Far right users are most commonly stupid like old cheese but I doubt the "investigate unit" is something I would want a business like Google to entail. Some form of hobby police is why I wouldn't want to share anything with Google in the first place.
This is very close to thought policing. I also think the EFF missed the mark with its criticism to suggest even stronger content controls.
Funny you say that. I find that far left agitators are stupid, infact so stupid that they are often referred to as "The useful idiots of the US capitalists".
The US government threatens and conspires to commit violence all the time. Clearly this is allowed if all men are equal. Otherwise agents of the state would have rights that others do not.
Where does it say that in the article? I see concern from privacy advocates, but no allegation that it’s against their TOC or the law.
To me, the headline is misleading because it sounds as if users were reported merely for their political views — when in fact they were threatening violence.
Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? I believe we all agree that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS should not be allowed to use the platforms to propagate violence. Why are violent members of the Far Right any different?
From the article:
> On a now-deleted video on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by Canadian white nationalist, Stefan Molyneux (whose channel YouTube has now banned), the user wrote: “Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.”
> The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices.
> But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account.
> On a video alleging acts of brutality by local police, the user appended comments urging others to “kill them, when you go to trial i wouldn’t find you guilty for shooting these criminals. Kill them all”.
> According to Google’s reports, the same user appended racial slurs to videos reporting crimes which Google has since removed.
These are public comments -- any user could report them to law enforcement. This seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be reported to law enforcement for investigation. Law enforcement takes the tip and decides where to go from there.
> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism?
Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1].
The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.
First amendment protections from law enforcement (who these comments were reported to) absolutely apply to comments made on Google property, and anywhere else. It's disheartening to see such a stupid take on HN.
The first amendment also isn't as limited as you implied, no matter how much you might wish it. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected because of the danger, not because the theater is privately owned.
The topic of discussion is comments that fall out of first amendment protection because of their content, not because of where they were posted. The authoritarian knee-jerk "first amendment doesn't apply to private companies" argument is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Free speech protects your right to not be arrested or otherwise punished by GOVERNMENT institutions for things you say or actions classified as speech. But it does not protect speech that is intended and likely to cause violence or intended as threat or intimidation.
As ruled in Manhattan Community Access Corp et al vs Halleck et al the Supreme Court's CONSERVATIVE majority ruled that: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech." On this basis, Google has a right to remove or report content to authorities as it chooses: Conservatives decided that free speech protections do not apply to private platforms.
With regards to police enforcement: in Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Comments advocating for violence and murder ARE NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, per this ruling.
Similarly the ruling of Virginia v Black held that while some forms of hate speech may be protected on their own, that protection ends when the speech is intended to intimidate. To quote: "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate."
TL;DR: Free speech rights do not protect speech on privately owned platforms, and you can still be arrested for that speech alone if it incites violence or acts to intimidate others.
Google sent user data to the cops, who are a government institution. The discussion is about whether or not they were right to do so, and everyone agrees that they were. Neither you or the person I replied to seem to understand that.
To repeat: this is a discussion about reporting comments to government authorities, not simply removing them from the platform they own. Is it your intention to support companies turning over user data to the police for any and all speech they don't like?
If you murder someone on Google property it is still murder, similarly incitement on Google property it is still incitement. Where you do it does not make it a non crime.
I should have been more clear: We're discussing Google's digital properties, upon which murder is impossible to commit, as murder requires a corporeal — non-digital — form. Can you restate your reply in those terms? It's hard to make sense of what you're saying here.
How does this differ from "Google giving extremist users' data to law enforcement"?
The article says:
> The users were often threatening violence or otherwise expressing extremist views, often associated with the far right.
Ok, so so since "extrem[ism]" is "often associated" with "the far right", therefore it makes it into the headline?
I'd like to see how they objectively decided that, or what they mean by "often associated" - associated by who? and why? Also; is this a causal association? i.e. extremists are often far right does not imply the far right are often extremist.
You can bet that if someone used one of my rando apps for something like threatening violence I too would report them.
I don't know how likely I would actually know it, but I've no issue with a service doing so.
>“Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.”
>The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices.
>But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account.
21 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 53.6 ms ] threadThis is very close to thought policing. I also think the EFF missed the mark with its criticism to suggest even stronger content controls.
Feel free to not use google, but based on the information provided in the article calling this “thought police” is disingenuous.
Google handles mind-boggling amounts of traffic. Without statistics for how often these things happen, these specific cases mean very little to me.
Regarding the article as a whole, what is Google supposed to do?
Tech giants are pressured to increase regulation (e.g. Facebook and the 2016 US election stuff). They're also pressured to be places for free speech.
Google gave law enforcement user data of users repeatedly publicly violating Google TOS and possibly the law.
To me, the headline is misleading because it sounds as if users were reported merely for their political views — when in fact they were threatening violence.
From the article:
> On a now-deleted video on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by Canadian white nationalist, Stefan Molyneux (whose channel YouTube has now banned), the user wrote: “Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.”
> The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices.
> But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account.
> On a video alleging acts of brutality by local police, the user appended comments urging others to “kill them, when you go to trial i wouldn’t find you guilty for shooting these criminals. Kill them all”.
> According to Google’s reports, the same user appended racial slurs to videos reporting crimes which Google has since removed.
These are public comments -- any user could report them to law enforcement. This seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be reported to law enforcement for investigation. Law enforcement takes the tip and decides where to go from there.
Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
The topic of discussion is comments that fall out of first amendment protection because of their content, not because of where they were posted. The authoritarian knee-jerk "first amendment doesn't apply to private companies" argument is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
As ruled in Manhattan Community Access Corp et al vs Halleck et al the Supreme Court's CONSERVATIVE majority ruled that: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech." On this basis, Google has a right to remove or report content to authorities as it chooses: Conservatives decided that free speech protections do not apply to private platforms.
With regards to police enforcement: in Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Comments advocating for violence and murder ARE NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, per this ruling.
Similarly the ruling of Virginia v Black held that while some forms of hate speech may be protected on their own, that protection ends when the speech is intended to intimidate. To quote: "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate."
TL;DR: Free speech rights do not protect speech on privately owned platforms, and you can still be arrested for that speech alone if it incites violence or acts to intimidate others.
To repeat: this is a discussion about reporting comments to government authorities, not simply removing them from the platform they own. Is it your intention to support companies turning over user data to the police for any and all speech they don't like?
The article says:
> The users were often threatening violence or otherwise expressing extremist views, often associated with the far right.
Ok, so so since "extrem[ism]" is "often associated" with "the far right", therefore it makes it into the headline?
I'd like to see how they objectively decided that, or what they mean by "often associated" - associated by who? and why? Also; is this a causal association? i.e. extremists are often far right does not imply the far right are often extremist.
I don't know how likely I would actually know it, but I've no issue with a service doing so.
>“Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.”
>The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices.
>But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account.
Yeah I think that's ok to report.