Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

It would mean more people than not offended by the content actually bagging youTube entirely, wouldn't it? There are so many, very popular gunny-related channels it's hard to imagine. But possible I suppose. Unlike the front page of the newspaper, but thanks to the algorithms, you never even have to see a gunny channel, let alone watch it. But these days taking offense at all manner of things is certainly in vogue, so maybe you're right.

Obviously neither of us can really know what’s going on behind the curtain. I trust that Google (which owns utube, I think) will act in what it think is its best financial interest. They may be wrong — companies miscalculate on these things all the time. Maybe there will be a sufficient backlash to make them rethink their decisions. But Google et. al seems pretty smart about keeping the money flowing.

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't know much about the Supreme Court case either. First I heard of it actually. From the article it looks like it doesn't directly involve Facebook, Twitter, etc., but a local public tv station that fired a couple of producers allegedly for making political comments, this time of the liberal bent. It's a First Amendment case, and normally such lawsuits are only actionable against a govt entity, not a private actor. So my (limited) understanding is that the issue comes down to whether a public tv station is sufficiently in the public sphere to be treated as a "state actor" for a constitutional violation to have been committed. …

In Canada, the TV stations operate based on a public good concept. The airwaves or bandwidth are publicly owned, and licensed out to stations. So in Canada, a ruling based on our constitutional freedom of speech rights would likely not extend to private enterprises like youtube.

I don’t know if the same legal structure applies to the USA though.

To make it apply to say youtube here I think there would have to be some sort of legal shift in how YouTube is actually treated under law. In effect, it would have to become some sort of public good. It’s hard for me to see how this could happen, but I’m just speculating.

It will certainly be something to watch.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Obviously neither of us can really know what’s going on behind the curtain. I trust that Google (which owns utube, I think) will act in what it think is its best financial interest. They may be wrong — companies miscalculate on these things all the time. Maybe there will be a sufficient backlash to make them rethink their decisions. But Google et. al seems pretty smart about keeping the money flowing.



In Canada, the TV stations operate based on a public good concept. The airwaves or bandwidth are publicly owned, and licensed out to stations. So in Canada, a ruling based on our constitutional freedom of speech rights would likely not extend to private enterprises like youtube.

I don’t know if the same legal structure applies to the USA though.

To make it apply to say youtube here I think there would have to be some sort of legal shift in how YouTube is actually treated under law. In effect, it would have to become some sort of public good. It’s hard for me to see how this could happen, but I’m just speculating.

It will certainly be something to watch.

The US has what sounds like a similar regulatory scheme, namely a licensing structure for stations. There is also a "fair use" requirement (might not be the right term) that requires stations to provide equal time, but that may apply differently to public stations, i.e. those like NPR & PBS which are at least partially funded by the govt. But thus far I don't think any such regs apply to the internet.

So in the case being discussed, even if the Court rules against the public TV station, Google et al. may still be able to successfully exempt themselves from similar suits by arguing the public/private distinction, or claim that internet-based social media should otherwise be immune from suit. According to the formal & informal allegations made against Google & youTube (same co.) thus far, however, they are alleged to have censored based on content alone, and not for strictly monetary reasons. Of course we don't know what Google's defense has been or will be. Some of the claimants are hanging their hat on a comment (now retired) Justice Kennedy made in a previous, somewhat related case, namely referring to social media as the "new public square." This term has legal significance in that it has previously been applied to guarantee heightened constitutional protection for free speech.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Exile

The US has what sounds like a similar regulatory scheme, namely a licensing structure for stations. There is also a "fair use" requirement (might not be the right term) that requires stations to provide equal time, but that may apply differently to public stations, i.e. those like NPR & PBS which are at least partially funded by the govt. But thus far I don't think any such regs apply to the internet.

So in the case being discussed, even if the Court rules against the public TV station, Google et al. may still be able to successfully exempt themselves from similar suits by arguing the public/private distinction, or claim that internet-based social media should otherwise be immune from suit. According to the formal & informal allegations made against Google & youTube (same co.) thus far, however, they are alleged to have censored based on content alone, and not for strictly monetary reasons. Of course we don't know what Google's defense has been or will be. Some of the claimants are hanging their hat on a comment (now retired) Justice Kennedy made in a previous, somewhat related case, namely referring to social media as the "new public square." This term has legal significance in that it has previously been applied to guarantee heightened constitutional protection for free speech.

