
Tech watchdogs call on Facebook, Google for transparency around censored content - cfadvan
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/07/santa-clara-principles-eff-cdt-aclu-facebook-google-twitter/
======
akshayB
There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the
nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect
solution to this problem.

Example - If anyone shares gun videos on social network from a place where
carrying guns is a normal practice it may not get censored that quickly or may
not even get reported. This is because people feel it is very normal or part
of their location specific culture. While on other end someone who maybe
coming from an entirely different place or culture may find this offensive or
a safety issue.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit
into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Is it considered
justified because a certain portion of the population believes gun ownership
shouldn't be a human right? If it is socially acceptable (ie. not specifically
discussing "legal" or "good for business") to remove some kind of content
because people don't agree with one part of the U.S. Constitution, what's to
prevent the same logic from blocking other type of videos relating to human
rights (such as videos promoting data privacy via VPN usage - because you
know, child pornographers and terrorists do that)?

The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy.

~~~
ucaetano
> a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right?

Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right", it wouldn't mean
that everyone must be forced to allow you to speak your mind about this.

The 2nd amendment isn't "right to bear arms and post videos on YT about it",
and "talking about weapons" isn't a protected class.

xkcd "showing the door" strip applies:

[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
stcredzero
_Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right"_

Self defense and self determination are human rights.

 _xkcd "showing the door" strip applies_

That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. For a
society to work well, the letter of the law should be a minimum safety net.
Someone assiduously supporting free speech only to the letter of the law is
like someone assiduously being non-racist only to the letter of the law. As
someone who grew up in a "hypo-minority" situation, let me tell you that
people being non-racist only to the letter of the law can be pretty darned
obnoxious.

The future belongs to societies which can support a real marketplace of ideas.
It's substantive testing of ideas which brings progress and creates wealth. If
a society has to resort to oppression/force/intimidation to enforce its ideas,
then it is effectively admitting it has lost to everyone but itself. The
history of the 20th century shows this very clearly.

It's repression and intellectual dishonesty which is the problem, and which
creates the distrust that fuels the worst toxic extremists. It's this kind of
extra-legal social repression that people once tried to use to keep
homosexuals closeted and Jewish people out of the halls of power and
influence. The future doesn't belong to merely those who can muster more
force. It belongs to those who can muster the best principles.

~~~
sheepmullet
> That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done.

It's consistently misapplied.

In the US we believe certain rights are inalienable and we should protect
those rights.

Every time that xkcd strip gets posted people treat it like it's a
conversation ender - but all it is saying is people don't have to roll over
for assholes.

Here the clear assholes are Google and Facebook.

~~~
stcredzero
_Every time that xkcd strip gets posted people treat it like it 's a
conversation ender - but all it is saying is people don't have to roll over
for assholes._

Really? The way I see it used most often, I see it as a call to have a soft
totalitarianism of social media mediated social approval. That's not the kind
of society I want, and it's not a free society. When the mainstream of society
was homophobic, a soft totalitarianism of social approval was one of the major
forms that oppression took.

Don't confuse, "don't have to roll over for assholes," with, "it's my duty to
be an asshole." No, either way, it's just being an asshole. In a free society,
we should have the right to be an asshole, but in a great society, the
majority of people should be convinced that being excellent to one and all is
where it's at. Likewise, no country should roll over to military aggressors,
but that shouldn't be conflated with some notion that it's then one country's
duty to preempt all other military aggression by conquering everyone.

It's the live and let live society which is the best.

~~~
ucaetano
> Really? The way I see it used most often, I see it as a call to have a soft
> totalitarianism of social media mediated social approval.

Not the way I'm using, and it doesn't even have to do with social media. A TV
station doesn't have to show "all content", and a local Alcoholics Anonymous
doesn't have to accept someone who keeps telling others to drink alcohol.

A "vegan discussion" community doesn't have to allow speech of someone
advocating for meat consumption, and a "holocaust survivors" community doesn't
have to accept speech from a denier.

Private communities and forums are free to set their content policies. Saying
"no discussions about how to make guns" is a content policy as any other.

> In a free society, we should have the right to be an asshole

Oh, you have the right to be an asshole, and I defend that. But that right
doesn't mean that people can't show you the door from their private space.

I could see an argument saying that social networks and YT are equivalent to a
public square or any other public space. I don't agree with that, but that
would be a reasonable argument.

