<story><title>YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/first-amendment-doesnt-apply-on-youtube-judges-reject-prageru-lawsuit/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>neuland</author><text>EFF&amp;#x27;s word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it&amp;#x27;s a settled debate. I&amp;#x27;m here to say there&amp;#x27;s another side and present that viewpoint.&lt;p&gt;As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz&amp;#x27;s line of question from the article you linked. And I don&amp;#x27;t think EFF&amp;#x27;s solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see.&lt;p&gt;But this misses the entire point. Facebook&amp;#x2F;YouTube&amp;#x2F;etc are in a monopoly position. They&amp;#x27;ve proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith.&lt;p&gt;Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see.&lt;p&gt;But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.</text></item><item><author>belltaco</author><text>This argument has become a meme at this point. EFF debunks it.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.eff.org&amp;#x2F;deeplinks&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.eff.org&amp;#x2F;deeplinks&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;no-section-230-does-no...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren&amp;#x27;t involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines.&lt;p&gt;No. If HN removes spam or off topic content or anything else, it does not automatically mean that it&amp;#x27;s suddenly liable for someone posting libel and getting sued over it. That wasn&amp;#x27;t the intent of the law from the text, and it was never interpreted that way.</text></item><item><author>neuland</author><text>Everyone here is saying 1A doesn&amp;#x27;t constrain private parties. But that&amp;#x27;s missing the heart of PragerU&amp;#x27;s claim.&lt;p&gt;Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for what users post. But at the same time, platforms want to moderate their content selecting which views are acceptable and which are not.&lt;p&gt;These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren&amp;#x27;t involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; selecting what users post via their content guidelines.&lt;p&gt;We have common carrier provisions for other communication mediums with no liability (ex. TV, ISP&amp;#x27;s). And we have liability for communication mediums with editorial control (ie. Newspapers, Magazines).&lt;p&gt;Tech companies are running up the center and making huge profits with an unfair legal advantage that no other communication medium gets.&lt;p&gt;Newspapers have to vet their classifieds and editorials. Facebook&amp;#x2F;YouTube&amp;#x2F;etc doesn&amp;#x27;t. And that is inherently unfair.&lt;p&gt;So either Congress or the Courts need to fix the law. And it&amp;#x27;s fair game for the courts, because the law is not being applied correctly to these platforms, given their abuses.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kelnos</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not sure where you (or Sen. Cruz) are getting this interpretation from.  Section 230 exists &lt;i&gt;because&lt;/i&gt; Congress recognized that the then-only options of &amp;quot;common carrier&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot; were too binary and didn&amp;#x27;t account for anything in between.  It explicitly allows owners of content platforms that have moderation&amp;#x2F;curation in place to avoid liability for what their users publish.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not saying it&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;good&lt;/i&gt; that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don&amp;#x27;t like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly &lt;i&gt;allows&lt;/i&gt; them to do that, not the opposite.</text></comment>
<story><title>YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/first-amendment-doesnt-apply-on-youtube-judges-reject-prageru-lawsuit/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>neuland</author><text>EFF&amp;#x27;s word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it&amp;#x27;s a settled debate. I&amp;#x27;m here to say there&amp;#x27;s another side and present that viewpoint.&lt;p&gt;As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz&amp;#x27;s line of question from the article you linked. And I don&amp;#x27;t think EFF&amp;#x27;s solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see.&lt;p&gt;But this misses the entire point. Facebook&amp;#x2F;YouTube&amp;#x2F;etc are in a monopoly position. They&amp;#x27;ve proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith.&lt;p&gt;Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see.&lt;p&gt;But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.</text></item><item><author>belltaco</author><text>This argument has become a meme at this point. EFF debunks it.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.eff.org&amp;#x2F;deeplinks&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.eff.org&amp;#x2F;deeplinks&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;no-section-230-does-no...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren&amp;#x27;t involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines.&lt;p&gt;No. If HN removes spam or off topic content or anything else, it does not automatically mean that it&amp;#x27;s suddenly liable for someone posting libel and getting sued over it. That wasn&amp;#x27;t the intent of the law from the text, and it was never interpreted that way.</text></item><item><author>neuland</author><text>Everyone here is saying 1A doesn&amp;#x27;t constrain private parties. But that&amp;#x27;s missing the heart of PragerU&amp;#x27;s claim.&lt;p&gt;Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for what users post. But at the same time, platforms want to moderate their content selecting which views are acceptable and which are not.&lt;p&gt;These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren&amp;#x27;t involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; selecting what users post via their content guidelines.&lt;p&gt;We have common carrier provisions for other communication mediums with no liability (ex. TV, ISP&amp;#x27;s). And we have liability for communication mediums with editorial control (ie. Newspapers, Magazines).&lt;p&gt;Tech companies are running up the center and making huge profits with an unfair legal advantage that no other communication medium gets.&lt;p&gt;Newspapers have to vet their classifieds and editorials. Facebook&amp;#x2F;YouTube&amp;#x2F;etc doesn&amp;#x27;t. And that is inherently unfair.&lt;p&gt;So either Congress or the Courts need to fix the law. And it&amp;#x27;s fair game for the courts, because the law is not being applied correctly to these platforms, given their abuses.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>manfredo</author><text>What you&amp;#x27;re describing is illegal. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government cannot (at least outside of very specific circumstances - like an employer informing employees of workplace protections) make companies publish content. If congress tried to pass a law forcing YouTube to host PragerU&amp;#x27;s content, that would get immediately thrown out by the courts.</text></comment>