In addition to this, we don't know where all of google's funding comes from nor what regulation they're required to comply with. Assuming otherwise is naive. Google have most definitely censored content on their platforms and a search on duck duck go will be quite revealing to that end.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

The US has what sounds like a similar regulatory scheme, namely a licensing structure for stations. There is also a "fair use" requirement (might not be the right term) that requires stations to provide equal time, but that may apply differently to public stations, i.e. those like NPR & PBS which are at least partially funded by the govt. But thus far I don't think any such regs apply to the internet.

I seem to recall early on in the growth and privatization of the Internet there were a series of court challenges and ruling to determine the public/private status of it all. There were issues of whether to treat the Net as a a common carrier, like the phone system, or as a publisher like a newspaper. The rulings supported the common carrier perspective.

This may inform how the Internet, and services on the Internet, are viewed legally.

Originally Posted by Exile

So in the case being discussed, even if the Court rules against the public TV station, Google et al. may still be able to successfully exempt themselves from similar suits by arguing the public/private distinction, or claim that internet-based social media should otherwise be immune from suit.

Yes, agreed. Either way, it will be an interesting case.

Originally Posted by Exile

According to the formal & informal allegations made against Google & youTube (same co.) thus far, however, they are alleged to have censored based on content alone, and not for strictly monetary reasons. Of course we don't know what Google's defense has been or will be.

I am not aware of Google’s specific defence (although I’m sure it’s out there). I am aware that FB was accused of the same thing, and their defence was that they do not censor based on ideology.

Again, I hold no love for any of these companies. But I don’t think we have to look for any more nefarious an explanation for their actions other than cold hard cash.

Originally Posted by Exile

Some of the claimants are hanging their hat on a comment (now retired) Justice Kennedy made in a previous, somewhat related case, namely referring to social media as the "new public square." This term has legal significance in that it has previously been applied to guarantee heightened constitutional protection for free speech.

My uninformed opinion is that Kennedy is correct. And personally, I’d love to see your 1st amendment apply to all Internet services, including CF.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My uninformed opinion is that Kennedy is correct. And personally, I’d love to see your 1st amendment apply to all Internet services, including CF.

It could certainly help those who seem so fearful of exposure to all sorts of different opinions! But then I've always thought that colleges & universities should create "UNsafe spaces" so that students would have a better chance of becoming properly prepared for real life. Maybe then they'd learn how to subordinate their "feelings" to rational, objective, and realistic thought, regardless of where on the political spectrum those thoughts may take them.

[GordMay]

Free Speech and Intellectual Freedom are the right to access to all expressions of knowledge and opinion, including those deemed by some elements of society to be improper or unacceptable. But it is also recognised, except by the most fundamentalist of libertarians, that the exercise of free speech carries with it certain responsibilities. That old maxim about not crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema, when there is no fire, is an obvious example of a responsible constraint. That single example concedes the principle of unfettered freedom of speech, and from it flows all sorts of supposedly reasonable restrictions.

The general concern over censorship has been whether it is legally or morally right or wrong, and under what conditions it should be permissible.

Grappling with decisions around freedom of speech and censorship requires performing an impossible balancing act between two incompatible positions. This is especially true for for-profit Corporations, as MikeO noted.

Critics often lambast social and news media for having a political bias. While viewpoints on the editorial pages are clear to see, the link between politics and censorship is harder to spot.
Criticism of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube's (etc) policies is most acute among people on the right (especially radical “libertarians”) of the political spectrum*, who fear that Silicon Valley is dominated by the left, and determined to silence opposing voices (a claim denied by tech giants like Facebook and Google). At the same time, left-wingers (especially hysterical “snowflakes”) think the right is spreading hate and must be silenced for the good of society.

This dichotomy was discussed extensively in the previously linked CNBC article (thanks Exile) about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
Here ☞ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supr...te-speech.html

* Eg ☞ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/...-and-civility/

Google, for instance, uses a team of thousands of community moderators to police content and decide whether it should be banned or limited. Google employs machine learning to target videos which are pornographic or depict extremist acts of violence. Final decisions on whether to remove or limit content are taken by humans, using strict criteria set out by Google and YouTube (who make these guidelines public), who also investigate complaints from users about videos.
CruisersForum uses a team of VOLUNTEER Moderators to do the same.

