Dennis Prager Peddles Complete Nonsense About 'Google Censorship' In The WSJ

from the this-is-bullshit dept

Another day, another major publication peddling complete and utter bullshit about big internet platforms. The latest is Dennis Prager, whose Wall Street Journal op-ed, Don't Let Google Get Away With Censorship (possibly paywalled) is so utterly full of wrong that it should maybe be a canonical example of how to bloviate wrongness. The entire premise is bullshit, with most of it focusing on the made up claim that YouTube is somehow censoring Prager's videos because of his "conservative" viewpoints. We've debunked Prager's arguments in great detail before, but apparently we need to do so again.

As a quick summary: a very small percentage (less than 12%) of Prager's videos are put into "restricted" mode. This does not demonetize them. It only means that the very small percentage of people who have opted-in to set up YouTube to not return videos that are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube's users) don't see that small percentage of YouTube videos in their search results. This includes videos with titles like: "Born to Hate Jews" and "Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?" which "includes an animated depiction of a nearly naked man lunging at a group of women." You might recognize why people at YouTube thought this might not be appropriate for children. But Prager insists that it's evidence of an anti-conservative bias.

Also, as we pointed out, many YouTube channels that come from sources that most would consider to be much more "liberal" find a much higher percentage of their videos put into the same restricted mode. This includes Stephen Colbert (13%), The Huffington Post (14%), The History Channel (?!?) (24%), Vox (28%), Sam Seder (36%), Buzzfeed, (40%), Democracy Now (46%), Last Week Tonight (50%), The Daily Show (55%) and The Young Turks at a whopping 71%. To argue that having fewer than 12% of your videos put into this restricted mode is evidence of anti-conservative censorship is pretty ridiculous, but this is Dennis Prager we're talking about, and he's up to the task:

But the issue is much more complex. I was asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this matter for two reasons. One is the size of my website, Prager University, which gets a billion views a year, the majority of which come from viewers under 35. The more important reason is that YouTube, which is owned by Google, has at various times placed about 100 of our videos on its restricted list. That means any home, institution or individual using a filter to block pornography and violence cannot see those videos. Nor can any school or library.

Again, this makes the problem sound much bigger than it really is -- and it has nothing to do with anti-conservative bias.

Conservatives who defend Google or merely oppose any government interference argue that Google is a private company, and private companies are free to publish or not publish whatever they want. But Google, YouTube and Facebook choose not to be regarded as “publishers” because publishers are liable for what they publish and can be sued for libel.

This is, again, a total misrepresentation. There is no "choice." Google, YouTube, and Facebook don't get to "choose" if they're regarded as publishers or platforms -- the law says that they are not liable as publishers for third party content (for very good reason). Prager is misrepresenting Section 230 like sites have to make some sort of decision about what to be. But that's simply incorrect.

Congress gave Google and other social media an exemption from such lawsuits in 1996, with the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of that bill provided these companies with immunity against defamation and some other legal claims. The clear intent of Section 230—the bargain Congress made with the tech companies—was to promote free speech while allowing companies to moderate indecent content without being classified as publishers.

Congress gave all internet websites that protection (not "exemption") from bogus lawsuits, because it recognized that without it, bogus lawsuits (the things that folks like Prager used to be against) would flood the docket, and we'd be much better off if lawsuits were properly targeted at those who violated the laws, rather than the tools and services that they used.

But Google and the others have violated this agreement. They want to operate under a double standard: censoring material that has no indecent content—that is, acting like publishers—while retaining the immunity of nonpublishers. When YouTube puts PragerU’s content on the restricted list, when Twitter bans conservative actor James Woods, they are no longer open forums.

Again, this is literally wrong. Section 230 was designed to encourage sites to create "family friendly" zones -- that is exactly why then Rep. Chris Cox wrote it, in response to the awful Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy ruling. In that ruling, Prodigy, which heavily moderated its forums to be "family friendly," got held liable for content it did not moderate. Cox wanted to prevent that situation from happening, and thus created Section 230. Based on this history, YouTube's use of restricted mode is literally exactly why Cox passed the law, in order to encourage sites like YouTube to create more "family friendly" areas, so that kids don't end up seeing violent and sexual content, such as those portrayed in Prager's videos. There is no "double standard" here. There is no "violation" of the agreement. There is YouTube doing exactly what the law was intended to do, and a whiny Dennis Prager complaining about it and misrepresenting what has happened to his videos (and misrepresenting the law as well).

Richard Hanania, research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, undertook a study of Twitter political bias and concluded: “My results make it difficult to take claims of political neutrality seriously. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.”

This is wrong. We thoroughly debunked this study earlier in the year. The "list" of Twitter accounts that Prager seems to think showed proof of anti-conservative bias included literal Nazis (the American Nazi Party was one of the accounts), as well as notorious trolls and hoaxers. And, of course, this also comes soon after this very same WSJ published an article it claimed was from a "conservative" ex-Googler who claimed he was fired for "whistleblowing" on anti-conservative bias, but who actually was engaged in trollish support for white supremacists.

Defenders of Google also argue that some left-wing sites have an even greater percentage of their videos on the restricted list. But this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. When left-wing sites are restricted it is because their videos contain expletives or material truly inappropriate for children, not because they are left-wing. PragerU videos do not contain expletives and are very suitable for children. Our videos are restricted only because they are conservative.