But even then, public spaces still have rules and ordinances on what you can
and can't do.

~~~
stcredzero
_Not the way I 'm using, and it doesn't even have to do with social media. A
TV station doesn't have to show "all content", and a local Alcoholics
Anonymous doesn't have to accept someone who keeps telling others to drink
alcohol._

What if the top TV manufacturer started to use their position to interfere
with the viewing of "liberal" content? What if there were other TV
manufacturers, but the others only accounted for less than 10% of the supply,
and due to network effects and exclusivity deals, it was impossible for anyone
to make a living making content for the other 10% of TVs? Monopolies are bad,
and what constitutes a monopoly changes with technology.

 _But that right doesn 't mean that people can't show you the door from their
private space._

Sure. But how far should "showing you the door" go? It seems to me that the
ethos of many of us in Bay Area companies would be to segregate those they
would classify as wrong-thinkers to less desirable neighborhoods, kick them
out of the choicest avenues for commerce and networking, and to deny them the
best that society can provide. That's basically the same kind of behavior that
"mainstream" people used to apply towards homosexuals, black people, people of
my own ethnic group, the polyamorous, pagans, Jewish people, etc. The left
rightfully points out the injustice of marginalizing people from public life
based on inherent characteristics. The left also used to call out
marginalizing people based on their private life choices that affect no-one.
But when it comes to politics, all of a sudden, they are right and empowered
to basically do the same thing, regarding politics, "for justice?" No, that
stinks to high heaven like the corruption that power brings.

So yes, private parties are allowed to do that with their own property. But
the long arc of history shows, that it's the magnanimous people who are the
harbingers of the future and a better world. It's the people who get power
then decide it's time to wreak revenge who turn out to be the villains. In the
end, it's the better way of doing things which wins out over coercion. In the
end, truth will come out, and the better way will sell itself.

 _I could see an argument saying that social networks and YT are equivalent to
a public square or any other public space._

Also note that what constitutes "private" has changed, based on technology. It
used to be that the sky over your property belonged to you for infinite
distance. Then a farmer tried to get a court to make all of the airplane
operators pay him a toll, and the law changed to accommodate progress. What
if, in the early days of telephone, the operators decided that people of your
sexual orientation should be "shown the door," and they started to make it
harder for you to call or for people to call you based on how you used their
private network? What if they gave a special ring only to those with
orientations they approved of, and a different ring to people they didn't
approve of? None of that would strike me as at all fair and just, but prior to
wiretap laws, your argument would have justified all of that. Wiretaps are now
illegal, but wire-based communications existed before the wiretap laws were
written. The phone network is now something somewhat public that all parties
have legal access to. Technology changes the social landscape, which
necessitates changes in the law.

In the end, it's the live and let live society that most quickly finds the
truth, makes the most money, and generates the most human happiness and
progress.

~~~
ucaetano
You used several different analogies, that would result in very different
outcomes for an online community. Which one do you think online communities
should be classified as?

\- TV makers?

\- Telephone companies?

\- Public squares?

\- Private forums?

~~~
stcredzero
Analogies are just analogies. Online communities are their own thing. Also, my
analogies act to highlight the _morality_ of what companies are doing, which
you are evidently disturbed by.

Where people have reach, and you actively degrade that reach after the fact,
the action is immorally censorious. Where an audience seeks a particular
message, and where another party seeks to deny their access, particularly
through underhanded and non-transparent means, the action is immorally
censorious. I suspect you just find those actions desirable because they are
(for now) aimed at your ideological opponents.

~~~
ucaetano
> Also, my analogies act to highlight the morality of what companies are
> doing, which you are evidently disturbed by.

You're basing your arguments on your own private morals. Your argument is
essentially "this is wrong, because I think it is wrong".

Do you think we should pass a law forcing every online community to not have
content guidelines?

If no, leave your morals out of it.

> I suspect you just find those actions desirable because they are (for now)
> aimed at your ideological opponents.

Wrong, but funny that you're trying to discuss my reasons, and not my
arguments.

~~~
stcredzero
_Wrong, but funny that you 're trying to discuss my reasons, and not my
arguments._

No. Nefarious motivations, such as a desire to exert power by controlling
discourse, can be judged by actions, and they should be considered in terms of
the kind of future they can bring about. It's well and good to judge someone's
credibility with regards to talking about human rights, by observing what they
would do with human rights.

 _Your argument is essentially "this is wrong, because I think it is wrong"._

No. Squashing free speech _in effect_ is dangerous, because it's through
speech and discourse that a society such as the present one can avoid
bloodshed. It is wrong because it is dangerous. It is wrong because it is
against a human right, which under-girds all other human rights. Those who are
motivated by power, for which rights can be sacrificed, have a very bad
historical record.

~~~
ucaetano
"Squashing free speech in effect is dangerous"

Sure, but limiting speech in your private forum isn't squashing free speech.

Unless your definition of free speech is being able to say whatever you want
whenever and wherever you want with absolutely no consequences from anyone.

