'A 'political hit job'? Why the alt-right is accusing big tech of censorship' diff viewer (3/4)

This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on March 04, 2018 13:36 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/the-chain/2018/mar/04/alt-right-big-tech-censorship-lawsuits

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next version

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next version

Version 3	Version 4
A 'political hit job'? Why the alt-right is accusing big tech of censorship	A 'political hit job'? Why the alt-right is accusing big tech of censorship
2018-07-15 19:20:13 UTC	2018-11-20 08:35:45 UTC (4 months later)
In January, Charles C “Chuck” Johnson filed a suit contesting his ban from Twitter back in May 2015.	In January, Charles C “Chuck” Johnson filed a suit contesting his ban from Twitter back in May 2015.
Johnson, an American rightwing provocateur, has a long history of smearing and hunting political opponents. He runs a scurrilous news site, GotNews, and another that crowdsources bounties for damaging information on his self-selected foes. He was eighty-sixed from Twitter following outrage from other users after a tweet appealing for crowdsourcing to “take out” Black Lives Matter activist, DeRay McKesson.	Johnson, an American rightwing provocateur, has a long history of smearing and hunting political opponents. He runs a scurrilous news site, GotNews, and another that crowdsources bounties for damaging information on his self-selected foes. He was eighty-sixed from Twitter following outrage from other users after a tweet appealing for crowdsourcing to “take out” Black Lives Matter activist, DeRay McKesson.
It was an early example of Twitter appearing to accede to user pressure in scrubbing rightwing accounts.	It was an early example of Twitter appearing to accede to user pressure in scrubbing rightwing accounts.
In recent months, social media companies have been more ready to sideline certain views and the users who promote them. Changes to Twitter’s rules in late 2017 saw numerous far right accounts scrubbed. Medium recently banned “alt light” users like Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer. And this week, Alex Jones’s Infowars YouTube channel, with more than 2 million subscribers, has inched closer to a total ban after making allegations that CNN’s post-Parkland town hall was staged.	In recent months, social media companies have been more ready to sideline certain views and the users who promote them. Changes to Twitter’s rules in late 2017 saw numerous far right accounts scrubbed. Medium recently banned “alt light” users like Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer. And this week, Alex Jones’s Infowars YouTube channel, with more than 2 million subscribers, has inched closer to a total ban after making allegations that CNN’s post-Parkland town hall was staged.
And as of Thursday, rightwing media was lamenting what they were billing as a “purge” of prominent conservative, alt-right, and “classical liberal” accounts.	And as of Thursday, rightwing media was lamenting what they were billing as a “purge” of prominent conservative, alt-right, and “classical liberal” accounts.
The lawyer acting for Johnson in California, Robert Barnes, says it was a clear example of Twitter “misusing their monopoly power to punish disfavored speech”, and that Johnson’s tweet was not a threat. Barnes points to reporting on internal Twitter memos about Johnson, claiming that it shows his ban was arbitrary and discriminatory.	The lawyer acting for Johnson in California, Robert Barnes, says it was a clear example of Twitter “misusing their monopoly power to punish disfavored speech”, and that Johnson’s tweet was not a threat. Barnes points to reporting on internal Twitter memos about Johnson, claiming that it shows his ban was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Barnes’s website promotes him as a tribune for the underdog, and he says that this is part of what drew him to the case – in his view, Johnson is a David to Twitter’s Goliath. But he also says that he is committed to free speech, and he wanted to offer a model for other lawyers to take on social media firms on behalf of banned clients.	Barnes’s website promotes him as a tribune for the underdog, and he says that this is part of what drew him to the case – in his view, Johnson is a David to Twitter’s Goliath. But he also says that he is committed to free speech, and he wanted to offer a model for other lawyers to take on social media firms on behalf of banned clients.
“The idea was to create a template that others could copycat,” he says. “Fortunately a lot of lawyers have looked at it and decided that it is the best way to proceed. I predict that by the end of the year there will be a dozen such suits against Twitter, Google and Facebook.”	“The idea was to create a template that others could copycat,” he says. “Fortunately a lot of lawyers have looked at it and decided that it is the best way to proceed. I predict that by the end of the year there will be a dozen such suits against Twitter, Google and Facebook.”
Barnes’s suit is not in fact the first of its kind, but he may be right in saying that it won’t be the last.	Barnes’s suit is not in fact the first of its kind, but he may be right in saying that it won’t be the last.