This is Prager's weak attempt to respond to the point that we've raised numerous times before (and did above) about all those other, left-leaning, sites finding even more of their videos in restricted mode. But, note that he doesn't actually respond to that point. He just insists that those other videos were properly put into the restricted mode list, while his videos were not (remember: some of his videos that were restricted, depicted violence and sexual content). And therefore it "must be" because he's a conservative. This is nonsense, and the WSJ should be ashamed for publishing it.

If the four major U.S. airlines announced they would not allow passengers carrying The Wall Street Journal to travel to some American cities, would any conservatives or libertarians defend the airlines’ right, as private companies, to do so?

Yes? I think many conservatives and libertarians would defend that? Just like they would defend PragerU publishing videos that are full of racist, bigoted nonsense. Because he has a right to spew ignorance. And others have the right to (a) respond to it or (b) not to carry it on their own platforms. But here, YouTube isn't even doing that. It's not removing videos. It's not demonetizing them. It's merely putting a very small percentage of videos onto a restricted list because it decides that those videos are inappropriate for children.

Also, Prager notably leaves out that the lawsuit that he filed over this whole thing was tossed out as the judge noted that Prager's argument was a complete non-starter. I guess Prager's next WSJ article will be about how the courts have an anti-conservative bias as well?

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, censorship, dennis prager, nonsense, section 230
Companies: google, wall street journal, youtube

Ex-Googler Recently Held Up As A 'Whistleblower' And 'Proof' Of Anti-Conservative Bias At Google, Actually Supported Richard Spencer, Racist Skinheads

from the maybe-slow-down-in-picking-your-heros dept

When we recently wrote about the myth of anti-conservative bias at the various internet platforms, we got a lot of angry responses from people who insist (very loudly, often with lots of insults and anger, but rarely with any facts or data) that we're full of shit. We'd be open to believing it if there was any actual support for these claims. But none is ever forthcoming. Indeed, amusingly, some people pointed out that a recent WSJ article about an alleged fired "conservative" engineer at Google, described as a "whistleblower," was more "proof" that the company has it in for conservatives. Tucker Carlson even had the engineer, Kevin Cernekee, on his show last week to continue to feed the narrative.

And, of course, other Fox News characters, such as Lou Dobbs, played up Cernekee's claims as well, which even got President Trump to retweet Dobb's segment about Cernekee as "proof" that Google is trying to influence the 2020 election.

However, as we've pointed out concerning most of the "conservatives" who have had content removed or been banned from social media platforms (as is true in similar situations with liberals and other non-conservatives) there is almost always more to the story -- and that "more" is often that these people are not banned or fired or otherwise held back because of their general political views, but because of something much worse. And, in the case of Cernekee, people finally realized that maybe it wasn't that he was a conservative, but that he wanted to fundraise in support of one of the US's most well known white supremacists, Richard Spencer.

“[A] well­ known conservative activist was sucker punched on camera in DC while giving an interview,” Cernekee wrote on the Free Speech listserv in January 2017, referring to Richard Spencer, probably the most famous white nationalist in America.

Two days later, he posted to the same listserv to suggest that members of the free speech listserv at Google should raise money for a bounty to find Spencer’s assailant. The bounty was offered on WeSearchr, a site founded by Charles Johnson.

To be fair to Tucker Carlson, who had Cernekee on his show and played up his claims, it was also his Daily Caller that exposed Cernekee's actual internal postings.

But, yeah, the guy who Trump is holding up as proof that there's anti-conservative bias at Google is maybe not the best messenger if you're trying to convince the world that "conservatism" is not the same thing as "white nationalism." Oh, and it gets worse. The Daily Caller article shows that, despite Cernekee claiming in the WSJ that he was a "mainstream Republican" who "disagrees" with white supremacy, within an internal Google listserve, Cernekee suggested that racist skinheads consider rebranding:

The term “skinhead” has a lot of unfortunate baggage and allows members to be painted as aggressors even in cases where the opposite is true. Why not rename themselves to something normie­-compatible like “The Helpful Neighborhood Bald Guys” or “The Open Society Institute” instead of trying to change the near­-universal negative perception of their old label (which is futile)? This would make it much easier to form alliances with other supporters of liberty and civil rights. The only thing I could figure is that they value having an edgy badass image over mainstream acceptance.

Meanwhile, another "conservative" engineer who was also fired from Google, Mike Wacker, has written a barnstormer of a blog post detailing the fairly typical trollish behavior by Cernekee. It's pretty damning:

I will say, though, that there is more to Kevin than his troubling posts. Another aspect of Kevin is his willingness to play dirty: his willingness to act manipulatively, tell half-truths, and sometimes outright lie. (For whatever influence he had, he certainly did not achieve it by winning over the hearts and minds of Google’s conservative employees in a free and fair exchange of ideas.) Both aspects of Kevin — his questionable viewpoints and his questionable tactics — are necessary to understand his story.

