YouTube Updates Its Strike System

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, Feb 19, 2019.

  1. Snowdensjacket

    Snowdensjacket Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    316
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Very bizarre how people now think businesses can do whatever they want and should not ever be regulated. A very anti American thing to say that has no basis in tradition. Capitalism that gets out of control, especially our crony capitalism, will lead to misery, the suppression of free speech, 100% of all productivity increases over the past 50 years going to the top 1%, businesses offloading paying their workers to government welfare and section 8 housing etc etc.

    This extreme libertarian ideology will lead to people voting for more and more extreme government power. Young people get used to the only way to improve their lives is getting more from the state. Socialism is what comes next.
     
  2. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,403
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    They only go after the big dogs. Once they hammer the big boys they will in one swell foop erase and unperson anyone they dont like.

    One of the first ones to go next is going to be Pewtiepie guarantee it.
     
  3. JcRabbit

    JcRabbit n00b

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Very, very true. Capitalism is still the better system we ever came up with, but it's not perfect and needs checks and bounds, otherwise it simply devolves into pure greed (the exact reason behind the 2008 global economic crisis, which was caused by too much deregulation). All you need to do to fully understand this is play a game of Monopoly till the very end.

    If you play by the original rules, at the end of the game one player literally holds everything and everyone else is completely and utterly bankrupt.
     
    Darunion, Armenius and Snowdensjacket like this.
  4. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    13,218
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Logan Paul knows about this =P

     
  5. Shikami

    Shikami Gawd

    Messages:
    635
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
  6. Zion Halcyon

    Zion Halcyon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,108
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    whether or not you believe they have the luxury to, that is exactly what they have been doing. They will continue to do it until someone actually challenges them.

    I believe one of two things will happen from here. Either one, they will get sued harshly and be forced to even things out, or to someone will come up with a more fair platform and YouTube will be put out of business.

    Stuff like this is how monoliths end up being overtaken. It may seem impossible now, but it always seems impossible at the beginning. It just takes the right start up at the right moment.
     
  7. Azphira

    Azphira [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,822
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Their platform they can do what they want, however barring videos with illegal activities, if they don't cherish the first amendment, they deserve no CDA 230 or federal dollars.
     
    Rahh likes this.
  8. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,503
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Open, radical stupidity and lame attempts at invasion of privacy that have to pass through a legislative process aren't really fertile grounds for conspiracy.

    I mean, it's nuts, but that's neither here nor there. Bypassing the legislative process because there's an environment of fear is how a real professional gets a conspiracy going.
     
  9. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    This will end up going to the supreme court but the question is whether Youtube meets safe harbour as "a neutral public forum" under 47 USC §230 or are they engaged in political speech (by censoring conservative speech) as protected by the 1st amendment.

    So for example, your ISP is absolutely neutral because they will serve you www.motherjones.com and they'll serve you www.infowars.com. Your ISP doesn't care. That's neutrality.

    Youtube isn't neutral. So now if they're not neutral, they lose all the protections afforded them by 47 USC §230 which means they can get sued for all sorts of things along with the fact that they're not properly disclosing their political ad spend. A corporation is free to spend money politically to endorse or denounce candidates (Citizens United vs FEC, 2010) but they aren't absolved of disclosure.
     
    GoldenTiger, raz-0 and mlcarson like this.
  10. Shikami

    Shikami Gawd

    Messages:
    635
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    You do not think that that is part of a plan to do something unlawful or harmful? That is the the definition of it.

    Plans within plans, man
     
  11. HVAC

    HVAC n00b

    Messages:
    47
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015

    As others have pointed out, this is not strictly true. To maintain a "Safe Harbor" status, YT CANNOT "...do whatever they want regarding speech, ..." Once YT starts drawing lines about what legal speech they will and will not allow, any Safe Harbor claim they may make is more difficult to defend.
     
  12. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    TYT out views almost all the right combined. Their view numbers are insane. The right prefers diversity of ideas. So the Left has less content but as many views as the right. That's one factor. The other is there is more market for independent content on the right. People on the Left can get their biases confirmed with the rest of media.
     
    Pyromaneyakk likes this.
  13. pillagenburn

    pillagenburn Gawd

    Messages:
    962
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Maybe Alphabet needs to move all of their operations to an island somewhere and declare sovereignty - calling their new country Alphabetistan or Googalistan... they certainly have the money to do it.
     
