Free Speech

PragerU's Lawsuit Against Google Seeks To Rewrite the First Amendment

It flies in the face of precedent.

|

Lawyers for Prager University, a nonprofit headed by radio host Dennis Prager that produces conservative videos, appeared before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday to argue that Google violated the company's right to free speech by restricting a portion of its content on YouTube. PragerU's argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the protections provided by the First Amendment and an effort to expand those protections beyond their original scope.

YouTube, a Google subsidiary, has restricted approximately 20 percent of the nonprofit's videos, meaning that those clips cannot be viewed by the 1.5 percent of users who opt not to see adult material. The tagged videos include "Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?" and "Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?"

PragerU's suit says that YouTube is essentially a "public forum" that should be subject to government intervention. In court, Peter Obstler, head counsel for PragerU, said that YouTube is "not just the company town. They're arguably a company country and maybe a company world force."

In response, Judge Jay Bybee appeared to be skeptical. "If your representations are correct, it seems deeply disturbing that they put your stuff in the restricted area," he said. "I'm not sure that creates a First Amendment issue."

Attorneys for Google countered that a win for PragerU would have deleterious effects on the internet. For one, companies would lose their right to remove pornography and abusive content, which Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act expressly allows them to scrub as they see fit. But they see a more frightening consequence as well: platforms such as their own would have the incentive to abandon current claims of political neutrality to avoid similar lawsuits, and would thus be likely to censor more content—not less.

"Google's products are not politically biased. We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account," Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson, tells Reason. "Our platforms have always been about sharing information everywhere and giving many different people a voice, including PragerU, who has over 2 million subscribers on their YouTube channel."

That likely won't convince Dennis Prager. "I promise you, one day you will say, first they came after conservatives, and I said nothing," he opined in a July Senate hearing on tech censorship, summoning Martin Niemöller's post-Holocaust poem. "And then they came after me—and there was no one left to speak up for me." The Republican firebrand joins a growing list of right-wing figures and lawmakers who accuse social media platforms of anti-conservative bias and want those sites regulated as the new public square—one that requires a "sheriff," according to Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.).

But that line of thinking "flies in the face" of nearly every First Amendment precedent, which is that it curtails the power of the government, not private actors, says Jane Bambauer, a Professor of Law at the University of Arizona. Companies, "no matter how powerful we think they are," are thus excluded from that particular type of government meddling—an ideal that was a core part of Prager's conservative ideology, until recently.

The nonprofit's First Amendment claims are "surefire losers," Bambauer tells Reason.

PragerU has continuously demonstrated that it misunderstands such matters: In July, for instance, the nonprofit tweeted that Google revealed its anti-conservative bias because some of the predicted search results for PragerU were negative. In reality, though, Google's automated function considers trending topics and churns out suggestions accordingly. When I did the same search, the results were far more positive:

Although PragerU's First Amendment claims will almost certainly fall flat in court, the company may have a fighting chance of surviving Google's motion to dismiss by citing the Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising. "If Google is making affirmative statements about being ideologically neutral," says Bambauer, those statements "may be challenged as being false, or at least of being misleading."

Google's declarations don't necessarily have to be all that explicit, explains Bambauer, who notes that a Lanham Act claim might survive since Google generally claims to provide a mostly unmediated idea of what people are talking about. Even still, "it's pretty unlikely to win," she says.

That implausibility is at least partially wrapped up in the fact that Google has not been restricting PragerU's content on ideological grounds—at least not on its face. Somewhat ironically, lawyers for the conservative nonprofit are also representing a pair of LGBT "kink educators" who allege First Amendment censorship, as their content has also been demonetized and age-restricted. In general, the tech giant flags far more content from liberal groups, such as HuffPost, Vox, Buzzfeed, NowThis, and The Daily Show. The Young Turks, a far-left channel, has 71 percent of its content restricted.

The far-fetched lawsuit ratchets up the tech bias debate, which came to more mainstream attention this summer with President Donald Trump's White House "social media summit." Many right-leaning figures and incendiary online characters joined the president to discuss allegations of anti-conservative sentiment on tech platforms, culminating in an executive order draft which, in its current form, would reportedly punish companies that cannot sufficiently prove their political neutrality.