As one example of his questionable tactics, in a discussion about Richard Spencer, one Google employee wrote, “I don’t think that assaulting someone is justified, but why on earth would we want to *help* him?” In his response to that person, Kevin deleted that sentence, and then he wrote, “Interesting argument, so are you saying it is OK to sucker punch somebody because you disagree with their politics?” Kevin claimed in an op-ed that he is “merely opposing Antifa violence,” when in reality one of his postings fabricated a claim that his coworker supported Antifa violence.

There's a lot more in there demonstrating rather trollish tactics (some of which will be familiar to people who read the comments here -- because they're used by lots of trolls on the internet).

Google, as a company, almost certainly employs a lot more people who identify as liberal than who identify as conservative (as I've noted in the past, I don't count myself among either group -- though plenty of others have lumped me into both at times, usually whenever they disagree with me and feel the need to align me with those they disagree with). But if you're going to claim that there's "proof" of anti-conservative bias at these companies, it probably helps to show up with actual proof, not the trollish behavior of a guy who has talked about fundraising on a platform that once tried to raise funds for The Daily Stormer, and to have done so in support of an infamous white supremacist, and who appears to have engaged in trollish tactics.

So here's a challenge to anyone rushing to jump into the comments here and call me names. For every insult you want to throw at me, how about you balance that out with actual evidence? And that is not just an example of someone who identifies as conservative being banned or limited in some way, and not quoting someone out of context, but actual proof of someone being limited for actual conservative views. I'm still waiting to see it.

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, kevin cernekee, richard spencer, trolling
Companies: google

Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?

from the the-view-from-nowhere dept

One of the big points we keep making about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is that we totally get it when grandstanding politicians or online trolls misrepresent the law. But the media should not be complicit in pumping blatantly false statements. While I may disagree with them personally, there are intellectually honest arguments for why Section 230 should be amended or changed. I'm happy to debate those arguments. What's ridiculous, however, is when the arguments are based on a completely false reading of the law. And no upstanding news organization should allow blatant misinformation like that. However, with all the misguided screaming about "liberal bias" in the media, newspapers like the Washington Post and the NY Times seem to feel like they need to publish blatant disinformation, to avoid having trolls and idiots accuse them of bias.

Even so, the Washington Post's decision to publish this op-ed by Charlie Kirk attacking Section 230 may be the worst we've seen. It is so full of factually false information, misleading spin, and just downright disinformation that no respectable publication should have allowed it to be published. And yet, there it is in the Washington Post -- one of the major news organizations that Donald Trump likes to declare "fake news." If you're unaware of Kirk, he's a vocal Trump supporter, who runs an organization called Turning Point USA that appears to specialize in playing the victim in all sorts of ridiculous conspiracies... all while (hypocritically) arguing that his political opponents ("the libs") are always acting as victims and are "training a generation of victims who are being trained to be offended by something." And yet, it seems that it's really Kirk who is always offended.

This Washington Post op-ed is just one example. Here, Kirk is playing the victim of (as of yet, still unproven) anti-conservative bias on social media.

By now, most conservatives are convinced that our voices are being shadow-banned, throttled, muted and outright censored online. In fact, amid protestations by groups including the Internet Association, which claims Facebook, Google and Twitter are bias free, it’s an open fact that Big Tech is run predominantly by those on the ideological left. Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s chief executive Jack Dorsey even admitted this before Congress, and footage of Google’s leadership consoling one another after President Trump’s victory in 2016 indicates the same is true for them.

Many on the right have complained loudly and often of anti-conservative bias online. Unfortunately, all too often this is where our efforts stop. Once we’re ignored or dismissed long enough, conservatives seem to just shrug our collective shoulders and accept defeat. It’s this type of passivity that has allowed progressives to dominate film and television, universities and large swaths of the mainstream news media. How did they accomplish that? By fighting tooth and nail for what they believe in every vertical.

While it is true that many people who work in the big internet companies probably lean towards the Democratic side of the aisle (though not nearly as far as some make it out to be), that's different than proving that they have put in place policies that are biased against "conservatives" (and I use that term loosely). Again, nearly every example that people trot out actually involves trolling, harassment, actual Nazis or other violations of terms of service. And while these companies sometimes make mistakes, they seem to do so pretty much across the board -- which is the very nature of moderating so much content.

Separately, many of the links in Kirk's opening above don't actually say what he pretends they say. Professor Matthew Boedy went through the above links and put together a great Twitter thread unpacking how he misrespresents nearly everything:

The thread is a lot longer and covers many more examples. Either way, Charlie needs to play the victim, and he's decided that the culprit is Section 230. Because he either doesn't understand Section 230, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.

The second obstacle to the free market is Big Tech’s exploitation of preexisting laws, namely Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that was passed by Congress in the '90s. Social media companies have leveraged Section 230 to great effect, and astounding profits, by claiming they are platforms — not publishers — thereby avoiding under the law billions of dollars in potential copyright infringement and libel lawsuits. YouTube, for example, advertises itself as an open platform “committed to fostering a community where everyone’s voice can be heard.” Facebook and Twitter make similar claims. Let’s be clear, when these companies censor or suppress conservative content, they are behaving as publishers, and they should be held legally responsible for the all the content they publish. If they want to continue hiding behind Section 230 and avoid legal and financial calamity, they must reform.

