I remember during the BLM riots, I had shared probably 50 videos of individual destructive and/or violent acts by the rioters in a Slack channel I'm a part of. Probably 6 months later, I went back to look at some.

I found a total of 3 that _hadn't_ been deleted.

That may have just been cleanup on unpaid slack-chamnels. They don't keep the stuff on free tiers forever.

Edit: it's not this ^^^

No I mean I scrolled past all the comments that linked to the videos and they were all "the account that posted this video has been suspended" or "that video has been deleted". Don't remember the exact messages, but they were all deleted by Google.

I'd love to see those 3.

Please don't characterize this as a political voices thing. Of course it's _related_, but this instance is about misclassification of private data, not silencing voices online.

Also, Google is not a private company.

They are a private company in the sense that they are not a government entity, and thus the first amendment does not apply to them. This is a different sense of the word "private" than whether their stock is or is not publicly traded on an exchange.

What do you do when all speech takes place on corporate-owned platforms?

The nature of the problem (a big monopolist behemoth of a corporation is too big and powerful and lacks incentives to change) and the solution (only state action, regulation, mandates, i.e. something more powerful than Google must enforce Google to act) is by definition a political problem. This is like the epitome of what politics is for.

“Free speech” laws only apply to government restrictions on speech.

Except that the only reason that these large platforms can sustainably exist, is government granted immunity from the content posted to them as a common carrier. Currently they're trying to have it both ways, where they can both be immune from any liability from bad content that gets uploaded, while selectively censoring whatever content they don't like.

It's not like the government doesn't play a role. These platforms can only exist because of government protections, and those protections should come with protections to the public against censorship.

In your country, perhaps. I am sick of this narrow American corporatist view that is unthinkingly applied to the whole world.

Do you ever imagine how unnerving it would be, if 99% of all online discourse in your country took place on platforms owned by foreign corporations?

I’m replying to a comment that said, I quote, “but in the US there are free speech laws.”

Given that context, I thought it was clear I was talking about the nature of free speech laws in the USA.

Personal opinions about censorship aside, Google aren’t breaking any free speech laws because free speech doesn’t mean anyone can post anything on private channels. No, the law is a lot more specific than that, eg the government cannot censor individuals.

To that end, free speech has been upheld against social media platforms in specific circumstances. Eg when Trump blocked people he didn’t like on Twitter.

I’ll get downvotes for saying this because it’s a popular meme on HN to shout “free speech” but most who argue it misunderstand the law and it’s important to understand what the law actually states if you want to make a complaint about business not abiding by it.

Personally I don’t think the problem is that platforms are legally allowed to censor the content they host. In fact I can think of some legitimate case studies for why a company should be allowed to moderate the content it hosts (eg if it’s a platform aimed at children). I think the real problem is a combination of:

- people repeatedly falling back to the same few hosting platforms for everything, this allows the impact of those company’s hosting terms to be far further reaching than it ever should be. Eg if you know your military studies might trigger Googles bot then don’t use Google!

- and the companies providing a broken escalation process. Meaning what should be a relatively simple review ends up taking a mammoth public campaign on yet another social network just to get a human to look at the case.

Point 1 is really the crux though. This is one domain where boycotting actually does make a difference. Granted not to Google’s financials, but it does make a difference to us. Because the best way to avoid shitty T&Cs is to use a service that doesn’t have shitty T&Cs. There’s no shortage of hosting platforms out there so it really is that simple.

I really wish people who downvoted this would explain. Like it or not, the first amendment does not apply to private companies. This conversation is not about what's fair, it's about the actual state of things. Shouldn't you be mad at the constitution and our founding fathers instead?

>Like it or not, the first amendment does not apply to private companies.

Bake the cake.

What does that mean?