In 2016, YouTube added automation to its moderation repertoire, and last year (2015), announced a plan to “bury” extreme content that doesn’t actually run afoul of its rules. Until now (then), most have relied mainly on users to flag content that violates their terms of service, and many still do. Flagged material is then individually reviewed by human editors who delete postings found to be in violation.
The companies now using automation are not publicly discussing it, two sources said, in part out of concern that terrorists might learn how to manipulate their systems or that repressive regimes might insist the technology be used to censor opponents.
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...omated-removal

And following the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, YouTube has banned firearm demo videos and content promoting gun sales and has taken steps to remove conspiracy videos, giving Infowars two strikes for its propagation of such content (whether the company is actually willing to mete out a third and final strike remains to be seen).
➥ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...ube-censorship

[boatman61]

Here's a news story to tickle the intellect..
https://www.thetrumpet.com/18594-spa...n-of-gibraltar

The closing paragraph..

These forecasts are based on Bible scriptures. The Bible prophesied thousands of years ago that Britain and America would gain control of the world’s most important sea gates. It also said these nations would lose them. To learn more about the well-proven and specifically documented track record of fulfilled Bible prophecy, request your free copy of He Was Right.

[transmitterdan]

The larger and arguably more important issue is what FB, APL, goog, twtr, instg, etc will be able to do in countries where suppression of opinion is mandated by law. Is it ok for these US companies to engage in practices (suppression of free speech by civil rights advocates, opposition parties, etc.) that could be illegal in their home country. There is a set of laws in the US known as the foreign corrupt practices act that might have some impact. But I guess most people have never heard of it. If companies can get a favorable ruling from the supremes it might get them off the hook with FCPA. A favorable ruling would be that these companies can do whatever they please to their users in regards to blocking access to pretty much any form of speech. If they can do it in the US then they could be free do it elsewhere.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Free Speech and Intellectual Freedom are the right to access to all expressions of knowledge and opinion, including those deemed by some elements of society to be improper or unacceptable. But it is also recognised, except by the most fundamentalist of libertarians, that the exercise of free speech carries with it certain responsibilities.

Thank you - too often the responsibility part is left out of any discussion around freedoms.

(and a nonspecific thank-you for your thoughtful, substantive and well-written comments)

[Lake-Effect]

I haven't quite finished the thing but I had to throw it in here. Kind of fascinating.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...factor/580465/

Just by looking at the subjects’ neural responses, in fact, Montague could predict with more than 95 percent accuracy whether they were liberal or conservative.

[john61ct]

Been known a while

Left or right-wing? Brain's disgust response tells all

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...tells-all.html

_____
Also relevant, and not just wrt our current President.

> According to Stenner's theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies can be triggered or "activated" by the perception of physical threats or by destabilizing social change, leading those individuals to desire policies and leaders that we might more colloquially call authoritarian.
…
Feldman developed what has since become widely accepted as the definitive measurement of authoritarianism: four simple questions that appear to ask about parenting but are in fact designed to reveal how highly the respondent values hierarchy, order, and conformity over other values.

- Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?

- Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?

- Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?

- Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

Feldman's test proved to be very reliable. There was now a way to identify people who fit the authoritarian profile, by prizing order and conformity, for example, and desiring the imposition of those values.

The rise of American authoritarianism
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424...thoritarianism

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

It could certainly help those who seem so fearful of exposure to all sorts of different opinions! But then I've always thought that colleges & universities should create "UNsafe spaces" so that students would have a better chance of becoming properly prepared for real life. Maybe then they'd learn how to subordinate their "feelings" to rational, objective, and realistic thought, regardless of where on the political spectrum those thoughts may take them.

I fully agree … and so did most folks who thought about these things — at least up until fairly recently.

Of course, there are limits to free speech, as I see Gord has already aptly mentioned. Direct calls for violence and expressions of outright hate seem to be limits most western countries have embraced. The USA’s expression of the free speech right goes further than anywhere else, so “hate speech” often is protected. But even here, there are limits.