NEXT: Republicans Choose Trumpism Over Property Rights and the Rule of Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. PragerU hurt my baby feelings, by not giving me center stage, and not allowing me to go loudly blathering all day long, at their rallies… Into THEIR microphone!!! On THEIR stage!!! So PragerU needs to be SUED!!!

    Be careful what you sue for… The precedent WILL be used against YOU!!!

    1. Those conservative snowflakes amirite? To be sure….and continued.

  2. On cue, the alleged libertarian reliably snuggles up to the leftist.

    Never fails.

    1. “The tagged videos include “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?” and “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?””</i?

      Literally articles that Old Reason has published dozens of times, but for Binion and NeoReason these are controversial topics, and Google totally isn’t being partisan for tagging them.

      Binion, you’re a totalitarian demagogue and a censorship apologist. You shouldn’t be working for a libertarian site anymore than a Maoist Red Guard should. You’re disgusting.

      1. What Reason leaves out is the tagging of those articles was “abusive” and “pornography”. Which most people would call “libel”, but which is apparently okay because “muh private company!”

  3. “Google’s products are not politically biased. We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account,” Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson, tells Reason.

    Hahahahahahahahaha .. breath … Hahahahahahahaha

    And this is the problem. If your political content can’t be hosted on YouTube, because YouTube employees think everyone to the right of Debra Messing is a racist and therefore anything they say is “hate speech”, then there is very little realistic alternative to reach the public. There is, at that point, a case to be made for First Amendment protection. Google is trying to have it both ways, dominating Internet video to the point of near-exclusion of any other channel, and claiming they’re a private company and just one of many possible ways to distribute content. It’s bullshit, people see that it’s bullshit, and Google is whistling past the legislative graveyard as long as they keep pushing the bullshit.

    1. Oh bullshit!!!

      You want to broadcast YOUR message on someone ELSE’s forums? You have no leg to stand on!

      Have a message? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF, as I do at GoDaddy.com hosting services, or put up your on file server!!! I put up http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ at my own expense… The Horrible Google does NOT block my web site! Every time I add a sub-page, I do a “force Google Crawl” and my stuff is search-able!

      Whatcha crying about, crybaby? That OTHER people don’t want YOUR MESSAGE on THEIR forum? Pay for your stuff yourself, as I did! Or find a willing publisher!

      1. Meant to write “your OWN file server!”… Sorry for the typo…

      2. You want to broadcast YOUR message on someone ELSE’s forums?

        Google doesn’t own their forums in any reasonable sense of private property; they are already strong regulated and controlled by the government. If Google doesn’t comply with Washington’s desires, Washington can destroy them in a heartbeat without even passing new laws.

        Google has essentially become a propaganda and spy agency for the US government; and in good progressive/fascist fashion, its “owners” are allowed to profit from their position of running it.

        So, constitutional and 1A arguments in favor of Google are ridiculous. The problem with suing Google is not that they are a “private actor”, the problem is that they are not: suing Google is as pointless as suing Minitrue since no government is going to enforce judgments against itself.

        1. We are Borg. Resistance is futile.

      3. Go play with your ‘lung flute’, crank. YouTube will never love you, or call you a superfan, even if you praise their double standards all day long. If they claim to be an impartial platform, but actually play favorites, they deserve denunciation from everybody, even libertarians.

      4. You want to be black and eat food in some ELSE’S restaurant? You have no leg to stand on!

        Hungry? MAKE IT YOURSELF, as I do at home at my own expense.

        Whatcha crying about, crybaby? That OTHER people don’t want YOUR BLACK FACE in THEIR restaurant? Make it yourself, as I did! Or find another willing restaurant!

      5. Oh bullshit!!!

        You want to broadcast YOUR message on someone ELSE’s forums? You have no leg to stand on!

        You clearly do not understand the Youtube ToS.

        YOU, as a creator, are providing content that Youtube makes money on whether you’re monetized or not.

