PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

[Cope]

Given their defacto monopoly on the market of public forums, there is no possibility of an alternative with or without great demand. And even if there weren't great demand, and the popular-will were to meekly acquiesce to the whims of our plutocratic overlords: there's something troubling about a private company being the ultimate judge and gatekeeper of the world's largest and most important public forum with practically no oversight.

Agreed.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the censorship of PragerU, I mean they're pieces of , I doubt many would disagree with that.

What exactly have they done that's so egregious? I don't see any difference between their content and the endless tirade of opinion based material published by mainstream, corporate channels. If YouTube is happy with Rachel Maddow, Fareed Zakaria, Tucker and Hannity then it has no reason to silence PragerU. A central complaint against so many of these tech companies isn't the rules, its the way that they're inconsistently applied (usually as a result of interest group pressure).

But what goes around comes around, it is inevitable that the same mechanisms that combat the ideas I disagree with might be used with the same unquestionable and absolute power to eradicate other ideas from the humanity's most significant public forum.

Agreed. As I mentioned above, I do feel a certain sense of schadenfreude at content and channels of the indy and far left being deplatformed and/or buried as a consequence of the very "hate speech" policies which the radical left demanded in the first place.

[Lord Thesaurian]

YouTube, as a private online platform that hosts media for free, is only as powerful as its content. It is not a public space. If in-demand creators aren’t happy and migrate to other platforms, it creates instant competition. The idea of being shut down by “the man” is a marketing narrative used by creators themselves to drive clicks and instill enthusiasm and loyalty among their viewership. Left wing channels, especially news and political commentary, also complain about being besieged by a menagerie of corporate cabals. It’s all optics. It’s the internet, after all. The idea that any one platform could monopolize any kind of content or media is laughable.

From a US standpoint, if people want to worry about online speech, access, and anti-trust initiatives, start with the anti-competitive territorialization among ISPs and the assault on net neutrality.

[Love Mountain]

I understand the issue of YouTube having a de-facto monopoly, but ultimately that's not really Google's fault. YouTube's popularity stems from its leadership position. Powerful networking effects cause users to coalesce into one platform. However, that is not to say they have no competition, or that rivals haven't emerged. Platforms like Twitch innovated and took a dominant position in the streaming space, which YouTube has been unable to successfully penetrate despite significant attempts to do so. Currently, attempts to create alternatives like Floatsplane Club from LTT are in their infancy, but existing platforms like Vimeo and dailymotion have always been there.

A more significant complaint would be that YouTube is operated at a loss by Google. Moreover, as it is part of YouTube, significant costs, like server hosting costs are most likely internalized by Google. This means that YouTube enjoys a significant competitive advantage over any potential rivals. This is on top of powerful network effects that I mentioned previously. Once there is a critical number of users and content in an ecosystem, it's pretty hard for an outsider to provide a competing service. So if people wanna lodge an FTC complaint on the basis of anti-competitive behavior, I can see the merit. I do not see sufficient merit of regulating a private enterprise on the basis of public interest, when such "public interest" is so narrowly defined.

[Himster]

What exactly have they done that's so egregious?
I don't see any difference between their content and the endless tirade of opinion based material published by mainstream, corporate channels. If YouTube is happy with Rachel Maddow, Fareed Zakaria, Tucker and Hannity then it has no reason to silence PragerU. A central complaint against so many of these tech companies isn't the rules, its the way that they're inconsistently applied (usually as a result of interest group pressure).

Agreed, it's their propagandic nature, but they're far from the worst culprits and the inconsistency is also an issue and you're probably right that it is interest groups raising hell or whatever.

Agreed. As I mentioned above, I do feel a certain sense of schadenfreude at content and channels of the indy and far left being deplatformed and/or buried as a consequence of the very "hate speech" policies which the radical left demanded in the first place.

Schadenfreude, yes, that's the word for it, absolutely, 100%.

YouTube, as a private online platform that hosts media for free, is only as powerful as its content. It is not a public space.

In effect it is a defacto public space, ie. a space where the public gather to share ideas.

If in-demand creators aren’t happy and migrate to other platforms, it creates instant competition. The idea of being shut down by “the man” is a marketing narrative used by creators themselves to drive clicks and instill enthusiasm and loyalty among their viewership. Left wing channels, especially news and political commentary, also complain about being besieged by a menagerie of corporate cabals. It’s all optics. It’s the internet, after all. The idea that any one platform could monopolize any kind of content or media is laughable.

Google is so large already and is still growing at the expense of all potential competitors. Can you even pretend to dream to think about imagining even a potential competitor to google? It is the space where the public is gathered and it is the space where public opinion is made.
Thankfully, google is remarkably good at keeping a relatively loose grip when we consider what companies or institutions in the past would do with similar potential power.
Just because they're not quite exercising that power doesn't mean they won't, and what can the public do then? I can't see any possible reaction.
...and yes, I am making a slippery slope argument, so don't bother mentioning that. But predictions of slippery slopes do sometimes come true.

