Project Veritas releases Google email, Shapiro, Prager, Peterson referenced

[DanishLutheran]

They promote fascist ideology though.

No. They don't. Not unless you change the meaning of "fascist" away from its actual meaning and into "anything I disagree with"

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

Ben Shapiro on being labeled a Nazi (4 minutes)

 

[tall73]

A question that I'm not sure I know the answer to exactly, but:

Who would Prager and Shapiro dislike more? Me a liberal Jew (who Ben would call an "ethnic Jew") who is a social Democrat or someone like Richard Spencer, a person who pushes for a white ethnostate? I suspect me.

Seeing as they would not include him in a white ethnostate and the type of folks Spencer appeals to were arrested for death threats against him...I think that is obvious.

He doesn't have much great to say about ethnic Jews. But I don't think you are at death threat level.

 

[tall73]

Did Benjamin go off the rails?

I don't generally watch his content, but that is what some folks said about the situation. I am not for censorship, but it doesn't mean I want to watch it all either.

 

[tall73]

Why would that matter? Are we treating you-tube and the internet at large like a public utility now?

Because I don't remember that particular law or debate.

You also seem to be assuming that you can program an algorithm or AI to simply do what you want ideologically. I am not sure that is true.

They operate as a platform under the communications decency act section 230. To me it does not as clearly spell out the provisions as it could. Though many allege that it requires non discrimination along political lines as they are acting as the host for user posted content, rather than an editorial publisher.

They key provision providing liability protection is the following:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


So yes, they enjoy some liability protections, and some good samaritan ability edit out nudity, etc. However some representatives seem to be indicating that the nature of ta platform was that they were not supposed to be making editorial decisions on content by political viewpoint, because that would then make them the speaker, which would strip those protections.

That is why yesterday during testimony before the senate Ted Cruz again asked them if they operate as a platform, which they said they did, and they said they do not discriminate based on political views.

 

[variant]

That is why yesterday during testimony before the senate Ted Cruz again asked them if they operate as a platform, which they said they did, and they said they do not discriminate based on political views.

They clearly do discriminate based upon some views, so this might not be an issue of them thinking those views are "political" but rather just a basic violation of their terms of service.

Acting as a platform does not in any way require that that platform host extremist and discriminatory viewpoints so I think your reading of that law is simply incorrect.

They do not have editorial control simply because they censor something, because they obviously can't control everything that goes on the platform, to be liable.

Nor can we take the position that they should not censor anything, because that would make their business completely unworkable.

 

[tall73]

They clearly do discriminate based upon some views, so this might not be an issue of them thinking those views are "political" but rather just a basic violation of their terms of service.

Acting as a platform does not in any way require that that platform host extremist and discriminatory viewpoints so I think your reading of that law is simply incorrect.

It is not my reading. It was the reading during the hearing yesterday in the Senate. And it was part of Senator Hawley's proposed bill, in which he proposes a means to see whether they are in fact acting in a neutral fashion.

 

[variant]

It is not my reading. It was the reading during the hearing yesterday in the Senate. And it was part of Senator Hawley's proposed bill, in which he proposes a means to see whether they are in fact acting in a neutral fashion.

They can't be neutral to all ideas, that is hogwash.

 

[tall73]

They can't be neutral to all ideas, that is hogwash.

The Google employee claims to be a neutral platform, etc. in the senate Testimony.

However, after some more research, I think that lawmakers are not being completely forthcoming. I know, that is a shock. They seem to be making the argument of the intent of 230, but that doesn't seem to add up in the actual text of the bill. And it certainly doesn't line up with recent case rulings.

Based on some law blogs I am reading I think their current reading of the bill is incorrect. Law suits centered around section 230 arguments against censorship have not been upheld, so unless the new bill by Hawley passes, or some other bill that specifically requires them to be neutral content platforms, I don't think much will change.

 

[tall73]

This blog in particular goes through various cases and shows that courts are basically uniformly siding with social media companies in cases involving removal of content, banning, etc. even if there is an argument the company violated its own user agreement.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

So it seems the courts are interpreting the good samaritan rights to remove offending content quite broadly.

 

[variant]

The Google employee claims to be a neutral platform, etc. in the senate Testimony.

However, after some more research, I think that lawmakers are not being completely forthcoming. I know, that is a shock. They seem to be making the argument of the intent of 230, but that doesn't seem to add up in the actual text of the bill. And it certainly doesn't line up with recent case rulings.

Based on some law blogs I am reading I think their current reading of the bill is incorrect. Law suits centered around section 230 arguments against censorship have not been upheld, so unless the new bill by Hawley passes, or some other bill that specifically requires them to be neutral content platforms, I don't think much will change.