        It is the content of creators like PragerU, Pewdeepie, Sargon, Mark Dice, Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Blaire White, Bearing, Rogan, Shapiro and countless others that generates money for Youtube.

        They ‘sell’ your content whether they pay you or not.

        So everyone’s already paid.

        And, since it’s Youtube, they’re seen–unlike your ‘site’.

        Youtube made promises in that ToS. Promises they’re failing to keep.

        And that’s the problem. Breach of contract. Something important to libertarians–and laughed at by leftists.

        1. Hasn’t Reason said they should address issues with YT in court and not with legislation?

    2. There is actual precedent. If a company is acting as the government, then the first amendment applies. The most obvious example is a mining town. If the company owns all land in a 50 mile radius and people live there, then they have to have freedom of speech.

      I don’t think Google is that powerful that we can say they are the effective government of the internet. However, an agreement between Google, Facebook, and Twitter would quite arguably count as one for purposes of political discussion. So, while I don’t think Prager will win one first amendment grounds, it’s not nonsensical like the article implies.

      I also see that the article ignores that they are also suing based on breach of contract, as the arbitrary actions on Prager’s account are arguably taken in bad faith, and the terms of service are changed more or less arbitrarily or even ignored to suit the whims of one party despite the existing business agreement. THAT is reasonably likely to succeed.

    3. We can have either the same rule for both sides, or for no side.

      If we have public accommodation rules, like we must bake a cake, then we must be allowed to post on YouTube.

      If we aren’t going to allow people to post on YouTube due to beliefs, then we should require others to bake a cake.

      I’d rather the later, but that’s not the precedent we have. So either overturn the precedent, or enforce it equally. There is no just third option.

      1. The vast majority of the time, there IS a 3d (4th, 5th, 37th) option if people seek compromise, instead of seeking fighting!

        Example: Gay marriage cakes, gay marriage flowers, photos, etc.

        Compromise: Gay folks go to a willing seller. NO ONE is forced (as an “artist”) to support anything! Emergency room services? Different category totally!!! Equal services there… No one ever died for lack of quickly getting a gay wedding cake!!

        Simple laws needed here, simple principles… But NOOOOO…. Whining crybabies have to force THEIR opinions down the throats of others!!! Very similar to the whining of the crybaby brownshirts of SOME posters on these forums… They feel COMPELLED to stir up endless fighting!!!

        1. Whining crybabies have to force THEIR opinions down the throats of others!!!

          Yes, you do.

          But we’ll stop you.

      2. “I’d rather the later, but that’s not the precedent we have. So either overturn the precedent, or enforce it equally. There is no just third option.”

        In the vast majority of the states, public accommodation laws do not prohibit discrimination based on political belief. They do prohibit discrimination against specified protected classes, typically including race, sex, religion, and more recently sexual orientation. In those states there is no conflict between forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding and allowing Google to discriminate agaist Prager U (even assuming it is).

  4. Better to sue for contract violations; use the terms of service and statistical analysis of banned stuff.
    Although courst are stateing clearly that social media is a public forum as far as ‘elected officials doing government stuff’ is concerned.
    Next, just elected officials
    then public figures
    then the world
    Welcome to the revolution.

    (word of warning for Google and the rest; the democrats did not bother saying healthcare was a public thing, they just took over via regulation, and no one gave a damn) You can win in court, but when the feds want your ass, it’s theirs.

    1. How can there be contract violations when it’s a free service? It’s been a long time since I took Business Law 301, but I don’t see the elements of a contract here.

      1. There was an advertising/revenue sharing agreement.

      2. When you create a Youtube channel and want to get revenue, there is a large contract that more or less says that you will abide by the terms of service and stipulates how payment will be made. You can argue that their inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement is breach of contract.

        Viva Frei did an in depth analysis on Youtube.

        1. Problem is that awful liberal judges are using 230 for contract breaches, such as the megan murphy lawsuit.

      3. You do know that YouTube has a terms of service in which they agree to share profits from content creators right? No matter how awful your law school was (third tier) this isnt a hard concept.