  14. Exavior

    Exavior [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,654
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    I think a few people here need to start doing one less 8-ball a day... or maybe at least better quality 8-balls.
     
    illli likes this.
  15. Silverlok

    Silverlok [H]Lite

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Any endeavor that has two or more individuals working together towards a common goal is by definition an 'conspiracy' , so ( almost ) everything is , in actuality, a conspiracy.

    But wry word-smithing aside; when groups of people are working together toward common goals that infringe, sublimate or otherwise mitigate the rule of law that either binds or breaks the society they live in , then some due diligence should be applied to ascertain the logical outcome of this groups endeavors.
    If these group actions are opaque, semi-transparent, or intentionally hidden from public view in some form, then one might reasonably assume that the more colloquial use of conspiracy is warranted .

    To Google/Youtube's credit, they have, at least on one occasion, been extremely transparent on their political philosophy ( as a group ) and more importantly how that philosophy shapes the way they want to influence information dissemination :

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=uAqcL_1536783449

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...derships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

    After seeing the above video it is impossible( edit: or at the least; extremely naive ) to believe that the Youtube strike system is not being used as a control valve for information dissemination, and it is equally as hard to believe that the people at the top have radically altered the belief system they use to tune that control valve.

    So it would seem that the changes to the strike system are a phantom lever to keep the rabble from rattling pitch forks and torches and in doing so prompt Congress to move YT out from under the nebulous and shifty ' Safe Harbor ' private company skirt ( or shadow if you will ) and into the regulated public media space, for just a bit longer ( like say at least another 21 months ) .

    Just a non-conspiratorial thought.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  16. Pyromaneyakk

    Pyromaneyakk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,759
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2000
    TYT also has the luxury of being front-page promoted by Youtube. I have seen their videos show up on my front page numerous times, yet I never watch that idiotic trash.

    As some others have stated, they do have a First Amendment privilege of free speech and can regulate the company however they want, BUT in order to maintain the "Safe Harbor" they must be a "neutral public forum" and not regulate content in a biased manner. People throw around words like "hate speech" but what does that even mean? It's entirely subjective and in practice almost always amounts to something like "anything that offends a left-wing snowflake".
     
  17. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    That's a myth. Here:

    No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be "Neutral"


    From the article:

    "Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both."

    The creation of 230 was created as a RESONSE to a provider being liable for trying to clean up some of their content. You're right in that without 230 protections they are liable if they are considered the authors of any videos that violate copyright, terrorist definitions, but being neutral isn't a requirement for that. It's commonly misunderstood, apparently Ted Cruz and Wired magazine got it wrong also.
     
    lcpiper and britjh22 like this.
  18. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004

    Sooo... here's the bio of the author you quoted:

    Elliot Harmon

    ACTIVISM DIRECTOR

    Elliot is the activism director at EFF. He advocates for free speech and the right to innovate online, with particular emphases on patents, copyright, open access, and Section 230.

    Before coming to EFF, Elliot served as director of communications at Creative Commons, an organization that helps creators share their works with the public via open copyright licenses. Before that, he worked as a writer and curator for TechSoup, a technology resource for the nonprofit community. He has degrees from the University of South Dakota and the California College of the Arts.

    and here's the bio of Ted Cruz:

    Ted Cruz

    Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1992 with a Bachelor of Arts in public policy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and, with his debate partner David Panton, Team of the Year by the American Parliamentary Debate Association. Cruz and Panton later represented Harvard Law School at the 1995 World Debating Championship, losing in the semifinals to a team from Australia. Princeton's debate team named their annual novice championship after Cruz.

    After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree. While at Harvard Law, he was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, an executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. Referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant". At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics. Cruz served as a law clerk to J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995 and to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, in 1996. ​


    So on one side we have a guy who is literally "activist" and on one side we have a Princeton cum laude, Harvard magna cum laude lawyer who clerked for a Chief Justice, and also has won numerous court cases.... I would reiterate my comments that I would wait for the Supreme Court to figure this one out.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  19. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    What you posted is a textbook example of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. Either quote the part of the law where it states that they lose 230 protection if they're not neutral or else your argument isn't supported. Here's a link to the law itself that I could find, if you have a more thorough version, have at it.