Beginning in late 2017, a number of legal actions have been filed that draw on similar legal principles. They argue, among other things, that companies like Twitter and YouTube are de facto public forums, with a responsibility to guarantee free speech. They are thus challenging the commonsense view that such companies can ban whomever they like. Their lawyers think they can force tech giants to abandon what they describe as arbitrary censorship and liberal bias.	Beginning in late 2017, a number of legal actions have been filed that draw on similar legal principles. They argue, among other things, that companies like Twitter and YouTube are de facto public forums, with a responsibility to guarantee free speech. They are thus challenging the commonsense view that such companies can ban whomever they like. Their lawyers think they can force tech giants to abandon what they describe as arbitrary censorship and liberal bias.
The first of these suits was filed last October on behalf of Prager U by a legal team including California’s former Republican governor, Pete Wilson. The defendant is YouTube, and its parent company, Google. Prager U was co-founded by the conservative media star Dennis Prager, and its main product is online videos rehearsing a range of conservative beliefs with engaging, internet age aesthetics.	The first of these suits was filed last October on behalf of Prager U by a legal team including California’s former Republican governor, Pete Wilson. The defendant is YouTube, and its parent company, Google. Prager U was co-founded by the conservative media star Dennis Prager, and its main product is online videos rehearsing a range of conservative beliefs with engaging, internet age aesthetics.
In the words of Prager U CEO, Marissa Streit, “our mission is to reach out to people where they are”. She says that young people, in particular, are a target for Prager U’s introductions to conservative ideas, and YouTube is crucial to that. “We built a whole business model that was designed for YouTube.”	In the words of Prager U CEO, Marissa Streit, “our mission is to reach out to people where they are”. She says that young people, in particular, are a target for Prager U’s introductions to conservative ideas, and YouTube is crucial to that. “We built a whole business model that was designed for YouTube.”
In July 2016, Prager U staff noticed that some of their videos had been restricted, and others demonetized. In the first instance, viewers using YouTube’s “restricted mode” – described by the company in a video as being “like a parental control system for YouTube” – would not see those videos. In the second, the videos would not feature advertising, and Prager U would not receive money from them.	In July 2016, Prager U staff noticed that some of their videos had been restricted, and others demonetized. In the first instance, viewers using YouTube’s “restricted mode” – described by the company in a video as being “like a parental control system for YouTube” – would not see those videos. In the second, the videos would not feature advertising, and Prager U would not receive money from them.
In filings, Prager U says that restricted videos include some offering conservative points of view on Islam, terrorism, college rape and e-cigarettes. Demonetized videos include many on the same themes, and a number of live chats between Prager and other conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens and Jordan Peterson.	In filings, Prager U says that restricted videos include some offering conservative points of view on Islam, terrorism, college rape and e-cigarettes. Demonetized videos include many on the same themes, and a number of live chats between Prager and other conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens and Jordan Peterson.
Prager U calls this treatment of its videos censorship, and demands remedies for that censorship on the basis that YouTube and its owner Google have a responsibility to uphold free speech.	Prager U calls this treatment of its videos censorship, and demands remedies for that censorship on the basis that YouTube and its owner Google have a responsibility to uphold free speech.
Their argument is that YouTube is not only a large, powerful and near-monopolistic arbiter of political speech, but that it clearly presents itself as a public forum in its own mission statements and publicity materials.	Their argument is that YouTube is not only a large, powerful and near-monopolistic arbiter of political speech, but that it clearly presents itself as a public forum in its own mission statements and publicity materials.
The next step is to draw on existing law to argue against the position that as a private company, Google has an unfettered right to host or ban users as it sees fit.	The next step is to draw on existing law to argue against the position that as a private company, Google has an unfettered right to host or ban users as it sees fit.
The case cites both federal and California laws and rulings. Previous cases include Marsh v Alabama, where the US supreme court held that a Jehovah’s Witness could hand out pamphlets in a privately owned company town, and Fashion Valley Mall v NLRB, where the California supreme court said petitioners could hand out leaflets in a mall urging boycotts of the mall’s stores.	The case cites both federal and California laws and rulings. Previous cases include Marsh v Alabama, where the US supreme court held that a Jehovah’s Witness could hand out pamphlets in a privately owned company town, and Fashion Valley Mall v NLRB, where the California supreme court said petitioners could hand out leaflets in a mall urging boycotts of the mall’s stores.