[Cope]

Google is so large already and is still growing at the expense of all potential competitors. Can you even pretend to dream to think about imagining even a potential competitor to google? It is the space where the public is gathered and it is the space where public opinion is made.
Thankfully, google is remarkably good at keeping a relatively loose grip when we consider what companies or institutions in the past would do with similar potential power.
Just because they're not quite exercising that power doesn't mean they won't, and what can the public do then? I can't see any possible reaction.
...and yes, I am making a slippery slope argument, so don't bother mentioning that. But predictions of slippery slopes do sometimes come true.

1. I hate your formatting.

2. A key problem is that state actors are even less trustworthy than corporations when it comes to controlling the flow of information. It isn't a coincidence that many of the people demanding that social media companies "take action" to silence views they disagree with are elected officials. Say what you like about Trump's "fake news" whining, but unlike the European establishment he hasn't actually stepped in to censor content or opinions which he disapproves of.*

*The BDS stuff is an exception to this.

[Love Mountain]

My college graduation was a public space. Should I have been allowed to make a speech hinting at a violent communist revolution to be started on campus grounds? Yes? How about for a call to sue and imprison the millionaire patrons of my University and its senior staff? Yes? How about for the abolition of the US Government, for the collectivization of all public property, for the deportation if not execution of billionaires?

Am I within rights, to go on my college campus's central square and to repeatedly make speeches about how the bourgeoise, many of whom are students, teachers, and patrons, should be deported, imprisoned, or even killed?

If the answer is a yes or a humorous variation of "Yes, that's already the case due to leftist infiltration of college campuses" then I don't want to live in your society.

[Aexodus]

Given their defacto monopoly on the market of public forums, there is no possibility of an alternative with or without great demand. And even if there weren't great demand, and the popular-will were to meekly acquiesce to the whims of our plutocratic overlords: there's something troubling about a private company being the ultimate judge and gatekeeper of the world's largest and most important public forum with practically no oversight.
Personally I have mixed feelings about the censorship of PragerU, I mean they're pieces of , I doubt many would disagree with that. But what goes around comes around, it is inevitable that the same mechanisms that combat the ideas I disagree with might be used with the same unquestionable and absolute power to eradicate other ideas from the humanity's most significant public forum.

While this was all along the only obvious result of a legal challenge, it has clearly highlighted what is and is not protected by the first amendment. The next step is to debate whether or not a law change to protect online speech has merit.

[Vanoi]

Google, Youtube, Facebook ect. are not public spaces or public forums. Don't know why people keep saying they are.

There's a legal definition for public forums in the US. Not one of those companies meet that requirement.

And depending on the type of public forum, your speech can still be censored or limited.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In effect it is a defacto public space, ie. a space where the public gather to share ideas.

I believe you’re thinking of the internet itself, not YouTube. Your philosophical mileage may vary, but censoring certain types of content or speech on its platform does not place the civil rights concept of an “undue burden” on creators any more than censorship does on TWC.

Google is so large already and is still growing at the expense of all potential competitors. Can you even pretend to dream to think about imagining even a potential competitor to google? It is the space where the public is gathered and it is the space where public opinion is made.
Thankfully, google is remarkably good at keeping a relatively loose grip when we consider what companies or institutions in the past would do with similar potential power.
Just because they're not quite exercising that power doesn't mean they won't, and what can the public do then? I can't see any possible reaction.
...and yes, I am making a slippery slope argument, so don't bother mentioning that. But predictions of slippery slopes do sometimes come true.

I could make the same slippery slope argument about public intervention against a private online forum on the grounds of civil rights, because public and private considerations are inherently linked. People seek out the content they want. The judge’s decision makes the context clear: “Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.” Rather than setting a precedent, the decision was in line with existing caselaw. Conversely, classifying YouTube as a public forum would have represented what the court called a “paradigm shift.”

[Heathen Hammer]

Youtube is not a platform then, it is a publisher. Also implementing partisan bias at shareholders expense is technically illegal in multiple states. Such cases will happen again, but their outcome will be different.
Having said that, I am okay with considering youtube and other such companies as public utilities (as citizens can get government information from them, and removal of one's account impedes that).
Social media oligopolies' "right" to deny platform is something that can and will be eventually sacrificed for benefit of free exchange of ideas in the society.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Youtube is not a utility. It’s also free to use or not use. Classifying it as a public utility would render the term functionally meaningless, and potentially defang regulatory oversight of actual utilities like telco companies.

[alhoon]

it is inevitable that the same mechanisms that combat the ideas I disagree with might be used with the same unquestionable and absolute power to eradicate other ideas from the humanity's most significant public forum.