    Now of course the Supreme Court can reinterpret the law to whatever they want, but I was talking about the current definition.
     
  20. Biostud

    Biostud n00b

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    So it is not because of new EU rules against copyright infringement?
     
  21. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Appeal to Authority falacy is much closer to what you did than what I did. You stated "That's a myth, here:" and then linked an article hoping I would defer to the author's "expertise".

    On the contrary, reread my post. I didn't say for you to believe either one. I didn't tell you what to think at all. I simply stated the backgrounds of the two parties and said that I would let the Supreme Court sort it out. If you automatically concluded from the backgrounds that Ted Cruz is more qualified to interpret the law, that's on you.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  22. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    So why post that if you're not trying to imply that, complete with ending it on an ellipsis? Like I said, the supreme court can reinterpret any law it wants. That's the future. Anything can happen in the future. I'm talking about the law RIGHT NOW. In any event, Ted Cruz is besides the point, I brought him up as an example of a high profile figure who also misinterpreted what the law said, as a way of saying you're not alone for being mistaken about this. Regardless, you said, clear as day:

    "Youtube isn't neutral. So now if they're not neutral, they lose all the protections afforded them by 47 USC §230 which means they can get sued for all sorts of things"

    Then you say you didn't say what I should think at all, yet that sounds like a pretty definitive statement for someone not telling what to think. Since that's the same position as Ted Cruz, logically, one can also assume you're telling me to think the same thing he does, at least on that specific point. So since that's your stance, what section of 230 says they lose those protections by not being neutral? You're making this more tangential than it needs to be. Here are the only options:

    1. The law says the publisher has to be neutral in order to be entitled to 230 protections. In which case Ted Cruz is right, the EFF author is wrong, end of story.
    2. The law says nothing about having to be neutral in order to be entitled to 230 protections. In which case Ted Cruz is wrong, the EFF is right, end of story.
    3. There's a statement in the law pertaining to this which is worded too vaguely to be clearly interpreted either way.

    In ALL THREE scenarios, you should be able to point to the exact part of the law that backs up the point. I looked over section 230 and linked to it. I saw nothing in there about the publisher needing to remain neutral, so #2 looks like the correct conclusion to me. Either you have counter-evidence of something I missed or you don't. Anything else is just dodging the issue and doesn't change the objective reality.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
    britjh22 likes this.
  23. Rahh

    Rahh [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,608
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    YouTube got to big and it now sucks just like Failbook. /thread
     
    tetris42 likes this.
  24. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,525
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I'm not picking on you, you aren't the target here, you just happened to open the right door so I can step in (y)

    While what you say may be true, I think the bigger problem is that some people have simply become intolerant of other people, and their right to an opinion.

    I don't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with me. Differences of opinion are not a weakness, they are a strength. The differences should generate discussion and debate, not censure and exclusion.

    Everything will get better when people start acknowledging this. When they start showing people respect even when they disagree. I don't have to like that my kid voted for Obama, but it was her vote to make, so I need to respect her vote, her right to vote her heart. No matter that I think she voted wrong. Otherwise I'm saying that she doesn't have the right to vote, unless she votes my way, and that's bullshit. I should be happy enough that she voted at all. It means she's standing up, on her own, doing her part, her responsibility as a citizen has been exercised.

    People being intolerant of other people is just how it starts. If it continues, then it gets worse and we've seen some of that so it's time for us all to wake up and accept that we are headed down a bad stretch of road. Those of us who recognize and acknowledge this need to step up and help others see it too.
     
    Raffin and GoldenTiger like this.
  25. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    I think in the past this used to be more true, but I also think we're entering into weird territory these days also. The old saying "you're entitled to your own opinion, not entitled to your own facts" doesn't seem to apply anymore. On some things, people can be objectively wrong, and that becomes dangerous the more it's respected. If I have no training in architecture and I'm convinced I can build a house wherever I want because it looks nice, but a geologist tells me I'm building on top of a sinkhole, my difference of opinion shouldn't be respected, because I'm going to end up with a caved in house and maybe some dead residents. Now, if I have a background in geology also and I realize he made an error with his measurements and think the sinkhole is in a different location and explain that, then my opinion should be respected also until the truth can be determined.

