
Google accused of ‘double standard’ for punishing publishers for user comments - hinchlt
https://sociable.co/business/senators-grill-google-exec-double-standard-punishing-publishers-user-comments/
======
qtplatypus
I am worried that US senators confuse 230’s protection from legal action which
some mystical barrier that protects you from all consequences.

It’s like the people who claim that moderation infringes on free speech. “Not
running ads” is not the same as legal action.

------
ocdtrekkie
Ironically, if nobody but Google can benefit from Section 230 immunity,
because people must obey Google's content moderation rules in order to remain
viable in Search and Ads, then it's even more fuel to remove Section 230 to
level the playing field.

~~~
joshuamorton
[I work at Google, unrelated to Ads, I'm not a lawyer, views are my own,
_caveat emptor_ , etc.]

This pushes the limits of my section 230 knowledge, but I think you've got
this backwards. A company that wants to comply here needs Section 230 to
exist, a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section
230.

Section 230 immunity isn't necessary for things that are completely
unmoderated. If the comment sections are literally entirely unmoderated, they
fall under the pre-existing statute (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc).

However, if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could
be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.).
So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing
to exist avoids this problem.

~~~
WarOnPrivacy
> if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held
> liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So
> without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing
> to exist avoids this problem.

You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of
bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.

~~~
Nasrudith
The old guard Journalists tried to fabricate "techlash" out of thin air. They
are lying and showing themselves to be hypocrites. Look at the softballs given
to power and abusers but as soon as they see a scapegoat for their business
sucking the knives come out.

------
benjaminpkane
Legally, the playing field is even. The question is whether Google makes money
from hateful content posted by users on their platforms. And then the topic
indirection comes up.

This article avoids the distinction between law and economy at all costs
because it would invalidate its entire thesis. I am not convinced Google is
guilty of a double standard here.

~~~
true_religion
Legally you are right, but I think it's a congressional inquiry so lawmakers
are looking to see the flaws in the laws application in real life.

If there are flaws, then it needs to be patched or abandoned.

------
floatingatoll
This post is a poorly disguised argument that racist speech does not create
hostile environments for non-racists, and misapplies one aspect of Section 230
while ignoring another that counters their own argument.

Section 230 explicit grants Google, and publishers, the authority to restrict
speech when it is offensive:

> _(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
> availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene,
> lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
> objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected_

Racism is offensive content under these terms. If the publishers do not
exercise their Section 230 rights to deny service to racist content and the
racists that post it, Google will exercise their Section 230 rights to deny
service — to restrict their 'banner ad' dialect^ of speech — to racist content
and the sites that contain it.

To cut off the usual replies that try to invoke 'free speech' and 'but what
about an unrelated example that doesn't include hate speech':

Racism is hate speech, and hate speech is not a form of protected speech. The
only slippery slope to be considered here is 'what is considered hate
speech?'. Racism is, unquestionably, hate speech. There is no slippery slope
for racist speech. It's already at the bottom of the pit.

If this article were about content _other_ than hate speech, it would be
interesting. As it stands, it's just 'we shouldn't demonize racism' in the
usual 'first amendment' style of overcoat.

Dissecting the article in specific, I find:

> _Google threatened to demonetize The Federalist news outlet on the grounds
> that readers were leaving “racist” comments that advertisers didn’t want to
> be associated with._

Google threatened to withdraw service from a news outlet over racist user
comments.

> _The Federalist was targeted only because of its readers’ comments_

Google was reacting only to the racist comments and not to the content
published by the site operators themselves.

> _the alternatives were to either ban comments altogether, moderate /censor
> them, or make them more difficult to access_

Google identifies several technical solutions, but then we have here this most
interesting appendix from "The Sociable" itself:

> _— all of which discourage real engagement_

This phrase suffix attempts to frame "take action against racist comments" as
"unrestricted speech is the only 'real' form of engagement". This is false.
Racist comments discourages real engagement. Discouraging racist comments
discourages racist engagement. Racist engagement is _not_ "real" engagement.
It's just racist engagement.

> _This means that publishers have to make their sites Google-friendly_

"The Sociable" would like to remind you that the issue here is that Google is
hostile to "racist comments" — yet, somehow, it's _not_ interesting to them
that a major news outlet, The Federalist, was found to have such a degree of
racism in their user comments that Google bothered to react at all.

^ Hieroglyphics and GIFs both prove that images are a form of speech. So,
then, are banner advertisements.

~~~
rbecker
> Racism is hate speech, and hate speech is not a form of protected speech.

You mean in the US? If so, which Supreme Court case are you basing this on?

Edit: As dextralt pointed out, I ask not because I expect HN posts to adhere
to scientific journal standards, but because that claim is contrary to every
Supreme Court decision in recent history, so I have trouble figuring out how
you got that idea.

Edit 2: As dextralt's post is now flagged, let me reproduce what they cited:

 _Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to
free speech found in the American Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the
First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017,
when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate
speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment._
\--
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States)

~~~
floatingatoll
Please use HN’s reply feature to reply at HN. I do not reply to edit-replies
as you’re using. I view them as a form of conversational warfare.

~~~
rbecker
I would if I could - my posts were rate-limited. It seems to only take 1-2
downvotes to get rate-limited to 2 posts/hour or less.

~~~
floatingatoll
You'll want to email the mods about that, using the footer Contact link.