They are simply asking for something that no one could reasonably provide. A catch 22 if you will.

It's simply impossible to remain completely neutral from every perspective and still retain the rights to remove offensive or even dangerous content.

 

[KCfromNC]

They have been demonetizing videos on his channel based on AI etc. for some time.

All this just because some talking head can't make as much money using someone else's web site as he did before?

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem again is Youtubes ongoing removal of content based on ideology or political speech even though they are a platform enjoying liability protections on that basis.

I get that this is the spin, but I'm not seeing it from the emails mentioned in the OP.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is another example of how Youtube could help themselves a lot if they just gave more details about changes to the algorithm so content creators know what to expect and understand the rationale.

Assuming they have the information (AIs are sometimes pretty opaque) why would they give people tools to game the system?

 

[KCfromNC]

The only problem I see here is at least one software engineer at google jumping to at least one conclusion they probably should not have.

Given the lack of context, we have zero idea what data informed his conclusions. Given Veritas' previous behavior, I can imagine why they failed to release enough information to get an accurate picture.

 

[LoAmmi]

Seeing as they would not include him in a white ethnostate and the type of folks Spencer appeals to were arrested for death threats against him...I think that is obvious.

He doesn't have much great to say about ethnic Jews. But I don't think you are at death threat level.

An ethno state is a virtual impossibility, whereas shifting to ultraconservative policies is possible. Spencer and his ilk would support those ultraconservative policies whereas I wouldn't. Don't be so sure they wouldn't see me as more of the threat since liberal policies are also possible.

 

[tall73]

They are simply asking for something that no one could reasonably provide. A catch 22 if you will.

It's simply impossible to remain completely neutral from every perspective and still retain the rights to remove offensive or even dangerous content.

They all draw their own line, however. A site like bit chute in order to give more freedom of speech basically leaves up anything that is not illegal.

And while liability protections are large for these companies, things like child trafficking are an exception to the rule, as they can still be liable for not handling things like that.

 

[tall73]

I get that this is the spin, but I'm not seeing it from the emails mentioned in the OP.

This email is just one point of evidence. Youtube recently had a fairly open to the public purging of some videos, demonetization, etc. over the controversy with Louder with Crowder and his programming. Of course, that is another example of poor communication. They said initially he violated no guidelines, but then they still penalized some of his content.

And referring to people as Nazis who are not Nazis when they have been in a partnership agreement and making you quite a bit of money over time is not good business.

Assuming they have the information (AIs are sometimes pretty opaque) why would they give people tools to game the system?

Because they have a symbiotic relationship. Youtube is not profitable currently. But if they ever are to be it is because their creators are doing well, drawing views, and then they can bring advertisers to the table.

Since this move was partly to avoid problems and bad press, and therefore to help retain advertisers, then it makes sense to let their creaters in partnership agreements know so they can tailor their content to what Youtube wants in regard to length, production standards, etc. And it is helpful for creators to not think this move was a censorship move, but rather a workaround to still promote but not expose people to more extreme content. Whether creators agreed with it or not, explaining once in a press release would make more sense than fielding tons of suspicious questions later.

Various changes overtime have occurred to the algorithm, and without a doubt people adjust to that. But that is not a bad thing, or just gaming. It is a way for both the creators and Youtube to get on the same page to help maximize revenue. Both Youtube and the creator make money off of the ads.

So at times Youtube has promoted more frequent contributors, others times it has rewarded duration of watching, even if less frequent etc. Though they rarely announce these things. If they just told people what they were doing then people could adjust to that, and no conspiracies would be needed that Youtube is trying to do everything for nefarious reasons. They spend more time fielding questions when they are not upfront as well, and the sheer volume of content is already so large that it is hard to keep up with. That is part of the reason they use AI so much, the amount of content is beyond the scope of human staff to review.

Now some think, and there is reason to believe this, that Youtube intentionally wants to reduce its partnerships and focus only on a few high quality creators for advertisers that are safe. And of course they are venturing into cable type streaming services as well.

While this could wind up working, a lot of the people who go to youtube do so because they are fine with less polished content as long as it is not over produced, corporate controlled material.

 

[tall73]

Given the lack of context, we have zero idea what data informed his conclusions. Given Veritas' previous behavior, I can imagine why they failed to release enough information to get an accurate picture.

There should be more context. But I cannot see any context that would justify calling those three Nazis.

 

[tall73]

An ethno state is a virtual impossibility, whereas shifting to ultraconservative policies is possible. Spencer and his ilk would support those ultraconservative policies whereas I wouldn't. Don't be so sure they wouldn't see me as more of the threat since liberal policies are also possible.

I agree that forming a white ethnostate would be virtually impossible. But as we have seen violence in the present by those who favor it is very possible.