Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Supreme Court Case Tests Limits Of FREE SPEECH On The Internet. Google LIABLE For ISIS Terrorism?!" video.

Briahna made some excellent points. A lot of people don't know that the simple edit of removing some posts and not others that are fundamentally similar, is expressly protected conduct under Section 230. But Google et al. are doing more: they are pushing certain items to certain people using opaque algorithms. This is an activity that should not be protected. No one has an interest in making sure terrorists or drug lords get in touch easily with other terrorists and drug lords. Nor should they get to form secret profiles of us to sell to us better. It can't be the case that any and every algorithm is acceptable.
1
Actually, the simple edit of removing some posts and not others that are fundamentally similar, is expressly protected conduct under Section 230. They are doing more: they are pushing certain items to certain people using opaque algorithms. This is an activity that should not be protected. No one has an interest in making sure terrorists or drug lords get in touch easily with other terrorists and drug lords. Nor should they get to form secret profiles of us to sell to us better.
1
That would put government in the position of deciding who promotes free speech and who doesn't. That's exactly what the government is prohibited from doing by the First Amendment.
1
@Hardwaregeekx What crime do you imagine Google has committed?
1
@Hardwaregeekx If the government used any social media platform as its cat's paw, then the government violated the First Amendment. Platforms are permitted to censor posts if they so choose. They are protected by Section 230. The government is not permitted to impose on them and push them to do the censoring. It cannot push others to do what it itself cannot legally do. I'm afraid you don't understand this area of law very well. I say that even though I agree substantively with what you have to say about the abysmal COVID response and the violation of our civil rights and civil liberties.
1
@Hardwaregeekx I'm explaining to you why the government cannot decide which private entity is engaged in "suppression of free speech." That would be violating their freedom of speech and expression (and possibly freedom of association) to decide for themselves. This is distinct from the government USING other entities to censor speech. That is a violation of the First Amendment.
1
Does Ma Bell decide who calls you? Does the post office privilege some letters over others based on content? Any entity that doesn't do those things certainly deserves full Section 230 protection.
1
Well, does the phone decide to privilege some call over others in any way? Does the post office? No! Try listening to this discussion.
1
@JFloz Yes it does matter. Why do you think this case wasn't dismissed at the trial level, instead of being argued before the Supreme Court? It has nothing to do with "blaming Google." If they were responsible, they would be criminally prosecuted. It has to do with their design and use of algorithms, and whether they are sheltered from any civil liability when those algorithms help facilitate crime. The algorithms are their own product. Terrorism existed long before all kinds of things. This is a non sequitur. Notice the difference between your vague, emotional appeal and the issues in the actual case.
1
@JFloz No, that's not comparable to a telephone -- at least not necessarily. It is designed by the company to prioritize various messages. So, it depends on the design. That there are benign algorithms is not the issue -- of course there are. How does that prove that all are benign? There are helpful pharmaceuticals, including those for severe pain. Does that mean pushing oxycontin is all right? The telephone simply rings when someone calls you, night or day, real or bot. If this were the same, the case would not be before the Supreme Court.
1
@JFloz There is no point in giving obviously well-informed people these little lessons, as if I didn't know "you and I have used literally hundreds of computational algorithms . . . blah blah." Throw in "computational," sound Really Smart. All irrelevant. Read the briefs, find out the issues. There's an algorithm that will take you to the page that has all the court filings listed and available in .pdf form.
1
Actually, the simple edit of removing some posts and not others that are fundamentally similar, is protected conduct under Section 230. They are doing more: they are pushing certain items to certain people using opaque algorithms. This is an activity that should not be protected. No one has an interest in making sure terrorists or drug lords get in touch easily with other terrorists and drug lords.
1