I assure you that the moderators of humanity's most significant public forum, total war center, will not let this happen.

[Slydessertfox]

In any case, the radical leftists who harassed social media companies into making their platforms more restrictive are getting their just deserts.

The radical left agenda of being, say, against the exploitation of children.

yes, even the leftists that run Google/YT. .

God I freaking wish Google was actually run by radical leftists. Instead we're stuck with techno libertarians with a savior complex.

*The BDS stuff is an exception to this.

Seems like a pretty big exception!

Also implementing partisan bias at shareholders expense is technically illegal in multiple states.

It's a good thing Google does not do this.

[Cope]

The radical left agenda of being, say, against the exploitation of children.

Opposing the exploitation of children isn't a radical idea in the West. Nor does it have anything to do with the free speech debate as it relates to large tech/social media companies. Nice attempt at a red herring though.

[Vanoi]

Youtube is not a platform then, it is a publisher. Also implementing partisan bias at shareholders expense is technically illegal in multiple states. Such cases will happen again, but their outcome will be different.
Having said that, I am okay with considering youtube and other such companies as public utilities (as citizens can get government information from them, and removal of one's account impedes that).
Social media oligopolies' "right" to deny platform is something that can and will be eventually sacrificed for benefit of free exchange of ideas in the society.

You do know not all platforms are public forums nor or they required to be? An example being cable television.

[Slydessertfox]

Opposing the exploitation of children isn't a radical idea in the West.

Well I'm glad we can agree on that!

Nor does it have anything to do with the free speech debate as it relates to large tech/social media companies. Nice attempt at a red herring though.

Well then, if you care to make a baseless claim that YouTube is kowtowing to radical leftist activists in censoring conservative speech on the platform, surely you can provide actual examples. Perhaps then I won't have to speculate on what YouTube actions you're referring to.

[Cope]

Well I'm glad we can agree on that!

No idea why you brought it up. What does it have to with what's being discussed?

Well then, if you care to make a baseless claim that YouTube is kowtowing to radical leftist activists in censoring conservative speech on the platform, surely you can provide actual examples. Perhaps then I won't have to speculate on what YouTube actions you're referring to.

YouTube's management didn't suddenly wake up 2-3 years ago with a soppy liberal conscience; the platform developed (and continues to develop) restrictive hate speech policies (which have no representation in US law) as a response, at least in part, to the endless carping of the far-left. Of course the activists who promoted the censorship naively believed that YT would exclusively target right wing channels, but the platform carpet bombed all independent creators instead. The net result has been the promotion and facilitation of the very corporate media that the radical left (Bernie bros and Corbynistas) spend their lives whining about.

There was another thread reasonably recently which included a long list of examples of how tech and social media companies had become increasingly more draconian in their speech codes over recent years, but I can't remember what it's title was. Perhaps someone else remembers?

[Slydessertfox]

YouTube's management didn't suddenly wake up 2-3 years ago with a soppy liberal conscience;

Indeed they did not, and do not have one to this day.

The platform developed (and continues to develop) restrictive hate speech policies (which have no representation in US law) as a response, at least in part, to the endless carping of the far-left.

Doing the bare minimum of demonitizing actual Nazi content isn't kowtowing to radical leftist political activists, it's recognizing that advertisers don't really like it when their ads show up on @MAGA1488 's youtube video about why Nazis are okay.

The net result has been the promotion and facilitation of the very corporate media that the radical left (Bernie bros and Corbynistas) spend their lives whining about.

Independent creators on YouTube, particularly on political and social spheres, are thriving. From a left wing perspective, so called "bread tube" didn't even exist 4 years ago.

There was another thread reasonably recently which included a long list of examples of how tech and social media companies had become increasingly more draconian in their speech codes over recent years, but I can't remember what it's title was. Perhaps someone else remembers?

Facebook has actively partnered with right wing propaganda networks as "trusted news sources" and Twitter can barely even temporarily suspend people who send death threats, it's kind of amazing that people can convince themselves that they are instead actively censoring speech when these social media platforms, even after instituting the most basic of anti-harassment and hate speech guidelines, have some of the most permissive speech policies of any organization.

[RedGuard]

Google, Youtube, Facebook ect. are not public spaces or public forums. Don't know why people keep saying they are.

There's a legal definition for public forums in the US. Not one of those companies meet that requirement.

And depending on the type of public forum, your speech can still be censored or limited.

Ironically the easiest solution to this would be to make them government controlled, but no right winger wants to hear about that. Then and only then would they be unable to censor their idiosyncratic viewpoints.

[Gromovnik]

Oh, but I thought Prager "University" is all about property rights? Surely they would be OK with a company doing whatever it wants with their platform?