Not inviting a friend for lunch because of their annoying Taylor Swift
obsession is, by that definition, squashing free speech.

~~~
stcredzero
_Sure, but limiting speech in your private forum isn 't squashing free
speech._

Unless you have effective monopoly control over what constitutes the only
viable platform for a particular medium. It's entirely disingenuous to claim
that YouTube is now simply a "private forum." What if Amazon declared that
black people couldn't sell on their "private" infrastructure. Would that
really seem fair?

 _Not inviting a friend for lunch because of their annoying Taylor Swift
obsession is, by that definition, squashing free speech._

No, the proper analogy would be the de-platforming and demonetization of
Taylor Swift and her fandom through underhanded and non-transparent means.

------
AlexB138
I've been thinking about the concept of censorship by tech companies lately,
and I've come to a question I'm not sure the answer to. Ethically, why is
society ok with forcing a company to provide a service they find morally
reprehensible, for instance the baker who was sued for refusing to make a
wedding cake for a gay couple, and at the same time we argue that YouTube has
a right to refuse to provide a service to customers because of the content of
their videos?

It strikes me as incompatible. It seems we ought to either believe companies
are legally required to provide their service to all comers or they're not.

~~~
azernik
> It seems we ought to either believe companies are legally required to
> provide their service to all comers or they're not.

This is a false dichotomy. The law doesn't see "all comers" as equal;
specifically, there are what's called "protected classes" in United States
civil rights law. Businesses (and individuals while conducting certain kinds
of business) are not allowed to discriminate on certain bases (e.g. race,
religion, veteran status), but they _are_ allowed to discriminate on others.

The issue where the wedding bakers' case was interesting was that it pit two
values against each other - in one sense it was discrimination against a
protected class (sexual orientation can be a protected class, depending on
state law and interpretation of federal law), and in another it was compelling
_speech_ (again, depending on your interpretation of "speech") that had
religious implications.

Reddit, on the other hand, is not acting against a protected class by banning
e.g. /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/whiterights, or /r/incels. If the managements'
ethics or customer backlash prompts them to, they can ban away. In some cases,
if speech might be illegal in some ways (e.g. incitement to violence,
harassment, or copyright infringement (yes, the fact that _that_ is on the
list is a bit ridiculous)) they are legally _obligated_ to remove it.

~~~
humanrebar
> The law doesn't see "all comers" as equal

AlexB138 was asking whether are laws are ethical, not whether the laws were
legal. Describing the laws in more detail doesn't really resolve the tension.

In other words, why are some classes protected while others aren't? Is there a
principle that we should be applying impartially (as in Rawlsian justice)?

~~~
bilbo0s
"why are some classes protected while others aren't?"

Let's be frank, a lot of the times, the idea of "protected classes" arises
from the problems incurred by NOT protecting them. If something will cause
problems in society, I think governments will tend to consider that thing with
a great deal of care and caution. That said, your point is still well taken.
We can see the problems that, for instance, having slavery caused in terms of
bloodshed. It's more difficult to see the problems caused by, taking the
original example, not making wedding cakes for the LGBTQ community?

So those laws are, at times, UNQUESTIONABLY ethical. I think it would be
difficult to argue against the ethical foundation of the idea that in some
cases, (again, slavery, Jim Crow, etc), protected class status is pretty good
policy. (Certainly preferable to slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) The questions arise
more when the stakes don't seem quite as high to the average person. (Taking
from AlexB138's comment, the example of wedding cakes for instance.)

Maybe "protected class" is simply an idea that developed via "scope creep"
over time? It starts out with everyone, quite rightly, saying "we're going to
enshrine the rights of enslaved people into the Constitution so they can never
again be assailed or threatened." But it develops over time into, "Well, you
did it for blacks or women or whatever. So why not for nazis and pedophiles?"
What you need to realize though, is that the average person, myself included,
is going to think that is an extremely silly argument. Blacks and women, are
not the same as nazis and pedophiles. Even if it's simply for the sake of
making your argument, people will have a hard time with that equivalence being
drawn.

~~~
lopmotr
I think a class gets protected when it's powerful enough to have popular
support to demand that. The examples of Nazis and peadophiles show that it's
not really a fundamental principal - Nazism is an ideology, much like a
religion so shouldn't it get the same protection as religions? Peadophilia is
a sexuality so shouldn't it be protected just like any other. Maybe it already
is?

~~~
apatters
Well maybe religions should receive the same protections as Nazism, which is
to say, not many beyond those which are provided for free expression in
general.