    Now that's NOT an argument for censorship either, I think that's also too far in the other direction. On the contrary, that makes the other camp think they're oppressed and just fuels the fire. At the same time, giving information that's factually accurate priority over something that is disproven is certainly preferable.

    You mention your daughter voting for Obama. That's a subjective thing, the measurement on whether a candidate is the correct one or not is largely a measurement of the person's values. But would you be as equally respectful of your daughter's opinion on science if she was a flat-earther? Thought drinking while pregnant was harmless? Thought smoking leads to no adverse health affects? Humanity owes it to itself to correct each other whenever we can. The problem is we typically don't stop there and try to declare things facts that aren't. A good rule of thumb is the more something involves objective measurements, math, and hard science, the more it should probably be accepted as real.

    And just to be clear, I do NOT think Youtube necessarily does a good job of this either, that's the problem, I'm not aware of perhaps any organization that doesn't stick to JUST facts and hasn't been tainted horribly in areas even if they could be 90% right in others (and no, I'm not implying Google gets things close to 90% right). Frankly, I miss objectivity.
     
  26. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Thank you for commingling 2 different posts of mine. You said I used an appeal to authority fallacy on a post in which I didn't so now you grab an older post and apply your statement to that. Classy.

    (2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (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;

    So if youtube got subpoanead, would they be able to prove all their censorship was in good faith? It's not like google has a video of Sergey Brin lamenting that Hillary Clinton lost. I'm sure that a subponea of emails, company message boards, or text messages, wouldn't pull any incriminating evidence whatsoever regarding the targeting of conservative viewpoints. I'm sure Youtube will be totally fine.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  27. Patton187

    Patton187 Gawd

    Messages:
    670
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    He's a leftist, thus that post.
     
  28. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Just for the record... in a different thread, we are comparing a legal expert and lawyer Ted Cruz with a writing major Elliot Harmon on who is properly interpreting the law. Kind of feels like your analogy for some reason.
     
  29. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,525
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Seventyfive likes this.
  30. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Yeah, you say classy, and yet are still dodging my question. If your purpose was NOT appeal to authority, why post the bio on Ted Cruz v. the EFF? You didn't answer it and are instead going back on the offense. To me, that says you can't defend that point, thus that's exactly why you did it in the first place. Yes, you're technically correct in that you didn't explicitly state one is more trustworthy, however, I'm not seeing the point of that for anything OTHER than an implied appeal to authority argument. If someone runs a hose from their exhaust in their to their window in a small closed garage with their hand on the ignition, but doesn't turn they key, sure, they technically never ATTEMPTED suicide, but then what was their purpose of doing that? It's the same logic I'm seeing in that post you made.

    See, now you're moving the goalpost.

    Acting in bad faith ≠ not being neutral.

    If you want to make the argument Youtube is saying one thing, then doing another, thus is a bad faith actor, that's a legitimate argument for not having Section 230 protection. Except that's not the argument you were making. You said Youtube wasn't neutral, therefore, it's not entitled to 230 protection, which is wrong. They can be as biased as they want if there's evidence to support that they were acting to restrict access to obscene, harrasing, "otherwise objectionable", etc. content. So if they enforce their policies more heavily for right wing content than left wing, and prioritize visibility of left wing content more than right wing and don't deny doing so, there's an argument to be made they would still be protected. Now if they made a statement saying they do NOT do that, then go ahead and do it, you're 100% right, that would be acting in bad faith and they could lose their protection status.

    Regardless, you've shifted this to a different argument, one which DOES have merit and I imagine there's a real chance Youtube could be found at fault for that one way or another. The ORIGINAL argument, as you, (and Ted Cruz) stated, that not being neutral means they lose their 230 protection status, is STILL WRONG.
     
  31. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Again, it's going to come down to the supreme court and you and I can agree to disagree.
     
  32. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    That's like saying we didn't know if segregation was legal or not in the 1940s because Brown v. The Board of Education hadn't happened yet.
     
  33. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,236
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    it ain't right

     
  34. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Not really. You said "Acting in bad faith ≠ not being neutral" and I'm saying "Acting in bad faith = not being neutral". That is literally the crux of the entire argument. There have been numerous cases which define the scope of what they are allowed to censor. You make the argument that they can censor whatever they want. Court precedent would disagree.