      4. The people whose work allows YT to make money are the ones complaining, not the viewers.

    2. They are actually suing for contract violations and California’s non-discrimination act as well.

  5. But that line of thinking “flies in the face” of nearly every First Amendment precedent, which is that it curtails the power of the government, not private actors

    “Private actors” exist in free markets; we don’t live in a free market. Given the number of regulations and legal constraints Google is under, it is not a private actor; that is, the government can determine what Google does and does not publish and force Google to deliver the private data of its users to the government.

    “Google’s products are not politically biased. We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account,” Ivy Choi

    Utterly irrelevant if you want to stand on 1A grounds. But, of course, Google’s 1A position is a farce. (Also, ridiculous given Google’s actual conduct.)

    I don’t think a lawsuit against Google is the best way to go; I think the best way to deal with Google is to destroy its business with cheaper and better competition.

    Nevertheless, the idea that Google is a “private actor” is laughable, and the sooner people realize that, the better. Google does the bidding of the US government in most respects that matter.

    1. “I don’t think a lawsuit against Google is the best way to go; I think the best way to deal with Google is to destroy its business with cheaper and better competition.”

      I approve of this message!!! Way to go!!!

      1. Exactly.
        You want to get back at Google, develop some bots to help you destroy them.

        But, if Google can pick and choose whom they serve, why can’t a citizen do so, e.g. Donald Trump? Unless he issues executive orders through Twitter, he should be able to do as he pleases.

      2. I approve of this message!!! Way to go!!!

        I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

        1. Hes wrong in this case as platforms can kill competitors, as google has done often with buy and kills.

      3. I would approve of you learning one fucking thing for once and realize the majority of the DoJ antitrust suit is based on buy and kills of competitors, which for decades libertarians have agreed with. But you’re ignorant, so c’est la vie.

    2. Google clearly is willing to get political. And this is where the problem begins.

      Same with youtube who consistently play demonetization games with content creators including Prager U.

      1. Google owns YouTube. Same entity,

    3. Noyb2, I would agree. Except for the problem that we have banks getting in on this. People deemed “hateful” by social media have had their bank accounts closed. Attempts at creating competition, such as Gab, have been smeared as essentially terrorists, to the point that they cannot even function in the realm of business.

      Now, this arguably falls into tortuous interference and anti-monopoly laws. However, that brings us right back to the law courts where we started.

      1. I’m not saying that it’s good, I’m saying that trying to bring lawsuits against Google is pointless. Google and banks are effectively operating the way government wants them to operate; government is not going to enforce any judgments against them that changes their behavior.

        The way to deal with Google and banks is to come up with better private alternatives that are hard to hijack.

        1. The alternatives that both companies mentioned actively utilize buy and kills on competitors.

    4. “Private actors” exist in free markets; we don’t live in a free market. Given the number of regulations and legal constraints Google is under, it is not a private actor; that is, the government can determine what Google does and does not publish and force Google to deliver the private data of its users to the government.

      Since government regulates Google in some ways, therefore the government may regulate Google in all ways. Brilliant!

      1. JFC not only did you miss the point, your bitchy 14 year old girl reply got it exactly wrong.

      2. Since government regulates Google in some ways, therefore the government may regulatecontrols Google in all ways.

        There, I made it a little clearer. US government regulation is so strong that Google’s ability to operate depends on the benevolence of Congress and the federal bureaucracy. If Google displeases the powers-that-be, their business can be destroyed and their stock value sent plummeting. The same is true for banks.

        It’s a little easier to understand for banks too, since it’s been going on longer. All those risky “predatory” loans banks were making? Compelled by the government. All that debanking of pot-related businesses and sex-related businesses? Compelled by the government.

        1. So your argument, is that right now US government regulation is so heavy, that we’ve basically reached a fascist economy. Is that it?

          If that’s your argument, then wouldn’t the solution be to make it less fascist, instead of impose the fascism harder?

          1. So your argument, is that right now US government regulation is so heavy, that we’ve basically reached a fascist economy. Is that it?

            No, not a “fascist economy”, just some important sectors (banking, telecoms, healthcare) that are heavily controlled by the government.

            If that’s your argument, then wouldn’t the solution be to make it less fascist, instead of impose the fascism harder?