And here's where an editor totally should have stepped in, because almost all of this is wrong or gibberish. First off, even a cursory glance at the text of CDA 230 shows that it excludes intellectual property, such as copyright. Section (e)(2) literally says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property." So what the fuck is Kirk talking about when he says that they used this law to avoid "billions of dollars in potential copyright infringement... lawsuits." The answer is that Kirk has no idea what he's talking about, and now seems to be repeating propaganda pushed out by "liberal" Hollywood.

As for it allowing them to avoid "libel lawsuits," well, yes. But that's because Section 230 is about properly applying liability to those who make the statements. We don't blame AT&T when someone uses a phone to make a bomb threat. We don't blame Ford when someone gets into a car accident. And we don't blame Facebook when someone posts defamatory content. It's kind of straightforward.

Still, where it's really egregious is that Kirk continues to push the total myth that Section 230 allows companies to hide if they just claim they're a "platform" rather than "a publisher." That's not how the law works at all. It doesn't make any such distinction.

And here's the really crazy thing: if Kirk got his "wish" and actually got rid of CDA 230 and made internet companies liable, his own content would likely be at the top of the chopping block. Remember, one of Kirk's claims to fame was when he published a "Professor Watchlist" calling out allegedly "left-leaning academics" who he feels discriminate against conservatives. He can do that because that's 1st Amendment protected speech (opinion). But if 230 is amended to require "neutrality," well, such a list is anything but neutral. Furthermore, the risk of liability of hosting such a list would be high. Even though I'd argue that it's protected speech, you can bet that someone might find some of the claims on the list defamatory -- and thus there would be strong pressure for sites to pull it down to avoid liability.

As radio host Dennis Prager often says, if an airline permitted only those passengers holding the New York Times to board but then denied Wall Street Journal readers, we would all rightly call this discrimination and demand the airline change its policy.

This is dumb for a huge number of reasons. First of all, I don't think we'd all rightly call it discrimination. We'd call it a business decision. Probably a bad one. Which is why no airline would ever do such a thing. Second, where exactly is the social media platform that is banning people for subscribing to the WSJ, but not the NYT? It doesn't exist. This is such a hyperbolic, misleading example. People are being banned for harassment and trolling. Not for holding conservative viewpoints. No one's being kicked off of platforms for calling for lower taxes, less government, or other traditionally "conservative" ideas.

In the same way, conservatives cannot win the battle of ideas if we’re marginalized or removed from mainstream culture and mainstream platforms.

This, also, is laughable. Remember, "right wing" media dominates both radio and cable television. I don't see Kirk demanding that Fox News host more liberal viewpoints to balance out Hannity. And, once again, even in the supposedly "liberal" Washington Post, he's allowed to post this blatantly false nonsense.

Again, the Washington Post should absolutely be willing to post different points of view, including those of Kirk and his allies. But they shouldn't allow him to blatantly spread disinformation about what the law says and what it does. That's just... as Kirk would say, "fake news."

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, cda 230, charlie kirk, fake news, op-ed, platform, publisher, section 230
Companies: washington post

Supposedly Disadvantaged Conservatives Not Exactly Rushing To Support Josh Hawley's Anti-Section 230 Bill

from the how's-that-working-out dept

Senator Josh Hawley's ridiculous and unconstitutional bill to remove CDA Section 230 protections from internet giants was clearly designed to appeal to conservative voters who have been fed a nonstop myth that the big internet platforms are "targeting" them for their conservative views, when the reality is that the platforms are mostly targeting trolls, harassers, Nazis, and assholes. If those factors are disproportionately impacting Republicans, then perhaps that's more an issue for the Republican party than the internet platforms.

Either way, given that the myth that platforms are "targeting" conservatives has some traction, it seems likely that Hawley thought the conservative movement and conservative organizations would likely rush in to support his nonsense bill. It appears he miscalculated. FreedomWorks, the organization closely associated with the Tea Party movement put out a tweet mocking Hawley for thinking "conservatives are too stupid to realize he's trying to kill free speech online."

The group Americans for Prosperity put out a very strong statement against Hawley's proposal:

“Senator Hawley’s misguided legislation sets the table for stricter government control over free expression online. Eroding the crucial protections that exist under Section 230 creates a scenario where government has the ability to police your speech and determine what you can or cannot say online. Senator Hawley has argued that some tech platforms have become too powerful, but legislation like this would only cement the market dominance of today’s largest firms. This bill would punish success in the next generation of innovative startups and prevent them from achieving their full potential. Lawmakers should reject this legislation.”

Over at CATO, John Samples highlights how Hawley's own bill seems to go against conservative ideals:

Sen. Hawley’s bill seeks to undermine an older American conservatism. Not long ago, the Reagan legacy spoke powerfully to conservatives. Of course, the Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and in general, supported markets free of government regulation. Some now believe that times have changed and the ideals of 1980 no longer should guide conservative thinking. If that was “then,” Sen. Hawley is definitely “now.” But if conservatives are turning their backs on timeless ideals like free markets and free speech, what could conservatism mean beyond political necessity and the rage of transient majorities?

But perhaps the best response from a traditional conservative to Hawley's nonsense comes from David French at the National Review. As he notes, Hawley's bill is an "unwise, unconstitutional mess." The article should be required reading for any "conservative" who thinks Hawley's bill makes sense.