    Again, I'll admit I'm not a lawyer but I do have to review legal documents all day at work in the finance world. I'm not unfamiliar with how this stuff works. Maybe you're a well accomplished lawyer or judge. I don't know. I'm just telling you my opinion and some facts from which I drew my conclusions.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  35. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    I admit I only skimmed this, so feel free to correct me: Mytriggers filed a lawsuit against Google, part of which was claiming it violated section 230 due to its selective censorship. Google won the case and it was thrown out, making the precedent in Google's favor. What's the big part I'm missing?

    You seem to be conflating their potential liability as a de facto monopoly (something I DO agree with and mentioned in an earlier post) with neutrality as a principle. Not the same. When you're large enough to fall under anti-trust investigation, that can open you up to liabilities that are seen as anti-competitive. So yes, I should clarify, they can't do ANYTHING regarding free speech, because of their near-monopoly status, but that's from a different set of laws, not being a free speech issue. If Youtube only had 3% marketshare however, they more or less could. In other words, their behavior could make them liable under the Sherman anti-trust act of anti-competitive behavior, NOT as a violation of Section 230. If you're not following what I'm saying, Youtube could be found guilty under the following:

    •Violating neutrality in such a way it ALSO is anti-competitive towards similar video hosting services. In which case, they would be running afoul of the Sherman Anti-trust act, not Section 230. Favoring liberal or conservative videos wouldn't do that. Censoring all videos related to a competing video service WOULD. They wouldn't be in trouble JUST because they're not being neutral and it wouldn't be because of 230.

    •Falsely stating their censorship actions in such a way that it would violate the "good faith" portion of Section 230. So again, they wouldn't be in trouble JUST because of not being neutral, it would be if because they lied about it.

    In order for your statement of "Acting in bad faith = not being neutral" to be true, that would mean ANY video hosting site that openly identifies its bias and claims videos can be restricted or omitted for not following their private policy is exempt from Section 230 protection. So if I made a site hosting only user submitted left wing videos or only for right wing videos, telling users upfront that we may censor or remove ones we find unsuitable for the theme of our site, you're saying that would exempt me from Section 230 protection. I see nowhere in 230 where anything resembling that is mentioned. Once again, the entire reason section 230 was created was to protect hosts from cleaning up their content and NOT be sued for doing so.

    I can believe you review law documents, but I think you miss some of the hard logic that stems from the wording used.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  36. Methadras

    Methadras [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,134
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    We all know what this is about and the real application of fairness is simply devoid in all of this.
     
  37. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    I'm snipping a bit for brevity but the key parts are (emphasis mine):

    ...The cases cited by Google for its proposition that the phrase "otherwise objectionable" is broadly construed do not stretch the meaning of that phrase as far as Google argues.... Here, the ads at issue in myTriggers counterclaim do not fall within the same class of objectionable content that is listed in § 230(c)(2). The examples preceding the phrase "otherwise objectionable" clearly demonstrate the policy behind the enactment of the statute and provide guidance as to what Congress intended to be "objectionable" content. Therefore, since the Court finds that no conflict exists between the CDA and the Valentine Act the Court finds that the instant action is not preempted under 47 U.S.C. 230​

    So basically if you go back to the original language of the CDA "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"

    Would generic conservative content be

    obscene? no
    lewd? no
    lascivious? no
    filthy? no
    excessively violent? no
    harassing? no
    otherwise objectionable? --- This is the big one because it implies google has wide lattitude because it might be "objectionable" to Sergey Brin and others. Unfortunately, the court in the above basically said "otherwise objectionable" means that it is not just something you disagree with but something on par with being obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing.

    update - in regards to this:

    Ripoff report in a way lost this kind of thing https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d2c2ba9-efa2-4e58-9f82-16534eab2023

    They alleged they were neutral and the court found they were not because they encouraged negative reviews. I think this is similar to your situation in that if you encourage/only allow left wing or right wing videos you wouldn't be neutral either.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  38. dkarn45

    dkarn45 n00b

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
  39. Raffin

    Raffin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Why? By and large this is a fairly good discussion with minimal to no personal attacks...
     
    Youn and GoldenTiger like this.
  40. Silverlok

    Silverlok [H]Lite

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Did you hear a whooshing sound?

    You didn't read my whole post did you?