            How is pointing out that Google is not a private actor imposing anything on anyone? How is saying that looking to the government to rein in Google is pointless because Google has become a tool of government and that the market should destroy Google imposing anything on anyone?

    5. “I think the best way to deal with Google is to destroy its business with cheaper and better competition.”

      The issue with that is google operates youtube on a massive loss. It is always losing a fortune. That means competition needs to lose a fortune in order to compete. When you have a company that loses more in a month than most companies make in a year and you plan on losing even more for, well, forever, then how do you compete? Most other companies don’t have the other sources of income that Alphabet Inc has.
      Video hosting is not cheap and if the top company is losing money then how do you start up?
      Just remove section 230. Make people host their own videos. One may be able to have a website that aggregates the different sites all together. If the content is hosted by you then you should be responsible. That will clear up all of this mess.

      1. Just remove section 230.

        Yes, Section 230 should be killed. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to happen: Google and Facebook will lobby too hard, and both Democrats and Republicans like the status quo.

        The issue with that is google operates youtube on a massive loss. It is always losing a fortune. That means competition needs to lose a fortune in order to compete

        Only if you copy YouTube’s bad business model. You might go P2P instead or do something else clever.

        1. I thought about P2P, but even bitchute is slow for me and the quality is lacking. If it is like zeronet you could wind up hosting illegal content.
          With the way both parties are talking the only way I can see Google or Facebook keeping 230 as is would be by allowing a channel called Stormfront Kids. The left will protest it. It’s easier if Facebook became a private messenger service and YouTube became like Netflix.

          1. I thought about P2P, but even bitchute is slow for me and the quality is lacking.

            With faster and faster home Internet, that’s becoming less of an issue.

            If it is like zeronet you could wind up hosting illegal content.

            There are simple cryptographic solutions to that problem in which no participant ever hosts identifiable or attributable content.

            With the way both parties are talking the only way I can see Google or Facebook keeping 230

            We have an election season coming and Google has both propagandistic and monetary favors to hand out; I think they’ll buy enough politicians to keep Section 230.

    6. “I don’t think a lawsuit against Google is the best way to go; I think the best way to deal with Google is to destroy its business with cheaper and better competition.”

      Yeah, Gab tried that.

    7. I don’t think a lawsuit against Google is the best way to go; I think the best way to deal with Google is to destroy its business with cheaper and better competition.

      I don’t disagree but I also acknowledge two other very significant facts:
      1. I don’t get to decide for everyone. There are people who’ve been wronged by Google’s business practices and (should) have legal standing.
      2. The right to petition your government for redress of grievances exists in common law back to prehistoric times and is enshrined in the 1A. If there’s a legitimate function of government, its one of them. Moreover, much of the absolute bullshit that is touted as equality today is/was meant to be equality before the law in such cases. Specifically to prevent a Google from wholly usurping the power of any and all individuals.

  6. Google: Wearing diapers and sucking our thumbs proudly!

  7. Be careful when you run to the wolf to protect you from the fox.

  8. I suppose this is the Roundup. Happy Labor Day!

    Remarks against Antifa prompt FBI seizure of former Marine’s weapons under Oregon’s ‘red flag’ law

    Based on the court order, Kohfield – who served two tours of duty in Iraq — was committed to a veterans hospital for 20 days and was barred from participating in subsequent protests in Portland.

    1. You do realize America will lose that gun control fight, right?

      The 2A can only withstand so much.

  9. The practical outcomes will be interesting.

    Alphabet can be broken up, but Google is the cash cow which funds everything else, and it’s hard to imagine how you could break Google into functioning pieces.

    Facebook could be forced to split Instagram et all off again, but none of them would be improved.

    Twitter? Nothing to split off that I know of.

    Section 230 is probably doomed, but the idiots who want to doom it should pay attention to Napster and other examples. I doubt they will approve of what markets come up with afterwards.