They also point to California’s main civil rights legislation, the so-called Unruh Act, which prevents discrimination by businesses. The plaintiffs claim that they are the victims of discrimination as a result of their conservative viewpoint, and make further arguments that YouTube has breached its contracts and injured their business.	They also point to California’s main civil rights legislation, the so-called Unruh Act, which prevents discrimination by businesses. The plaintiffs claim that they are the victims of discrimination as a result of their conservative viewpoint, and make further arguments that YouTube has breached its contracts and injured their business.
More recently, similar suits have been filed against Twitter by users farther out on the right.	More recently, similar suits have been filed against Twitter by users farther out on the right.
Johnson’s case runs over some of the same points as Prager U’s. Filings say that Twitter is a public forum, in its materials and promotions it says as much, and in this role it has an “almost monopolistic presence”. It also says that Johnson’s ban is a “political hit job”.	Johnson’s case runs over some of the same points as Prager U’s. Filings say that Twitter is a public forum, in its materials and promotions it says as much, and in this role it has an “almost monopolistic presence”. It also says that Johnson’s ban is a “political hit job”.
And in the latest, similar case, filed just last week, white nationalist Jared Taylor and his New Century Foundation commenced action against Twitter for its bans on Taylor’s account and that of American Renaissance, his journal and website.	And in the latest, similar case, filed just last week, white nationalist Jared Taylor and his New Century Foundation commenced action against Twitter for its bans on Taylor’s account and that of American Renaissance, his journal and website.
American Renaissance unashamedly campaigns for the establishment of a white ethnostate, and publishes material which asserts connections between race, IQ and crime. They also run the conference where last year, Guardian journalist Gary Younge recorded a heated, widely shared debate with Richard Spencer.	American Renaissance unashamedly campaigns for the establishment of a white ethnostate, and publishes material which asserts connections between race, IQ and crime. They also run the conference where last year, Guardian journalist Gary Younge recorded a heated, widely shared debate with Richard Spencer.
Taylor lost his verified status on Twitter last November, and the next month he and American Renaissance was banned in a sweep that excluded a number of far-right accounts. It was part of a series of changes by which Twitter began specifically excluding “violent extremist groups”.	Taylor lost his verified status on Twitter last November, and the next month he and American Renaissance was banned in a sweep that excluded a number of far-right accounts. It was part of a series of changes by which Twitter began specifically excluding “violent extremist groups”.
But Taylor argues that he did not break Twitter’s terms of service, never advocated violence, and that he was excluded simply on the basis of beliefs that the service deemed unacceptable. “I have constantly repudiated any suggestion of violence”, he says, and maintains that his plans for a separate white homeland “are all about freedom of association”.	But Taylor argues that he did not break Twitter’s terms of service, never advocated violence, and that he was excluded simply on the basis of beliefs that the service deemed unacceptable. “I have constantly repudiated any suggestion of violence”, he says, and maintains that his plans for a separate white homeland “are all about freedom of association”.
Certainly, he says, he never advocated violence on Twitter.	Certainly, he says, he never advocated violence on Twitter.
His legal team includes law professor Adam Candeub from Michigan State University, who says that while he does not share Taylor’s beliefs, he has not advocated violence, and his involvement in the case is guided by his admiration for the thought of John Stuart Mill.	His legal team includes law professor Adam Candeub from Michigan State University, who says that while he does not share Taylor’s beliefs, he has not advocated violence, and his involvement in the case is guided by his admiration for the thought of John Stuart Mill.
“I recognize that some speech is painful,” he says, “but the benefits outweigh any harm may be caused.” On the question of whether Taylor’s ideas – which involve the separation of races into homelands – are inherently hateful, or even imply violence, Candeub, who describes himself as a “pretty observant Jew”, says that Taylor doesn’t advocate violence, and that hate speech is, “as a civil libertarian, a category that I am extremely distrustful of”.	“I recognize that some speech is painful,” he says, “but the benefits outweigh any harm may be caused.” On the question of whether Taylor’s ideas – which involve the separation of races into homelands – are inherently hateful, or even imply violence, Candeub, who describes himself as a “pretty observant Jew”, says that Taylor doesn’t advocate violence, and that hate speech is, “as a civil libertarian, a category that I am extremely distrustful of”.