    Saying ' everything is a conspiracy ' is one of the oldest saws in the book , and the first nice tight example that pops into my mind when the concept of normalcy-bias rears it's head.
    Ultimately the YT strikes system problems are directly centered around normalcy-bias and the cognitive dissidence that ALWAYS surround it.

    When Twisted Kidney's original post wasn't catching any flies I decided to glue some shiny bits on here and there, add a few flashing lights and pop on some googly eyes ( groan now: pun intended ) to see if someone either got a laugh out of it or took the bait . I hope you also did the former because you certainly did the later, as your post is a perfect example of normalcy-bias ( you were even given clues to keep this from happening , but were either unaware of their significance or simply ignored them ) and , as a bonus: cognitive dissidence.

    From your definition link: the second ( less used so not so much 'colloquial' ) accepted definition: " the action of plotting or conspiring. " ,
    it doesn't mention any state of help or harm ,nor any legal or illegal intent .
    By the definition you used as a reference it is perfectly acceptable to use the word conspiracy to mean plain old neutral plotting.
    Since the base word is sourced from ".. the Latin conspirare ‘agree, plot’ (see conspire)." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conspiracy ) , it's actually a much more concise ( or base ) usage of the word to use it in the , very neutral , ' agree/plot' sense.
    Which I did in the sentence you misinterpreted, because your bias missed or ignored the contextual clue that might have altered you to use slightly different meaning than the one you wanted to ( in this case: super-)impose.

    So , using the definition link YOU supplied , this IS A PERFECTLY VALID USE of the word conspiracy, and a perfectly valid sentence:
    So; YES .... exactly .........( precisely in fact )

    ...Especially in light of the context in the very next sentence ( which was created in anticipation of your exact reply which showed bias , and unthinking interpretation of how the first sentence was using the word conspiracy) :
    It would seem to not get much clearer than that: You choose an inherent bias when reading the word Conspiracy , decided to interpret the first sentence in a way that fit your normalcy bias AND COMPLETELY FAILED TO EITHER READ ANY FARTHER OR COMPREHEND THE CONTEXT (which could have kept your foot out of your mouth) because the very next sentence clearly gives contextual contrast to how the word is being used differently in each sentence ( since you may not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen: the second sentence is just a re-wording of the primary, and thus axiomatically primary bias usage of the word conspiracy)
    That was a pretty sweet cookie to give me with soo little effort put forth on my part , proving as you did so clearly that normalcy-bias produces six fingered children when it gets coupled on the subjects of information dissemination ( The centerpiece of YT's strike tool ) and recognition.

    But then you went and pulled the extra mile by trying to give yourself a victory lap but instead gave me a text book example of cognitive dissonance being used as a "factual" support for your use of normalcy-bias .

    Take your use of the word benign to modify the word collaboration .
    First off; collaboration and conspiracy are synonyms. LET ME REPEAT THAT: collaboration and conspiracy are synonyms. SO in English it is perfectly acceptable to rewrite your sentence as " The benign version is conspiracy " .
    Let's put that in your unintentionally implied context: " the benign version ( of conspiracy ) is conspiracy " (ex.1 cognitive-dissidence )

    Which transits directly based on the logic that you yourself are using so that the converse of the original (The benign version is collaboration) would be " the malignant version is conspiracy " ( man the normalcy-bias is glaring now ) , which we can then , by the transitive property of synonyms write as
    "The malignant version is collaboration" (ex.2 C-D ) , you know because; collaboration and conspiracy are synonyms .

    Which, following the logic you your self used as a template, leaves us with: "The benign version is collaboration" = "The malignant version is collaboration" (ex.3 C-D). OR , to state it as unambiguously as possible: ""The benign version is collaboration" is exactly equal too and just as valid as "The malignant version is collaboration" following the logic you supplied in your post .
    Clearly those two sentences do not , cannot mean the same thing and hence a perfect example cognitive-dissidence being a 'necessity' that grows from normalcy bias


    I think your use of the word 'version' is hilariously telling , because the word itself is meaningless outside of context. And what you thought was a clever slice and dice is actually a highly transparent to attempt leverage your internal context ( and all it's inherent normalcy-bias) to a position of fact (while at the same time thinking you have hidden your internal bias' ) using cognitive-dissidence as the fulcrum.

    It is this kind of projection thinking that causes YT it's policy problems when it comes to where the Bayesian weights fall in it's strike policies