    1. Fuck off SQRLSY. Everyone knows it is you.

    2. I have two …. fans? sock puppets? sock puppet outers? … now. Glory be!

      1. Yeah it’s such a total coincidence that you both show up to revisit this thread at the exact same time, sound the same, and make the exact same arguments across sockpuppets, show up in threads together and constantly agree with each other. Fuck nigga, I CAUGHT YOU mixing up your sockpuppets, and you are still so fucking pathetic that you think it isnt OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE LOLOLOL

        1. “if two people consistently agree with each other, the only possibility is that they’re the same person”

          Fuck off, Vin Diesel

          1. “If a sockpuppet paraphrases but it sowsnt look anyrhing like what someone actually said, it’s the same guy”

            Fuck off SQLRSY.

            1. Seek help. Really. You’re acting more deranged than usual.

              1. “Rando no one has ever heard of comes in to defend sockpuppets, expects people to believe he isn’t the same sockpuppet”

    1. Or Bing.

      I’m trying to ween myself of Google.

        1. Bing’s searches are as doctored as Google’s. I made the switch to DuckDuckGo and so far it’s better.

        2. Of works as well as off.

    2. Or Brave. Great on privacy.

  10. The Economist characterizing itself as ‘centre’ is specious. Been reading it since the 80s and had to stop in the early 2000s.

    It was once upon a time classical liberal, then liberal and now tends to lean left period.

    1. Same here. It was a fantastic weekly rag for a long time, but their continued drift into partisanship got to the point where there was nothing left between the lines, and the article selection itself left too much out.

    2. My experience with The Economist is much the same. They’ve gone well around the bend.

  11. I got “Prager University is propaganda.”

    1. My first result (in Canada) was….

      ‘Prager U is….garbage.’

      Hm. Hoo-kay then.

      1. First three results in and out of incognito mode:

        Prager University is not a university
        Prager University is wrong
        Prager University is garbage

      2. I tried “Prager University” in duckduckgo
        Got
        Its website
        YouTube channel
        Wikipedia entry
        Video section of its website
        Facebook page
        Twitter account
        then…
        How parager university is propagating climate misinformation
        Prager U – media bias/fact check
        “How factual are the videos made by Prager U?” Quora question
        Dennis Prager show website

        1. Auto complete suggestions were various websites where to find them, then
          Prager university climate change
          Prager university lawsuit
          Prager university location

  12. Geez, is everyone butt-hurt and blaming others for unfairness? When did this become the main thing?

    1. It started with Cain and Abel.

  13. I find the use of incognito mode to get different results interesting. It leaves open the possibility that google has set up incognito mode to be more even and fair, while anyone with anything but the most far right search profile will receive left leaning results. It is unfortunately no longer testable with Prager U as I’m certain any bias in this particular search would have been scrubbed as soon as it hit the news.

    1. I take it back, seems the results have not been scrubbed.

    2. “I find the use of incognito mode to get different results interesting.”

      Yes!!! The graphics (pics) on my web site will NOT update along with the text, in regular Google mode!!! (When I am on my own PC… Borrow someone else’s PC, and the refresh problem isn’t there, even in regular mode). They WILL (update on my own PC) in incognito mode!!! Google, frankly, is “buggy” here… No other way to put it!

      Use incognito mode on a regular basis is a pretty good idea…

    3. Wasn’t there a point where if you typed ‘inventors’ the results showed only black inventors?

      Does Google think people won’t notice?

      When I think Google I think little, illiterate, illiberal smart ass shits behind a desk. That’s my inner-search results.

      1. That’s an image search. If you type in “American doctors” , American inventors”, etc., you will get pages of African Americans. Someone explained this as an algorithm result of people searching for ‘African America —‘ but if that’s the case the algorithm needs serious work and shows how results can be skewed. If you enter white American inventors you get black inventors as well, and probably a hate crime designation at SPLC.

  14. “That implausibility is at least partially wrapped up in the fact that Google has not been restricting PragerU’s content on ideological grounds—at least not on its face. ”

    Are you really under the impression that it helps Google’s case when they blatantly lie abut the basis of their censorship in a court filing?