In reality, it’s a bill that would inject the federal government directly into the private social-media business and grant it enormous power over social-media content. It would enable public censorship in the name of limiting private control.

French also does a great job laying out why Section 230 makes sense -- even highlighting an argument I made decades ago, that Section 230 is simply locking in common sense in how to properly apply liability:

Section 230 codifies online a concept we easily understand in the offline world. For example, if you attend a congressman’s town-hall meeting, and he instructs his audience that their comments are limited in time, that they cannot use profanity, and they should remain on topic (moderating the platform), does that transform their speech into his speech?

If I’m in a public university classroom, where the professor can rule discourse with an iron fist, are my comments his comments — even if he shuts down students he doesn’t like or imposes strict rules of civility and decency?

But there’s a difference between student-classroom comments and a college newspaper publishing a student symposium, where it selects, edits, and fact-checks the submissions. These distinctions have become so obvious over time that we scarcely discuss them, and these distinctions exist online as well. In many ways, Section 230 — far from creating a “special break” for computer services — codifies common sense. My Facebook comment is fundamentally my speech.

Indeed, there was a time when I used to argue we shouldn't need a Section 230 at all since it was such common sense... but after seeing so many people perplexed by the internet and suing the middleman, rather than those actually responsible, I've come to appreciate the procedural benefits of Section 230.

However, the point that French raises above, about how Section 230 is codifying common sense is important in another way as well: in debunking the other big myth that Section 230 is somehow a "gift to the tech industry." It is not, and has never been. Over and over again people wrongly insist that this is some "special privilege" to the big internet companies. Hell, Hawley himself just tweeted that it's some sort of "special immunity." It's not "special." It's just properly applying liability in a common sense way. We wouldn't need it if people didn't keep falsely blaming internet services for the actions of their users, but as long as people like Josh Hawley want to blame the wrong party, then it's what we'll end up with.

And, of course, French highlights just how obviously unconstitutional Hawley's bill is:

Hawley’s standard is most assuredly not the viewpoint-neutrality standard seen in First Amendment case law. It’s a carnival funhouse version that would invite an enormous amount of bureaucratic meddling. For example, conservative sites and posts often do very well on Facebook, in part because of its older user base and partly because conservative Facebook users have gotten quite good at creating viral content. Will a Kamala Harris administration decide that disproportionate conservative success violates political neutrality?

Laws that purport to regulate First Amendment–protected speech bear a special burden of precision and clarity. They have to clearly explain what is prohibited and permitted. Vague or overbroad laws violate the Constitution in part by failing to provide fair notice of government standards. Hawley’s bill, as written, is extraordinarily vague. Terms such as “disproportionate” are very hard to define. Disproportionate to what? User percentages? Population percentages? User engagement? The standard is extraordinarily malleable.

I am sure that there will be some "conservatives" who will come out in favor of Hawley's bill, but so far, it appears that many conservatives are pointing out how anti-conservative it is. Hilariously, it seems that the main thing linking those who support Hawley's effort is not any particular ideology other than blind hatred for internet companies, and an attitude that anything that hurts the big internet companies must surely be good, just because. That's one way to make laws, but it's certainly not a principled one, nor a good one.

Filed Under: bias, cda 230, conservatives, free speech, josh hawley, section 230

White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives

from the complainer-in-chief dept

After months of fact-free complaints about bias against conservatives on social media, the White House has finally decided to engage in a fact-finding mission. And by "fact-finding mission," I mean "knock together a shitty webform to collect complaints." Or build a mailing list for the 2020 election run. Who knows. But here it is in all of its "will this do" glory.

It opens with this statement before it starts harvesting personal info.

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.

From there, the form asks for first name, last name, citizenship, zip code, phone number (optional), and email address. If you're not a US citizen or resident, the White House's form says it can't help you. That's pretty weird considering this form does nothing more than harvest information, most of it personal. If non-US citizens want to share their personal information -- and their stories of social media bias -- with the administration, they should be able to. But that's how the White House set this up: Americans only.

After that, it's time to start detailing the bias. Pick a platform and start bitching. Start by giving the government the link to your social media account, describe the incident, and upload screenshots of the tweet/post removed for violating terms of use being conservative.

You also have the option of being added to the White House's newsletter email list. Then you have prove you're not a robot by typing in the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. Fortunately for the bots, the question and answer never change, so not much a bulwark against exploitation.

Finally, you have to agree to the White House's "user agreement," conveniently located at another site and hidden behind a shortened link.

At the White House's site, you'll learn that complaining about bias via this webform gives the government permission to:

...use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute all or part of the Content (including edited, composite, or derivative works made therefrom).

Forever.

The license you grant is irrevocable and valid in perpetuity, throughout the world, and in all forms of media.

And there's nothing you can do if the government decides to alter your tweet and turn it into the centerpiece of its next Congressional hearing.

You waive any right to inspect or approve any Content or edited, composite or derivative works made from Content (including those which may contain your Information) before use. You are not entitled to any prior notice before the U.S. Government uses Content or Information. You are not entitled to any compensation for Content.

And even though the government has taken irrevocable possession of your content, it's still your content where it matters most.

You solely bear all responsibility for all Content.

