This article was originally published by an author at Activist Post.
By now, people the world over are well aware of the purge taking place across the Google-owned platform, YouTube. In fact, in 2017 YouTube terminated our own unblemished account here at Activist Post completely without warning and no recourse.
While many people still maintain that this has been a purge of primarily conservative voices, there are also examples of those on the left as well as the center who have also been struck down. This is coupled with demonetization of certain channels that are permitted to remain active but can’t earn income. People like Dan Dicks at Press for Truth, for example, who had his account with 250,000 subscribers completely shut off. In our opinion, this amounts to demonetizing free speech. The opposite would then also be true: certain speech is financially rewarded. Incidentally, Google will also be taking similar action across web sites through its AdSense program, as they recently announced in a letter to publishers.
This presents a dangerous direction for the open discourse that is essential if we are truly engaged in finding truth in the information we consume.
Nevertheless, YouTube claims it is “more important than ever to be an open platform,” just one day after yet another banning spree.
All of this has called into question what exactly YouTube is. Is it a private corporation operating as a publisher — like Activist Post, for example? If so, they can certainly choose what to do with their own private property. However, there is a certain legal liability that comes with that freedom. Or are they a public forum? If so, they could be violating Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act which requires them to be politically neutral and protects them from legal liability.
Prager University is among those who have had their videos removed and has taken legal action to try and determine once and for all what we are dealing with when it comes to social media companies. In the video below, you can hear directly from Prager’s lawyer, Eric George, who concisely describes the overall issue, and what is at stake in the court case Prager University v. YouTube.
H/T: BrassCheck TV
Well, I watched Eric George’s take on Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act. Okay, then I went to the text of Section 230 to read it. Here’s part of what I read that makes me inclined to think Mr. George has no case. No, I’m no lawyer, but the text is pretty easy to understand. (My bold)
“47 US Code 230 (C)
(2) Civil liability. No 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.”
———————————————————————————
Objectionable material is purely a subjective call, but the operator of the platform makes whatever call he wants and cannot be held liable for his “censorship”…or even if he does not censor. No liability for other’s comments or posts. I didn’t see anywhere in this section where it differentiated between a publisher or a public forum. It merely says a provider cannot be sued for moderating content that is objectionable to him.
Maybe another way to approach the big social platform’s stranglehold on the interwebs is to break them up under monopoly laws. That is, if you really think you need to use them…
George explained this case clearly and simply in a minute or two. Every home schooled child would gain by sitting down and listening.
A printed copy should be made available.
This is truly the most important issue of the 21st Century. Will we continue to have freedom of speech, something most of us take for granted, or not.
Freedoms are like dominoes; tumble one, and they “all fall down”, like the children’s rhyme says:
…Ashes, ashes, ‘we all fall down.’
.
This whole controversy centers around the often repeated claim that private companies or businesses are not bound by any law or obligation to respect the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens – such as those clearly defined in the Bill of Rights – and that only government agencies and institutions are required to do so.
This is pure B.S. Take for an example the case of that Christian bakery – a privately owned business – who refused to bake a wedding cake for a pair of homosexuals due to the fact that they felt this conflicted with their personal, privately held religious views. These very same leftwing wackos who screamed bloody murder and hired a team of (((lawyers))) to file a lawsuit against the owners of that Christian bakery – did so on the grounds that they claimed these owners of a privately owned business were violating their First Amendment rights. This case went to the US Supreme Court and the court sided with the owners of the Christian bakery, in a case that served to uphold and protect religious liberty.
Does anyone remember the old adage that said: “Your Constitutional rights stop where mine begin”?
After all, those homosexuals could easily shop around and look for some other bakery who would agree to bake their wedding cake, right? In other words, these homosexuals had other options available to them.
But, now, those same leftwing wackos are now doing a complete reversal and claiming that the privately owned Silicon Valley companies, i.e.,. Big Tech – are not required to uphold and respect the First Amendment rights of American citizens who’s political views they do not agree with – because only the government is required to obey the Constitution?
Here is the difference. In the case of the privately owned bakery, the baker in question does not have a monopoly on baking cakes. The homosexual pair had other options. In the case of Silicon Valley – they are an effective monopoly, since they control the electronic public forum, and due to the staggering expense that would be associated with trying to establish an alternative Internet – costs that would be impossible for the vast majority of American citizens to afford – when they choose to deny use of their services to people based on political, social or cultural disagreements – Americans are not able to shop around for other electronic platforms that will respect their First Amendment right to free speech.
But, for anyone clings to the idea that only the US government is required by law to respect and uphold the Constitutional rights of American citizens – here is the final nail in the coffin of that lame argument. If only the government is required to obey the Constitution and adhere to the Bill of Rights – why shouldn’t any private citizen or private business be allowed to ignore the entire U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as ignore any laws passed by the U.S. Government?
