WHAT ABOUT CENSORSHIP AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Regulating the Internet: A Dangerous Trend for Free Speech
The First Amendment is facing a new threat in state legislatures. A spate of bills that would regulate political and issue advertising on the Internet are jeopardizing free speech.
Promoted under the guise of “transparency” or as a response to foreign meddling in U.S. elections, these complicated proposals can be difficult to understand – and even harder to follow. If successful, the end result will be a less vibrant democracy as Americans who fear for their privacy in these polarized times choose silence. Fortunately, the reasons to oppose restrictions on Internet speech are simple and straightforward.
Promoted under the guise of “transparency” or as a response to foreign meddling in U.S. elections, these complicated proposals can be difficult to understand – and even harder to follow. If successful, the end result will be a less vibrant democracy as Americans who fear for their privacy in these polarized times choose silence. Fortunately, the reasons to oppose restrictions on Internet speech are simple and straightforward.
Reasons to Preserve Free Speech on the Internet
1) The Internet is an Empowering Force for Democracy. Social media has empowered grassroots movements of all political stripes in America. The Internet connects citizens across locations, creates platforms for new voices, and provides voters with access to information about government and campaigns. These activities enhance and invigorate our democracy.2) Regulation Chills Speech. Complex laws and the threat of hefty fines deter Americans from exercising their right to speak, publish, and organize into groups. The deterrent effect is strongest in grassroots groups whose opinions lie in the minority. These regulations are especially damaging for cash-strapped groups that rely on the Internet to reach a mass audience.
3) Regulation Stifles Innovation. Americans’ Internet use is constantly evolving. The government should not stifle technological innovations with stringent regulations. Some Internet speech laws have already proven too complex for even the largest platforms. For example, regulations imposed in 2018 governing online ads in Maryland and Washington led Google too, at least temporarily, stop accepting political ads in those states.
4) Different Media Call for Different Rules. The interactive nature of the Internet makes it easy for users to find information about an advertiser. As a result, less information is needed on the face of disclaimers for online ads than ads placed on other media. Another difference is that Internet ads can be shorter and smaller than television or radio ads. Accordingly, they often need shorter disclaimers and more flexible requirements.
5) Internet Speech Reaches Large Audiences at Low Cost. The Internet offers groups of everyday Americans the ability to promote their views without paying for an expensive television advertising campaign. Targeting options allow speakers to reach an audience more efficiently. As a result, Internet speech is often more cost-effective than other media.
6) Most States Already Regulate Online Political Activity – and Prohibit Foreign Interference. Foreigners are widely prohibited from participating in U.S. campaigns. In addition, most states already regulate Internet ads by candidates and political committees. Expanding these laws, or passing new ones, is unnecessary and imposes regulatory burdens on groups that are often ill-equipped to comply with them.
***********
Leaked Google Document Reveals Shift to Suppressing Free Speech
The briefing matter-of-factly notes that global internet freedoms have gone downhill for the past seven years. Users now question celebrating the openness of the internet. “People are no longer willing to see the platforms as neutral mediators of social life.”
Several news sources are quoted calling for the big tech giants to be treated as media companies due to the increasing censorship. So far, big tech has rejected the label in order to retain their immunity from liability. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that tech firms have legal immunity for the majority of the content posted on their platforms. This is unlike ‘traditional’ media outlets. But, the report notes, “more people are asking, isn’t ‘big tech’ really ‘big media’ in disguise?”
Google’s Principles for Determining the Right Amount of Censorship
Be more consistent.
Don’t take sides.
Police tone instead of content.
Be more transparent.
Enforce standards and policies clearly.
Justify global positions.
Explain the technology.
Be more responsive.
Improve communications.
Take problems seriously.
Be more empowering.
Positive guidelines.
Better signposts.
Don’t take sides.
Police tone instead of content.
Be more transparent.
Enforce standards and policies clearly.
Justify global positions.
Explain the technology.
Be more responsive.
Improve communications.
Take problems seriously.
Be more empowering.
Positive guidelines.
Better signposts.
The briefing cites “breeding conspiracy theories” as one of the reasons for the censorship. What example does it offer? President Trump’s claim that “Google’s search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton.”
Isn’t this a conspiracy theory? No. Robert Epstein, a behavioral psychologist who supported Hillary Clinton, found it was true. His research determined that Google favored Clinton over Trump during the election.