This isn't about political bias. This is about confirmation bias. The White House has asked people to complain about being blocked or banned. Only those with negative experiences are invited to participate and that slant guarantees a bunch of unreliable narratives. Everything fed into this ad hoc complaint box will be vetted by an administration already convinced the social media deck is stacked against conservatives.

This will allow the administration to cherry-pick what it needs to back up the claims it's been making for months and ignore everything else. It will give the President a stack of printed-out tweets to wave at social media company execs during the next closed door meeting. What it won't produce is much reliable evidence of bias. The lack of reliability won't matter to the administration or the man at the top.

The real question, though, is what the administration plans to do with this info. It seems the ultimate goal is to talk itself into believing the bias problem is bad enough the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity will need to be damaged to make it right.

But, for now, at least the government has given the public a platform to complain about beverage companies threatening to send their urine to journalists.

Filed Under: bias, campaigns, conservative bias, content moderation, echo chamber, social media, social media bias, white house
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Some Republican Politicians Are Indistinguishable From Neo Nazis

from the example-number-380414352908 dept

Over and over and over again we've pointed out that content moderation at scale is impossible to do well -- in part because at such scale, there are bound to be a huge number of errors, even if the percentage of errors is relatively small. We've also pointed out that a lot of the content decisions that moderators face fall into a terrible gray area, where it's not easy to craft scalable rules that can be applied fairly across the board -- in part because context matters and it's impossible to scale the reviewing and understanding of context.

Motherboard recently had an excellent article detailing one manifestation of this problem, by noting that trying to apply rules across the board leads to some problematic results:

With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.

In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.

And, as the Motherboard piece notes, "banning politicians wouldn't be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all the white supremacist propaganda."

Indeed, as it stands right now, we already have Republican politicians like Ted Cruz screaming about "conservative bias" at a point when it's clear that Twitter is actually bending over backwards not to unfairly go after "conservatives" (such as described above). Of course, perhaps it all comes together when you look at the widely shared "study" claiming to "prove" conservative bias in Twitter bans, that really just showed Twitter banning a bunch of white supremacists and trolls. Apparently, at least some conservatives themselves have trouble telling the difference between themselves and white supremacists. Which, you know, maybe is an issue...

Jillian York has a great Twitter thread detailing some of the issues here, basically highlighting how bad algorithms are at context. You should read the whole thing, but a short (slightly edited) excerpt:

Here's the thing: Algorithms, at least right now, cannot identify *how* text is being used. To give you a clear example, the word "dyke" is both an insult and a reclaimed word used by lesbians to describe themselves sometimes. We know that filters regularly censor non-hateful uses of the word "dyke." Instagram does it and in the 1990s Dick Van Dyke's name was often collateral damage of this type of censorship. We've even got a YouTuber claiming that he had to change his damn name because his content was being demonetized...as a result of his last name being Dyke.

It goes on to talk about the impossibility of filtering text, when language is used in so many different (often creative) ways, and where it's simply impossible to think that you can use algorithms to filter out "bad" people. It's the kind of thing you wish more people understood, so everyone should go read York's thread.

But, either way this continues to demonstrate just how fraught an issue content moderation is. Combine the fact that it's difficult to separate Nazis from some Republican politicians, and the fact that the grandstanding Ted Cruzes and Louis Gohmerts of the party would absolutely flip out if an actual GOP politician was banned from Twitter, with the fact that plenty of people are making perfectly reasonable calls for trying to get Twitter to kick Nazis off their platform and Twitter (and other platforms) is left in an impossible position. It's very much a damned if you do/damned if you don't position. And it's not just that one group or another might be "upset" by either decision -- it's that people are positively livid about either decision and insisting that no one in their right mind would choose such a decision.

It's not a tightrope that is being walked -- it's an impossible situation to deal with in a way that doesn't make people completely furious about.

Filed Under: algorithms, bias, censorship, content moderation, filters, republican politicians, white supremacists
Companies: twitter

Texas Senator Pushing A Bill That Would Allow The State To Sue Twitter For Banning Conservatives

from the wrangle-them-windmills,-Senator dept

Since some conservatives are convinced social media companies are trying to turn their platforms into liberal paradises, weird and ignorant noises are being made by a handful of government figures. I blame Ted Cruz.

Last year's Facebook hearing was marked/marred by Republicans incorrecting [h/t n-gate] each other about Section 230 immunity and its supposed reliance on Twitter, Facebook, et al maintaining their position as "neutral public forums." Section 230 does not require this, but it's become somewhat of a DC urban legend at this point. Since this highly-inauspicious beginning, the Senator from Texas has pitched a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet and aligned himself with Rep. Louie Gohmert to misunderstand the internet as much as possible.

Back at the state ranch, a member of the Texas Senate has decided he's going to force social media platforms to be neutral. Bryan Hughes has crafted a bill that would allow the state's attorney general to sue Twitter, etc. for booting people off their platforms. There's a big "if" in the bill that pretty much ensures it will never be enforced, even if it somehow manages to survive a Constitutional challenge.

“Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content,” Hughes said in the committee hearing. “Basically if the company represents, ‘we’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”

This is Hughes' attempt to route around Section 230 while co-opting Ted Cruz's completely wrong assumption that those protections are tied to platforms maintaining political neutrality.

