but it should be an entirely different thing to intentionally censor and/or defame someone using false information, especially for your side's gain.

Ok, let's accept that for the sake of argument.  But then, how, would be my question?  Seems like you'd be creating a huge grey area that would cause a lot of trouble.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Ok, let's accept that for the sake of argument.  But then, how, would be my question?  Seems like you'd be creating a huge grey area that would cause a lot of trouble.

Yeah, that's what I'm not sure about. Both of us do know how much influence Google has, but say, a smaller site (for the sake of not going for biases, let's say Salon and The Daily Stormer), that's where I'd be a little stumped on determining how much influence they have.

[vanished]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Yeah, that's what I'm not sure about. Both of us do know how much influence Google has, but say, a smaller site (for the sake of not going for biases, let's say Salon and The Daily Stormer), that's where I'd be a little stumped on determining how much influence they have.

And so it seems there's three options:

1. Force apply it to everything (I'm sure some people would love this, but how well that would go, I'm not sure.)
2. Don't apply it to any companies (the way it is now)
3. Decide on a case by case basis which websites/publications/etc are allowed to control their content, and which must allow everything under free speech.

I just can't help but feel like there's two potential problems with that:

• (this applies to #1 and #3) If a company cannot filter its own content, what happens when someone posts something illegal?  How long does it stay there, and until who does what about it?  Who gets in trouble?  What about the image of the company?  They would become associated with things on their platform, potentially to great negative effect.  Also, how well would it go over if the government decided to start telling companies they can't filter their platforms?  How would this impact DMCA take-downs?  Reviews left on products?  Any number of other things I can't think of at the moment... I mean, it might be good it might be bad but it would undeniably be a huge shift in how things are done and I think it would need to be thoroughly considered before a change to any such system could be recommended.
• (to just #3) If there was a split between one type of company and another, imagine how much that complicates all of the above even more.  And, again, who decides who goes in which category, and how?  I don't think there is a good answer to this, since it's inherently arbitrary.

[Shreyas1]

I thought that the Republican Party in America wanted companies to have free speech? This is working out good for the Democrats. Either way, they win

[handymanshandle]

35 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Maybe not exactly their own government (translating my own thought is a little hard) but if this actually applies to Google, then Google becomes an entity of the Government. Which then, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that all Corporations are entities of the Government. Then, considering that Corporations are people (from a legal standpoint) then that would imply that we're all the Government.

I mean the government is suppose to be of the people, by the people. Sooooooo.......

 

Honestly, I mean I sorta get where like a company can choose what kind of stuff they want on their service but then it kinda feels like censorship even though the company is not a government they're merely providing a service and have rules for the use of that service because they feel with those rules they protect the interest of their advertisers, their own corporate interests as in like how they align politically. But personally I believe a business should detach itself from religion and politics unless its business is in religion and politics, but when it comes to politics it depends what it's doing in regards to politics.

I guess this is a better way of putting what I think I'm trying to get at.

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

And so it seems there's three options:

1. Force apply it to everything (I'm sure some people would love this, but how well that would go, I'm not sure.)
2. Don't apply it to any companies (the way it is now)
3. Decide on a case by case basis which websites/publications/etc are allowed to control their content, and which must allow everything under free speech.

I just can't help but feel like there's two potential problems with that:

• (this applies to #1 and #3) If a company cannot filter its own content, what happens when someone posts something illegal?  How long does it stay there, and until who does what about it?  Who gets in trouble?  What about the image of the company?  They would become associated with things on their platform, potentially to great negative effect.  Also, how well would it go over if the government decided to start telling companies they can't filter their platforms?  How would this impact DMCA take-downs?  Reviews left on products?  Any number of other things I can't think of at the moment... I mean, it might be good it might be bad but it would undeniably be a huge shift in how things are done and I think it would need to be thoroughly considered before a change to any such system could be recommended.
• (to just #3) If there was a split between one type of company and another, imagine how much that complicates all of the above even more.  And, again, who decides who goes in which category, and how?  I don't think there is a good answer to this, since it's inherently arbitrary.

 

[Blade of Grass]

53 minutes ago, Weak1ings said:

Basically, PragerU, a non-profit conservative organization is suing Google for their content being blocked by Youtube in its "Restricted Mode," Citing that it infringes on their freedom of speech from the 1st US amendment.

1st amendment doesn't apply to private entities

Quote

 Their videos are also demonetized though to a extent I do not know. The demonetization could simply be missed revenue by having it not show up for the lost viewership. 

They could have also been entirely demonetized. This is common for controversial pages on social media platforms (the exact same thing is done by Twitter and Facebook) to appease advertisers who do not want their ads shown on the content. 

Quote

I think this is relevant because Internet censorship is something we should all be extremely interested in and if its happening, should respond to appropriately.

What part of this do you consider censorship? If it is censorship, how do you believe we should respond? 

[SansVarnic]

I wanted to say this [in the spoiler] but decided against it. To political. Read it if you want but don't comment other wise I'll have to delete the spoiler ...

Spoiler

 

Just for reference not for arguments sake;

 

According to the forefathers intent of the US 1st Amendment, an individual has the right to speak their mind about and against government tyranny without fear of persecution. Not to speak ones mind at any given time and make a fool of ones self in the process. The 2nd amendment is not a "Freedom of Speech" in the term of which you have heard on a daily basis where people yell "I have a right to speak" umm no you do not. Now, according to a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court you now do have the right to speak and make a fool of yourself so yeah.

 

I guess you can look and sound like you have no brain and according to the SCOTUS you can prove it. Yay! /s

Using the "Freedom of Speech" line is honestly a poor argument.

 

Anyhow I don't see why YT would censor this as it goes against their own open minded way of being but then again I have not seen the video and the possible breach of service terms that YT has. /shrug

 

 The YT thing is odd and well YT has the final say really it is their terms of use ... /shrug