Should it be illegal for a government agency to murder a citizen, but okay for a private individual or private business to do so? Should it be illegal for a government agency to seize private property without due process of law – but, A-Ok for a private individual or private business to do so?
In the case of not allowing a government agency to refuse service to an American based on arbitrary excuses – the principle behind that prohibition is that the citizen has no other option because the government has a monopoly on certain services required by its citizens. The same principle applies to private businesses – if they reach a point where they become a monopoly.
For private businesses that are not a monopoly, I agree that they should be free to decide who they prefer doing business with and if they choose to become too discriminatory, they will suffer a loss of income and eventually go out of business.
“Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.”
“PragerU has an annual budget of $10 million dollars, and a good chunk of the money comes from the Wilkes brothers, conservative billionaires. The Wilkes brothers made their money from fracking.”
“The organization has a $10 million annual budget, of which it spends more than 40% on marketing.”
“To amplify that content, the group has an annual budget of nearly $23 million, fueled in part by donations from religious conservatives, including $800,000 last year from Texan Lee Roy Mitchell …”
Is this a non-profit tax shelter, that won’t even host it’s own online videos? How much money does it literally cost, to clean up some random person, sit him in front of a camera, for 5 minutes (they are known for 5 min videos) and discuss futile topics from the state news.
“In our opinion, this amounts to demonetizing free speech. The opposite would then also be true: certain speech is financially rewarded.”
Are they under contract?
Oh man, you took the wind out with that one. Isn’t that the truth though, so much of the activism we see today is somehow connected to corporate power plays and profit houses. When I used to give a dollar to get on all the lists I noticed a very common theme among diverse mailers, so many were traceable back to some group in DC.
It’s the consumers fault this is happening, and good people are taken down, or even bad players who’s content people still want to see is removed. If these companies would just post their content elsewhere they would not have to worry about it. I keep asking Mark Dice, Ron Paul, and the guys who post funny cat videos to please host them somewhere else because I’d prefer to stop by a different website. Consumers follow the content. Content creators either maintain artistic freedom with diverse gallery participation, or they are held to contract of a singular promoter.
Think of youtube videos as similar to artists with paintings. What artist in his right mind would continue to only have his paintings shown at a gallery which always covers them with a big cloth or refused to sell the art? Like moths to a flame, they keep on posting and hoping they won’t be next. If we support creators can we get video files directly to our inbox with free reposting rights or something? Could all these video creators internetwork through self managed forums and by paying 20 a month each to have that forum, they could monetize in thoer ways than relying on corporate sponsors? Imagine the alternatives. Clickbait is a product of monetization.
Some idealists still reminisce on how pure and creative youtube was before monetization. Try this ytb vid set out before they’re gone, 80’s commercials. Talk about a commercial advertiser shift in approach. They used to be grateful just to get airtime and they certainly were not in positions to exercize content control. The youth has no perspective. Those whom enjoyed self management with visual media products were rather ignorant to think the old paradime was actually gone. I hope they have real world skills and backup plans.
The hardware is not impossibly expensive, when compared to a paid advertising campaign — not that their soundbytes are masterful works of art.
(2 Tim 3, 2 Thess 3) Trolling every church foyer and potluck (prosperity churches, the worse) and every low-morale break room and ghetto business. Stuck to the telephone poles in bad parking lots, will always be some pyramid scheme, false hope, Amway, candy sale, or cult of personality.
If anyone wants to stick up for this social media influencer, tell me what the material has empowered *you to do, specifically. Show me how PragerU material has changed *your life, materially, aside from the time and money you have spent on it.
The magic of it on ytb was the ability to get diverse opinions. Thumbs up to everyone whom did stick with certain ‘influencers’ and found their messages meaningful enough to beat the competition. So which alternative platform will be getting a boost by hosting them instead?
The coding was ordinary. Even the logos have been copied, with trivial changes, which, afaic, would be called rip-offs, if I was an ambulance-chaser. There is nothing special about their platform. Pretty plain, really.
m said, “So which alternative platform will be getting a boost by hosting them instead?”
Who would be monetizing pay-per-click.
You can post whatever kind of sensational blather you like, upside every billboard, news paper, table mat, taxi cab, subway ceiling, nook and cranny. Short of being pretty scary, there was not much restriction on free speech.
There is a business model, where the alternatives have failed; there used be a wealthy donor, called a patron of the arts, who would feed the starving artists, content creators, or media influencers.
A promoter would have to be cold calling famous donors, or making it into an investment.
The coding was ordinary. Even the logos have been copied, with trivial changes, which, afaic, would be called rip-offs, if I was an ambulance-chaser. There is nothing special about their platform. Pretty plain, really.
m said, “So which alternative platform will be getting a boost by hosting them instead?”
Who would be monetizing pay-per-click.