Tech companies are, of course, defending their patch. Twitter would not comment on any specific case, but pointed the Guardian to the rules formulated last December on “hateful behavior”. The company has been going through the process of contesting Johnson’s suit in California.	Tech companies are, of course, defending their patch. Twitter would not comment on any specific case, but pointed the Guardian to the rules formulated last December on “hateful behavior”. The company has been going through the process of contesting Johnson’s suit in California.
For its part, YouTube denies any censorship of Prager U, and calls their allegations “meritless”. A YouTube representative said, “Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a small subset of users to filter out videos that may include sensitive or mature content. Giving viewers the choice to opt in to a more restricted experience is not censorship.	For its part, YouTube denies any censorship of Prager U, and calls their allegations “meritless”. A YouTube representative said, “Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a small subset of users to filter out videos that may include sensitive or mature content. Giving viewers the choice to opt in to a more restricted experience is not censorship.
“Prager U’s videos weren’t excluded from Restricted Mode because of politics or ideology,” the representative added.	“Prager U’s videos weren’t excluded from Restricted Mode because of politics or ideology,” the representative added.
Google’s own filings in response attempt to rebut the claims point by point. They also claim immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which for 22 years has powered the growth of big tech firms by shielding them from the liabilities borne by, say, newspaper publishers, by absolving them from responsibility for what people might post on their platforms.	Google’s own filings in response attempt to rebut the claims point by point. They also claim immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which for 22 years has powered the growth of big tech firms by shielding them from the liabilities borne by, say, newspaper publishers, by absolving them from responsibility for what people might post on their platforms.
Just as the CDA protects them from liability for what is published by third parties on their servers, Google says, it also protects them from liability for removing or restricting content. Hearings in the case commence in March.	Just as the CDA protects them from liability for what is published by third parties on their servers, Google says, it also protects them from liability for removing or restricting content. Hearings in the case commence in March.
Even if the CDA ultimately works, again, to protect the tech companies, the suit has unfolded at a difficult time for the tech industry. In the wake of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, politicians have been scrutinizing the role of big tech platforms as a conduit for propaganda, disruption, and “fake news”. Some are talking tough about beefing up regulation on Silicon Valley firms.	Even if the CDA ultimately works, again, to protect the tech companies, the suit has unfolded at a difficult time for the tech industry. In the wake of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, politicians have been scrutinizing the role of big tech platforms as a conduit for propaganda, disruption, and “fake news”. Some are talking tough about beefing up regulation on Silicon Valley firms.
David Golumbia, of Virginia Commonwealth University, is a longtime researcher and critic of Silicon Valley, who has written extensively on the rightwing ideas he says freely circulate in tech circles. He sees the cases as pointing to contradictions which politicians, and others, are now urgently considering.	David Golumbia, of Virginia Commonwealth University, is a longtime researcher and critic of Silicon Valley, who has written extensively on the rightwing ideas he says freely circulate in tech circles. He sees the cases as pointing to contradictions which politicians, and others, are now urgently considering.
“In their own self-interest, these companies have exploited a loophole in Section 230 of the CDA, and have created something which is neither fish nor fowl,” he says.	“In their own self-interest, these companies have exploited a loophole in Section 230 of the CDA, and have created something which is neither fish nor fowl,” he says.
They enjoy all the benefits of private companies, he says, “but they refuse to be regulated, and held responsible for the utterances that come out of their corporate platforms”. In particular, they deny specifically that they are media companies, just platforms.	They enjoy all the benefits of private companies, he says, “but they refuse to be regulated, and held responsible for the utterances that come out of their corporate platforms”. In particular, they deny specifically that they are media companies, just platforms.
The cases help illustrate big tech’s current dilemma. While politicians and anti-racist campaigners are asking them to act more like publishers, and show some discernment about what they allow to be published, from the right, many are accusing them of censorious liberal bias, and demanding they wind back the few standards they have implemented. These protests have taken many forms, including the launch of alternative, rightwing social media platforms.	The cases help illustrate big tech’s current dilemma. While politicians and anti-racist campaigners are asking them to act more like publishers, and show some discernment about what they allow to be published, from the right, many are accusing them of censorious liberal bias, and demanding they wind back the few standards they have implemented. These protests have taken many forms, including the launch of alternative, rightwing social media platforms.