Pedophilia is a special case versus other sexualities because pedophilic sex
acts are criminal acts. Sure you can argue that all laws ultimately reflect
common societal values which do change, but the justification for
criminalizing pedophilia has some awfully deep roots -- namely in the idea
that minors are incapable of certain types of consent, rendering pedophilia a
form of assault.

~~~
lopmotr
Back in the day, one of the reasons people didn't like gay men was because
they might molest their children. Eventually people realized that not all gays
are child molesters, and now that association is gone. But the same
misjudgment still exists, only it's been concentrated on an even narrower
minority - peadophiles. I would expect the vast majority have never molested a
child because it's such a difficult, risky, and cruel thing to do. Your
immediate association of attraction to children with abuse of children is
common but also a bigoted stereotype. We hardly know anything about
peadophiles because the only ones who are known are the criminals. Nobody else
can admit to such a preference without being persecuted. I think these are
people who are still in need of legal protection but they haven't managed to
achieve something like a gay rights movement to persuade people to stop hating
them.

------
pippy
The Santa Clara principles are already outdated. Most large sites use learning
algorithms to promote content that is advertiser friendly. So for example, if
advertisers on Youtube don't like the content you watch you'll be shown less
of it. This has massive implications for politics, communities, and news.

It also works the other way around. Content creators on youtube are feeling
the pressure of having their videos delisted. So they have to match their
content to what advertisers want to show. It's censorship by robot.

The Santa Clara principles are a great step in the right direction. But things
are getting harder, and more complicated.

~~~
thankthunk
It's funny how naive youtube content creators are. They complain about their
subs not getting their notifications and ask their subs to hit the
"notification bell" as if that is going to do anything. They don't realize
that youtube is being pressured into moving away from individual content
creators to corporate content. You don't see john oliver, jimmy kimmel or SNL
subs complaining about not getting their notifications.

HBO, ABC and NBC aren't just content creators. They are subsidiaries of large
corporations who are also some of the biggest ad spenders.

It's isn't by accident that john oliver, jimmy kimmel, SNL, etc are so heavily
promoted by youtube.

It's in youtube's interest to manipulate the notifications system so that when
john oliver releases a video, his views do well since he is advertiser
friendly with the corporate seal of approval. But in the long run, this could
be very bad for youtube as people's interest declines. It isn't corporate
content that brought people to youtube, it was local/individual content.

~~~
ihuman
> They complain about their subs not getting their notifications and ask their
> subs to hit the "notification bell" as if that is going to do anything

But that's the whole point of the notification bell. If you're subscribed, but
haven't rang the bell, the videos will be in your sub feed, and you might get
a notification. When you ring the bell and say you want notifications, you'll
get notifications for all videos.

They ask you to turn on notifications because that means you're more likely to
watch their video earlier than waiting to see it in your sub feed.

------
joshuaheard
There should be a fourth category of disclosure: namely, what types of
information are they censoring. Violent or obscene information would be an
obvious category. But what about political speech? Are they censoring
information favorable to a certain candidate? They need to be transparent
about their methodology of identifying censored content.

------
dzhiurgis
We support and encourage diversity.

Unless it’s thoughts, ideas or facts.

~~~
josefresco
... and then when we're criticized for it, we'll overcompensate and allow
outright propaganda, lies and fear-mongering.

------
throwaway5752
These actually seem like great ideas. I think in a world with far greater need
of private censorship than ever before, structure and transparency standards
are a great idea. I came into this with a chip on my should ready to dislike
it, read the 2 page pdf and it changed my mind.

The appeal process is the most likely part to cause have problems with
implementation, I suspect (possibly followed by attribution of the source of
the take down request in some jurisdictions).

------
ryandrake
It would be interesting to learn, for any major site, what percentage of
censorship activities result from 1. government action/regulation, 2. other
third party requests, and 3. from internal policy/moralizing. I have my
theories for the sites I use but it would be fascinating if these companies
were to disclose this info.

~~~
komali2
Don't government censorships usually come with a "say a word and you go to
jail" caveat? I thought that was the point of TOS canaries?

~~~
Zak
No, usually not. In countries that actually have legal jurisdiction to compel
Google/Youtube to censor things, it's usually to do with hate speech or
privacy laws. It's common to see notices about that on google search results
within European countries.

------
jacksmith21006
What I do not get is why Google keeps the content up on YouTube when they can
not get advertisers wanting to touch it?

In a weird way it is Google paying for the infrastructure and subsidizing such
content.

Would make far more sense to me if no advertisers pull the content and problem
solved.

------
otakucode
I imagine that similar to how Google keeps its search rankings particulars
secret to prevent gaming, they want to avoid being above-board about
censorship for similar reasons. Censorship is not the same as taking a stance
on an issue, it is destruction of the discussion itself. If they name what
they censor, that will only create more discussion of topics which they have
decided it is in their best interests to destroy.

They might also be concerned about similar 'gaming' with people pushing what
is allowed to be talked about right up to the line without crossing it. This
is a valid concern, because I will personally do this as aggressively as I am
able given the opportunity.