You can post whatever kind of sensational blather you like, upside every billboard, news paper, table mat, taxi cab, subway ceiling, nook and cranny. Short of being pretty scary, there was not much restriction on free speech.
There is a business model, where the alternatives have failed; there used be a wealthy donor, called a patron of the arts, who would feed the starving artists, content creators, or media influencers.
A promoter would have to be cold calling famous donors, or making it into an investment.
Whether left or right it seems both factions cry foul when they think their point of view is being restricted.
From 1949 to 1987 the FCC had a regulation in effect called the Fairness Doctrine. It required time to be set aside for differing and contrarian viewpoints to be heard on every platform. In 1987 the FCC revoked this regulation. Congress passed legislation to codify the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it saying government could not regulate what was presented on these platforms because that would violate first amendment rights. This is when conservative AM radio really took off with Rush Limbaugh and others coming on the scene around 1989. Then, in the 90s Rupert Murdoch launched FOX news to spread the conservative viewpoint that was not being allowed on other MSM stations. Before FOX and after 1987 you needed to listen to AM talk radio to get your conservative point of view. In 1991 Congress (Democrats) tried to revive the Doctrine again, saying that liberal viewpoints were being squelched on radio, but Bush threatened to veto it so it was dropped.
So, you see, the right was actually behind the belief that government cannot make laws that make anyone give airtime to a point of view they don’t agree with, as a first amendment issue.
Now the right feels that their point of view is being restricted, so they are up in arms. Looks like they will have to start their own platform like the old days of AM talk radio and FOX news. Say…when is Trump starting his station? Mebbe conservatives can hitch a ride on that platform?
The scandals are contrived. Provided footing for broader control. People had been harping on abuse of posting activity by nefarious people for a long time. The problem was the infinite repeat setting of suggestions as the algorithms constantly sought to deliver more of the same, even going further along that spectrum until people reached their limit, rather than also including contrasting subject matter along that topic line. Operating under this absurd premise that people have such limited interests that they do not want to deviate from that topic and want to deep dive into everything. Even if one hooked onto something controversial and tried to interject opposing videos, the system would not pick up on it.
Now that we’re dealing with monopolies whom have cornered the market, the game has changed. You know how telecommunications and cable has to share the line and share the access with competition? Perhaps ytb should be required to share some server hosting space? Alex says how a viral video can cost him tens or hundreds of thousands in bandwith consumption costs. Clearly regular market competition finds it cost prohibitive to participate, further defining the monopolistic presence of proprietary bandwith agreements these corporations share among themselves.
Never thought I’d say this but can we bring dial-up back? I’ve been wanting to get an alternative from voip, have a true copper based phone landline. Old trusty. I’ll take that mark dice video through dial up or fax if that’s what it takes. I never got rid of my fax machines or made in usa phones, perhaps a miracle will happen and people will return to their senses. People ride the wave of innovation but I don’t think they’re as innovative as they think they are when they’re backed into these corners. The man hours and resources spent complaining about youtube could have built another youtube by now. Maybe paying lawyers will help? Shock and Awe in the digital era. If you read this comment on a mobile device, get a clue.
That’s funny. Had dial-up until about a year ago and still have a landline and no cellphone, although my wife uses a Trac phone. Basically all you could get here in the boonies for 20 years was dial-up. The “high speed” connection now comes in over copper and the max mps is about 1.5…that’s the best they offer with a hard line connection. But, if you recall, dial-up speeds were often so bad that they spent more time buffering than downloading…it was terrible even compared to 1.5 mps.
Conservatives could pool their money or get some billionaires to fund and alternative platform that allows differing views. The market will determine whether it survives. Remember when the left had a bunch of stations that crashed because nobody was listening to them? If YouTube loses their listeners they either change or go under.
Prager is pro Israel [just like Trump]. Good that they removed his videos.
Trump has been one big deception.
So when will Israel finally announce the annexation of Iraq?
WOW. You really are brainwashed arent you? All you fucking Israel haters absolutely baffle me. I have no dog in the fight regarding Israel, but you haters really need to get out of your moms basement and get some sunlight.
d said, “I have no dog in the fight regarding Israel.”
Most of us have no dog in the fight, as we are not making any direct contribution to nation building or the war effort, per se. Or, we are not p rofiting from it, in particular.
b said, “So when will Israel finally announce the annexation of Iraq?”
Are you an Iraq-firster?
You’re usually allowed to assist other diplomatically-recognized countries, if you were sincerely concerned. For instance, d inars were being pushed, and there are antiquities. People specialize in providing drinking water and j ob skills, for the disaffected.
DMONIC, agreed about the Israel haters. They’re all a lost cause.
Hey Degenerate Renegade – they are not Israel haters, and not anti – Joos, but anti- Zionist. Many Joos also happen to be anti – Zionist.
why comment?
Comments censored here