If a social media company claims it's an open, neutral forum but performs any act of moderation Texas government officials don't like, the state AG can bring a lawsuit against the company. The violations include all of the following [PDF]:

(1) block a user's speech;
(2) censor a user's speech;
(3) ban a user;
(4) remove a user's speech;
(5) shadow ban a user;
(6) de-platform a user;
(7) de-boost a user's speech;
(8) de-monetize a user; or
(9) otherwise restrict speech of a user.

So, pretty much any moderation effort would trigger this. As would any perceived moderation. Or anything any platform does that feels subjectively to the user like any of the things on the list, whether or not it actually happened.

Platforms are still free to remove content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." It's not difficult to see how protected moderation efforts could clash with unprotected moderation efforts, leaving it up to the Texas AG's discretion whether or not a moderation effort was "good faith" or a violation of Hughes' stupid law.

But let's get back to the "if." This law relies on a social media company "representing" that the service is "viewpoint neutral, impartial, or non-biased." Represent how? Wouldn't the state need something a bit more legally-binding than Jack Dorsey saying something to that effect during a conversation with an interviewer or state legislators? Maybe a signed affidavit, especially since this whole thing is going to be running through the state's courts? The bill provides no clarification on this point. Without more than what's present here, it seems any social media company could avoid having this idiotic law wielded against them by simply stating they will continue to moderate their platforms to "provide the best user experience" or whatever.

You'd think something this unconstitutional and dumb wouldn't make its way past the initial grandstanding that accompanies far too many legislative submissions. Unfortunately, even the dumb is bigger in Texas.

Senate Bill 2373 would apply to social media companies that claim to be impartial and unbiased, and the measure was motivated by complaints of discriminatory treatment by conservatives and conservative groups, said the bill's author, Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola.

"If you hold yourself out as being an open forum and that you don't discriminate based on viewpoint, then you have to keep your word," Hughes told the Senate.

The Senate voted 18-12 to send SB 2373 to the House. All Republicans but Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, supported the bill. Democrats were united against it, with Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. of Brownsville absent.

The bill now heads to the House. Who knows what will happen once it's reviewed there. Maybe the other half of the legislature will realize the bill is doomed for failure, even if it is passed and enacted. Senator Hughes may be pitching this as an extension of the state's deceptive trade practices law, but any attempt to enforce it will result in a Constitutional challenge the state cannot hope to win.

Filed Under: bias, bryan hughes, cda 230, conservative bias, content moderation, section 230, texas
Companies: twitter

Court Dismissed Lawsuit Brought Against Social Media Companies Alleging An Anti-Conservative Conspiracy

from the lawsuits-are-the-new-tinfoil dept

Alt-right sideshows Laura Loomer and Larry Klayman sued Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple for [checks filing] participating in a government-enabled conspiracy to deplatform Freedom Watch/Loomer in order to further a leftist agenda, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Their complaint alleged violations of the Sherman Act, DC's public accommodation law, and the First Amendment. In support of these allegations, the plaintiffs offered vague theories about "public platforms" and some misreadings of pertinent court precedent. (via Eric Goldman)

After a round of motions, the court has ruled in favor of everyone being sued. The decision [PDF] makes it clear none of the arguments made by the plaintiffs hold water, much less achieve complete coherence. The only thing the court agrees with is that Loomer and Freedom Watch have standing to bring the suit. But standing is only worth something when your arguments have merit.

While they have established standing, the Plaintiffs have failed to state viable legal claims. Consider first their Sherman Act arguments. Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that “[e]very contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the 7 several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” 15 U.S.C. § 1. “Independent action is not prescribed” by § 1. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 760 (1984). So a valid claim must allege that the Platforms “had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.” Id. at 764. The Plaintiffs’ claim fails to do this.

True, the Amended Complaint repeatedly states that the Platforms have engaged in a conspiracy or illegal agreement. See, e.g., Am. Compl. 4, 5, 12, 17. But it offers only these conclusory statements to suggest the existence of such an agreement. It includes no allegations, for example, that any of the Platforms met or otherwise communicated an intent to collectively suppress conservative content.

A conspiracy requires the participation of conspirators. But some of the alleged conspirators still played ball with the plaintiffs, which undercuts the conspiracy needed to sufficiently allege antitrust violations.

The Plaintiffs also suggest that the Platforms “have engaged in ‘conscious parallelism’ and in concert mimicked each others’ refusal to deal with Freedom Watch and Ms. Loomer.” Am. Compl. 21. But Freedom Watch admits that it “has and still does pay Google and YouTube, Facebook and the other Defendants for services.” Id. at 11. This admission contradicts assertions of a coordinated “refusal to deal” with the Plaintiffs.

The complaint fares no better when dealing with the second antitrust allegation -- the supposed "monopoly" power of the [checks notes] four defendants being sued. As the court points out, the plaintiffs could have brought some data to their legal fight. Instead, they chose to bring conclusory statements and assertions about "leftist agendas."

[T]he Plaintiffs offer no market share data for any of the Platforms in either the local or worldwide markets for media and news publications. Instead, they make claims about the “social network global market,” the “social networking advertising revenue” market, the “digital ad revenues” market, and the “mobile ad market.” Am. Compl. 18. And though the Amended Complaint states that “59% of Twitter users get their news through the Twitter platform” and that “48% of all American adults [get] their news from Facebook,” it offers no support for the notion that either firm has achieved or tried to achieve monopolization of the nationwide media and news publications market.