But these are, and should be the exceptions. And universities should — and up until recently — were a bastion of Unsafe speech. A place where we could go and hear challenging, even ugly ideas. And we would wrestle with these ideas, showing the flaws of the bad ones. All this in true Liberal form (Lockeian Liberal, not what it’s been perverted into by American dialogue).

I strongly encourage everyone to read Coddling of the American Mind. The researchers tackle what is going on at some university campuses. They provide sound research to back up their analysis.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Free Speech and Intellectual Freedom are the right to access to all expressions of knowledge and opinion, including those deemed by some elements of society to be improper or unacceptable. But it is also recognised, except by the most fundamentalist of libertarians, that the exercise of free speech carries with it certain responsibilities. That old maxim about not crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema, when there is no fire, is an obvious example of a responsible constraint. That single example concedes the principle of unfettered freedom of speech, and from it flows all sorts of supposedly reasonable ...

So true. We seem to have forgotten that rights have always come with responsibilities. In some ways, I think what is happening on campuses is a reaction to this loss of responsibility.

But on the whole, I think shouting down or physically blocking people from attending lectures is more dangerous than having a few wing nuts yelling hateful words from their personal pulpits (here I’m thinking of things like the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church).

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A humorous graph describing the D-K Effect.

This graph is clearly wrong! It shows the confidence level once you reach the Plateau of Sustainability as even higher than the Peak of Mt. Stupid. In the real world, though, the more you learn, the more you recognize the possibility that you might still be wrong, and your confidence level suffers. No one is ever more confident than they are when they are at the Peak of Mt. Stupid!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Free Speech and Intellectual Freedom are the right to access to all expressions of knowledge and opinion, including those deemed by some elements of society to be improper or unacceptable. But it is also recognised, except by the most fundamentalist of libertarians, that the exercise of free speech carries with it certain responsibilities. That old maxim about not crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema, when there is no fire, is an obvious example of a responsible constraint. That single example concedes the principle of unfettered freedom of speech, and from it flows all sorts of supposedly reasonable restrictions.

The general concern over censorship has been whether it is legally or morally right or wrong, and under what conditions it should be permissible.

Grappling with decisions around freedom of speech and censorship requires performing an impossible balancing act between two incompatible positions. This is especially true for for-profit Corporations, as MikeO noted.

Critics often lambast social and news media for having a political bias. While viewpoints on the editorial pages are clear to see, the link between politics and censorship is harder to spot.
Criticism of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube's (etc) policies is most acute among people on the right (especially radical “libertarians”) of the political spectrum*, who fear that Silicon Valley is dominated by the left, and determined to silence opposing voices (a claim denied by tech giants like Facebook and Google). At the same time, left-wingers (especially hysterical “snowflakes”) think the right is spreading hate and must be silenced for the good of society.

This dichotomy was discussed extensively in the previously linked CNBC article (thanks Exile) about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
Here ☞ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supr...te-speech.html

* Eg ☞ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/...-and-civility/

Google, for instance, uses a team of thousands of community moderators to police content and decide whether it should be banned or limited. Google employs machine learning to target videos which are pornographic or depict extremist acts of violence. Final decisions on whether to remove or limit content are taken by humans, using strict criteria set out by Google and YouTube (who make these guidelines public), who also investigate complaints from users about videos.
CruisersForum uses a team of VOLUNTEER Moderators to do the same.

In 2016, YouTube added automation to its moderation repertoire, and last year (2015), announced a plan to “bury” extreme content that doesn’t actually run afoul of its rules. Until now (then), most have relied mainly on users to flag content that violates their terms of service, and many still do. Flagged material is then individually reviewed by human editors who delete postings found to be in violation.
The companies now using automation are not publicly discussing it, two sources said, in part out of concern that terrorists might learn how to manipulate their systems or that repressive regimes might insist the technology be used to censor opponents.
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...omated-removal

And following the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, YouTube has banned firearm demo videos and content promoting gun sales and has taken steps to remove conspiracy videos, giving Infowars two strikes for its propagation of such content (whether the company is actually willing to mete out a third and final strike remains to be seen).
➥ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...ube-censorship

Excellent synopsis! Thank you.

As for the last para., I don't think youTube has gone nearly as far as described. I previously provided a link to their policies when it comes to firearms videos. This written policy looks more than reasonable, but there have been many protests on how it's been applied.