Gradual Steps
The briefing notes the tech giants’ first partial steps to censorship. They hurt the target without actually removing particular statements. Twitter removes the verified blue check from those who violate its policies. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube briefly suspend accounts. YouTube demonetizes videos.
But they also indulge in full banning. Google banned ads about guns and ads from payday lenders. YouTube increased the number of people on the lookout to ban content to more than 10,000.
The briefing notes that tech firms are forming a balancing act between two incompatible positions. On the one hand, they are trying to create “unmediated ‘marketplaces of ideas’ in the American tradition.” On the other hand, they want to create “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility in the European tradition.”
The American tradition prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility. It creates space to debate all values. Even civility norms can be debated. The European tradition favors dignity over liberty. It values civility over freedom. It censors racial and religious hatred — even where there is no threat of violence.
The briefing notes the tech giants’ first partial steps to censorship. They hurt the target without actually removing particular statements. Twitter removes the verified blue check from those who violate its policies. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube briefly suspend accounts. YouTube demonetizes videos.
But they also indulge in full banning. Google banned ads about guns and ads from payday lenders. YouTube increased the number of people on the lookout to ban content to more than 10,000.
The briefing notes that tech firms are forming a balancing act between two incompatible positions. On the one hand, they are trying to create “unmediated ‘marketplaces of ideas’ in the American tradition.” On the other hand, they want to create “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility in the European tradition.”
The American tradition prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility. It creates space to debate all values. Even civility norms can be debated. The European tradition favors dignity over liberty. It values civility over freedom. It censors racial and religious hatred — even where there is no threat of violence.
Free Speech Now Private?
The document quotes Kalev Leetaru, an American internet entrepreneur who writes about data and society. He says that we no longer think of censorship in terms of government. Now, private companies control whether your speech stays up or goes down.
The briefing goes over the reasons why this shift is taking place. One is to appease users and stop bad behavior. Another is in response to government regulations. A third reason is to protect advertisers from the content they may not like.
This new position as ‘moderator in chief’ has been coming for some time. Leetaru says the internet is evolving into a “corporate-controlled moderated medium.”
Franklin Foer, a staff writer at The Atlantic and, admits there is a problem. The former editor of the liberal flagship The New Republic says, “We do know that journalism, activism, and public debate are being silenced in the effort to stamp out extremist speech.”
This new position as ‘moderator in chief’ has been coming for some time. Leetaru says the internet is evolving into a “corporate-controlled moderated medium.”
Franklin Foer, a staff writer at The Atlantic and, admits there is a problem. The former editor of the liberal flagship The New Republic says, “We do know that journalism, activism, and public debate are being silenced in the effort to stamp out extremist speech.”
Balancing Act
The briefing observes, “The balancing act between ‘free-for-all’ and ‘civil-for-most’ is proving difficult.” It ends with principles for finding the right amount of censorship. One is to justify global positions of agreeing to censorship in other countries. Another is to provide positive guidelines. The tech giants should give people positive guidance on how to behave on the platform — not only tell them how not to act.
It may sound reasonable. But it suffers a big problem. Who decides what is abuse, harassment, and hate speech? What one person considers conservative speech, another person may think abusive or hateful. This has taken place all too many times already.
The tech giants are beginning to control who can say what. Who elected the tech giants to decide what free speech is allowed?
It may sound reasonable. But it suffers a big problem. Who decides what is abuse, harassment, and hate speech? What one person considers conservative speech, another person may think abusive or hateful. This has taken place all too many times already.
The tech giants are beginning to control who can say what. Who elected the tech giants to decide what free speech is allowed?
Those Who Don't Know The True Value Of Loyalty Can Never Appreciate The Cost Of Betrayal.
GUEST POSTING: WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE PUBLISHED ... DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON YOUR MIND?
Knowledge Is Power - Information Is Liberating: The LIBERTY TREE & FRIENDS is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.
Big Tech has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share with your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you
Please share… Like many other fact-oriented bloggers, we've been exiled from Facebook as well as other "mainstream" social sites.
We will continue to search for alternative sites, some of which have already been compromised, in order to deliver our message and urge all of those who want facts, not spin and/or censorship, to do so as well.
Keep on seeking the truth, rally your friends and family and expose as much corruption as you can… every little bit helps add pressure on the powers that are no more.
No comments:
Post a Comment