The allegations claiming that kicking Loomer/Freedom Watch violated DC's Human Rights Act is just as ridiculous. The court points out the law refers only to physical public spaces and it's not willing to re-litigate a DC circuit opinion and/or rewrite local law on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Finally, the court addresses the most ridiculous of all the lawsuit's assertion: that moderation decisions by social media services somehow violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs cite the Packingham decision by the Supreme Court, completely misreading that decision's findings. In that case, the court said the government couldn't prevent people from accessing internet services. Loomer and Klayman pretend it actually said platforms can't ban people from accessing their platforms. The district court points out the distinction the plaintiffs are ignoring.

True, in Packingham, the Supreme Court recognized that Facebook and Twitter are among the “most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views” in society today. 137 S. Ct. at 1735. But the case involved a challenge to a state law that limited the speech rights of certain criminals on these platforms. Id. at 1738. It did not create a new cause of action against a private entity for an alleged First Amendment violation.

The second citation from the plaintiffs isn't any better, and the court again restates the obvious: moderation decisions by private companies are not actions taken by government entities, no matter how many users the platforms accommodate.

[T]he Plaintiffs here allege no nexus between the Platforms’ actions and a function traditionally reserved exclusively to the state. Nor do they contend that the Platforms were designated by the state to perform a governmental operation. Instead, the Amended Complaint focuses on the Platforms’ alleged suppression of conservative political content. It details, for instance, the seemingly disparate treatment of conservative news publishers on Facebook and of conservative commentators on Twitter. Am. Compl. 4-5. But while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the Plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor. Thus, their claim must be dismissed.

This will surely be appealed. But the outcome will be the same. Actions by private companies can't violate rights and the existence of multiple social media platforms simultaneously preemptively defeats most antitrust allegations.

Some conservatives are convinced there's a leftist agenda being played out in social media. But rather than fight it with more speech, they're trying to bring the government in to fix these perceived problems. Whatever floats your speech boat, but remember, any "fixes" you get will remain in place for years -- even if the perceived pendulum swings the other way. The rules that "level the playing field" will come back to bite these agitators in their asses if they ever manage to talk a court or a bunch of legislators into taking their bad ideas seriously.

Filed Under: antitrust, bias, conservative bias, first amendment, free speech, larry klayman, laura loomer, monopoly, social media
Companies: apple, facebook, google, twitter

EU Parliament Paid News Publisher AFP To Create Bogus Propaganda Video In Favor Of EU Copyright Directive

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

So we recently wrote about the bizarre situation in the EU whereby the EU Parliament's official Twitter feed had tweeted a pure propaganda video in support of the EU Copyright Directive. This was weird on many levels. First of all, the Copyright Directive has not yet been voted upon, and you would think that the EU Parliament itself should be neutral on the question of whether or not a law should be passed -- especially one with as much controversy as the Copyright Directive. Second, the video was filled with a bunch of blatantly false information (mostly from MEP Axel Voss). It's one thing for the EU Parliament to be promoting a specific outcome on a legislative vote, and it's another altogether to support that with false information delivered by just one MEP. Does the EU Parliament do this on other issues as well? The third oddity, is that the video certainly looked very professionally produced, raising questions of just who put it together.

MEP Julia Reda used her position as an MEP to ask those questions of the Parliament and now has the answer. The EU Parliament -- for reasons that are still unclear -- paid Agence France Press (AFP) to produce the video:

AFP, of course, is a giant publisher that stands to potentially benefit from Article 11 in particular. And, apparently, AFP has been one of the more aggressive lobbying organizations in Brussels pushing for Article 11. Hell, all the way back in 2005, AFP actually sued Google for linking to its stories (spoiler alert: it did not win). So for the EU Parliament to then use public funds to ask a clearly interested party to produce a propaganda video seems highly questionable. This is the akin to say, the US Congress asking Pfizer to produce a video that will go out under "Congress" official imprimatur, about prescription drug pricing. That would be a scandal. Yet, in the EU, not too many officials seem particularly bothered by this.

Of course, it should be noted that AFP does not exactly have the greatest track record on copyright itself. In 2010, the company was caught having used someone's photo of the earthquake aftermath in Haiti without licensing, and when called on it, AFP sued the photographer with a bizarre argument that anything that was posted to Twitter was free for anyone to use (no, really). Eventually, AFP was forced to pay out $1.2 million for that debacle. You'd think that experience might make the company a little more careful about supporting extremist copyright positions, but for some reason in the copyright debates, the maximalists never think the law will seriously apply back to them.

Meanwhile, instead, AFP is publishing hysterically misleading articles (that feed out to various licensees of AFP content) all about how evil Google is actively lobbying over Article 11. No, really. While (at least) the AFP article notes that AFP supports Article 11, it leaves out its active participation in the lobbying effort -- including the creation of the aforementioned video, framing the entire story about how big bad Google is doing all the lobbying over the law.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, axel voss, bias, corruption, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, julia reda, propaganda
Companies: afp