  15. Why is it that you always ignore demonetization and only focus on content restriction?

  16. “PragerU’s suit says that YouTube is essentially a “public forum” that should be subject to government intervention.”
    Reason fundamentally missed the point Google is getting protection from the government for liable and slander like all newspapers must follow because they are a platform. If google wants to create the speech then they are like anybody else responsible to make sure what they say is true.

    Instead unlike any other person, business, or corporation in America they can create or in this case stop speech they don’t like without proving the truth. If this is about Googles speech then they are editors not a platform and should be treated that way.

    The Libertarian view should be to treat them like everybody else and not give them platform protection.

    1. That’s not what section 230 says. There is only one condition for getting section 230 protection: the content has to be produced by a 3rd party. Furthermore, it explicitly says moderation does not introduce any liability.

      I have no idea how the idea came about that the law means the literal opposite of what it says, but a lot of people think that. Section 230 says simply that the creator of the content is the one liable.

  17. Whining, grievance-consumed, authoritarian clingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

    1. OBL is still a lot funner than you, RAKL. You really need to up your game.

  18. In reality, though, Google’s automated function considers trending topics and churns out suggestions accordingly.

    Mmmno.

    1. In reality,

      1) Google’s automated functions have provisions for manual “tweaking”, white and black lists.

      2) Anybody the least bit familiar with programming could tell you an algorithm can be biased if the programmer wants it to be biased.

      3) And we have more than one whistle-blower confirming that Google is rigging search results, not that anybody who does political searches on Google AND some other search engine needs the confirmation.

      1. First try ended up in “moderation.” Gonna repost with URLs separated instead

        Binion is clearly an idiot, and a really poor stenographer. Had he done any actual research on the topic he might have found presentations like these.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8

          1. TL:DW

            Google is heavily skewing it’s trending ‘algorithm’ to favor it’s chosen commercial partners. This is no secret, and hasn’t been a secret for years.

            Not that Binion bothered to notice.

      2. 2) Anybody the least bit familiar with programming could tell you an algorithm can be biased if the programmer wants it to be biased.

        Not being omniscient, the algorithms are biased even if the engineering team doesn’t want them to be. A large swath of the SJW industry is built around ‘fixing’ this ‘problem’.

  19. Hey, speaking of this, Dave Chapelle’s new Netflix special got a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.

  20. Prager’s a kind I’ve found fairly common in “conservative” circles: intellectually impressive, until he’s not.

    1. That sort is common in all circles.

  21. More evidence that Republicans are no longer conservative.

    The same PragerU that’s spamming my youtube with ads and then whining that youtube won’t give him access. Biggus Diccus.

    1. Youtube is the one spamming “your” Youtube.

      That’s how they make money.

  22. Google is trying to have it both ways. They use the wording of 230 to justify removing content from the right. Then they say “if you make us accountable, we will censor more.” I say than do it. If my daughter can’t see a video on the 10 commandments, but can watch thousands of hours of videos telling her that if she is “uncomfortable” in her body, she’s really a boy……. and those videos celebrate a kids “right” to self-mutilation and destroying their God-given bodies and ability to pro-create, then Google IS morally, and should be legally liable. Either put it all out there and believe in personal responsibility, or restrict whatever you want, and take in the liability of a publisher for your choice. But if you make your platform a propaganda machine that tells my kids that if they don’t fit into tiny boxes of gender identity they should destroy their bodies, or that there is no nuance or complexity to killing babies, or that religion and faith are evil, that all men are abusers, that family and community relics of the past, that love and inclusion only applies if you place “I believe” above fact and truth, and all the other coco puffs nonsense that is equally harmful, yet not censored, then take responsibility for it. Either it’s my job as a parent to restrict their access, or it’s your job as a publisher. But you can’t have a restricted mode that restricts content to any one ideology. I’d say the same if Google was right-wing. And I say this as a 37 year old women with a master’s degree who definitely falls into the category of I did not leave the left, the left left me.

  23. Story: Large, powerful entities are anti-liberty and silence pro-liberty messages.

    Libertarian response: “They’re allowed to do that! Nothing to see here!”

  24. use DuckDuckGo to search “youtube alternatives 2019”

    We have got to stop supporting the Google monopoly.

Please to post comments