Saying something is bad is not the same thing as saying something should be illegal.
Whether gov't or private, if a platform is primarily promoted as an open communication channel then I think that some, if not all, aspects of "common carrier" laws should apply.
Social media platforms would not have the trust and would not have been adopted as quickly if they started off censoring as much as they do now. In that regard, they presented themselves as open and impartial, then shifted once they achieved sufficient critical mass.
In my opinion, YouTube should (and does) have content standards, and be extremely free in how they determine them. People certainly have a right to publish and consume conspiracy theories, but I don't understand why YouTube has anything close to an obligation to host or promote them.
of course, this doesn't work so well in practice when all the viable platforms are controlled by a few huge companies that are more or less ideologically aligned. in my view, this is more of an antitrust issue than a freedom of speech issue. moderation on social media would be a non-issue if there were a reasonable range of platforms to choose from. hateful and/or misleading content would also be far less impactful if uploading a single video to the youtube didn't have the potential of reaching an enormous audience.
> What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights?
Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract.
> Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?
I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.
Likewise, people are discussing reform of the laws that govern the behavior of giant media properties. Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary?
> Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract.
People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information.
> I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.
"By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."
I'm puzzled by the question. My position on wiretapping laws is beside the point.
> People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information.
Again, this is puzzling because it doesn't seem related to the topic at hand. You asked a direct question (why is paying different?) and I gave a direct answer (because contracts).
> "By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."
Doesn't cover minors, who can't consent to binding contracts, and I doubt it would be popular with customers anyway. Can you imagine having that play every time you make or receive a phone call?
No, it isn't. Spartan-S63 seem to be advocating [0] YouTube can moderate their platform however they like. souprock suggests [1] that same logic allows the phone company to disconnect anyone who criticizes the phone company. You say [2] that doesn't apply because that would require breaking the law. I'm observing that the law you refer to places limits on the phone company, which is what people are suggesting with respect to YouTube. Section 230 reforms might limit the ability of YouTube to do what they want with their platform, just like the laws governing telecom utilities were written in order to balance the interests of the public and the consumer against the interest of the telecom company to do what they want with their property.
> Again, this is puzzling because it doesn't seem related to the topic at hand. You asked a direct question (why is paying different?) and I gave a direct answer (because contracts).
I'm asking why you think paying or not is relevant to the issue of section 230 reform. People aren't advocating for the reform of section 230 because their contracts were violated. They're advocating for the reform of section 230 because they believe its harmful for companies like YouTube and Facebook to exert this much influence over the discourse without any liability. Payment or lack of a contract is immaterial.
> Doesn't cover minors, who can't consent to binding contracts, and I doubt it would be popular with customers anyway. Can you imagine having that play every time you make or receive a phone call?
Yet GDPR exists and there are popup windows on many webpages because of the legality of the tracking measures employed by advertising companies.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25391771
I've only commented on the phone company analogy.
Google, et al, need to be roped into similar laws. They are providing a defacto public square that deserves more regulation -- one way or the other.
Now post “YouTube is a private company and I support their right to ban BLM”
For the record.
In my opinion it feels immoral for someone who has this much control over human interaction to act in a way that undermines free discourse so blatantly. To see an American company ignore the value of free speech is disheartening to me. YouTube is so popular and I wish they took a different stance on these issues.
Rather than patch the symptoms of the problem, attack the root cause: If companies are acting anticompetitively, stimulate competition in the marketplace. If companies are allowed to make arbitrary decisions (which they should in a free-enough market), seek alternatives, such as government enterprises.
If folks don't like payment processors denying payment or ISPs denying service, seek forming a government enterprise that _can't_ deny service to any citizen.
Uhh... what? Trump and the Republicans are twisting the arms of tech companies to remove speech favoring... themselves?
Until platforms like YouTube even existed the only way to get anything seen or heard by people was to go through a big TV or radio network, who of course filtered what they would or would not air. Just because you filmed a video about a crackpot theory DOES NOT give you the right to air it to millions, and never in our history has a person been able to do so.
If you want to stand in Times Square holding a sign about your theory, you're free to do so. If you want to buy your own TV channel and air it, you're free to do so. If you DEMAND some TV network run it, you're gunna have a bad time.
They are allowed to, but they should be criticized for being hostile to the concept of free speech. Especially since nobody believes YouTube endorses what is posted on Youtube videos.
Separately, their monopoly should be broken up. We can't let a company dictate all political discourse in the country.
When that happens, you're either basically a utility for the public, or a monopoly and need to be broken up. This whole concept that these "first amendment protects companies even though they control the market" reasonings are just absurd. It's exactly like defending the railroads for not wanting to ship black people because they don't have rails for "colored folk" and since they're a "private company" they can do what they want.
We can't have it both ways, but we want it both ways. We want a non-government controlled way to communicate, but we want to mandate that they're liable to uphold the same First Amendment protections that the government has to provide. That's insane, that's not a good standard to pursue, and we should rather focus on the cost-benefit and pros and cons of either reinstating the Fairness Doctrine or creating a government-run social media website where information can be freely shared and subjected uniformly to First Amendment protections.