Agree with all of that, in terms of focus, at least... on the issues re the First Amendment.
And some of that view might well define limits in the nature of the "proofs" required in addressing the "strictly" First Amendment problems that are increasingly apparent at Youtube and Twitter. I'll ignore Twitter as "not unique" in those concerns.
At Youtube... the disputes quickly become about a lot more than the esoteric in the free speech issues as the designs implemented in the bias being imposed blurs lines... as it is both political and commercial in nature. The political clearly provides a singular basis in the bias being applied... but the violation in result is not only a violation of users rights to free speech, but of other rights... including rights in the recognition (or not) and (thus the rightful versus wrongful) exploitation of the commercial value of their creative works: Agree with us and we'll allow you to earn a living posting opinion here, but have the wrong opinion and we'll erect barriers to your presentation of content to the public, and we won't allow you to earn a living posting opinion here, as we allow others (with different opinion) to do. A political reason... but then access limits and content suppression rather than prohibition, and a mostly commercial (but wildly exploitative) penalty for content creators. The nature of that penalty... the means by which it is imposed... aren't about the reasons for imposing it... but about the legality of that as a commercial behavior... whatever the driver. A couple of basic misrepresentations are at the structural core of the effort... and on being de-cluttered it becomes about contract law... and simple fraud... and a broad civil rights issue (as access limits)... rather than strictly a First Amendment issue tied to the particular treatment of a single individual.
From a bigger picture social perspective... the issue is that Google has long since gone from a corporate mantra of "do no evil"... to being full evil all the time. Awareness of that in the public is long extant... and it is now creeping into a testing of limits that challenge even the stunted social awareness and tolerance of employees... who, even with only partial awareness of the problem(s), have recently rebelled against some of it... even if rather oddly targeting the government, and not Google, as the source of evil. That First Amendment issues are involved now... only defines the extent of the erosion at the limits of the public square as it is being sucked into that black hole, now. Unfortunately, there's little realistic discussion of how the problems that are made apparent... stem from errors made in fundamental issues... as the public focus is diverted away from core issues and what really matters... into "content" concerns, first, and then the private and personal. Whatever opinion you might have about those issues... or personal choices... it still only serves as a distraction from Google's larger issues ? Note that article was 2013... and, since then ? I don't need to feign re-inventing a proper description of the circular logic applied in relation to opinion ? Google isn't confused on that account... which, in that context, is exactly why its choices must be ignored ?
There is that undercurrent apparent... to all careful observers... and necessarily there must be an unavoidable evidentiary basis in the course changes made in the algorithms... in which the legal risks created are not just about the wrongful implementation of a political bias in the public square... but about the wrongful means (and the coverup) by which that bias is implemented. That makes it about the business practices rather than, or as much and as well as, the reasons for the disparate treatment apparent in implementation.
In the degree that Youtube is even potentially within their rights in implementing elements in the bias they do... there are parallel issues in law that aren't about the nature or the fact of the bias... but about their commercial practices in implementing the bias AS they do.
Backing out to the big picture... we quickly run into more fundamental social issues...that will require re-addressing risks to the First Amendment protections of freedom of expression... that aren't about government excess in violations of citizens rights... but are about the intersection of First Amendment issues with failures in addressing the role of monopoly in the economic sphere: seen emerging here as monopoly proceeds from imposing commercial to political outcomes... while imposing private not governmental controls over society. That quickly becomes a bigger issue than "only" the speech issue, as we face the facts in how laissez-faire policies enable monopoly and the "outsourcing" of fundamental governmental powers to private actors. Worse, still, than seen here, as "public-private partnerships" solidify linkages between "private action" and "political purpose"... as it enables implementing National Socialism by the back door. Obviously, the issue goes way beyond its exposure at Google/Facebook/Twitter in that view... also as the government's use of Amazon cloud services suddenly becomes about a "privatization" of government power through data... and then, at a more structural level, even deeper enabling linkages in similarly created ties between government and "the backbone" that are more hidden, at Microsoft, Intel, et al, and etc.
If the Constitution (including the First Amendment) is our national DNA... the question is one of the basic, central and developmental expression... versus the more specialized expression in post-developmental transcription functions ? And, then... quickly... about the need for defining limits in how much cyborgness we want to allow to develop in any appended expression. Google... as The Borg ? Resistance is futile ? It's not about changing the DNA... but ignoring it while appending to it... and, there's an App for that ?
The expanded view of the nature of the problem in context... is useful... but in the strictly legal sense the point in it will be the narrowing in result that redirects our focus outside of "only" the fundamental First Amendment focus... to note the elements in implementation that intrinsically are problems in the body of law addressing commerce and contracts. Does the Constitution really intend to empower Congress in outsourcing basic elements of government power... so that the crime of wrongful imprisonment is made entirely legal, by contract, only, in a commercially operated prison ? And, then... where is the limit... as private interests intersect with... and usurp... public power ? Seems to me that, once upon a time, we fought a war against Nazis precisely in order to prevent exactly that... but now National Socialism is happening here in spite of all of that ?
Following that thread to the bottom of the rabbit hole... requires not avoiding the underlying issues in the proper role of government in markets... where laissez-faire is an abdication of government responsibility for maintaining the conditions necessary for the survival of freedom... including free markets... and the underlying truth that freedom can't exist without free markets. Free markets require ensuring... no (public or private) limits in public market access... no monopoly... and no fraud... with all three being at issue in the current instance... all three necessarily needing to be addressed in countering the errors entrained.
From there ?
Facebook is a special case in that context... because of a variety of unique problems that they've irrevocably crafted into their position(s). In sports you'd have to call what Facebook has done... a series of unforced errors... which are much less about the basic "freedom of speech" issues than they are about the more basic and fundamental issues in relation to less esoteric areas of the law... and far less about the uncertainties in the ideal than they are about the purely practical...
I'd put that as... Eric Schmidt being both a far more convincing and far more effective version of Mike Meyer's Dr. Evil... than Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Page and Sergey Brin did well for themselves in empowering Schmidt... while the originators of the Facebook concept did much less well in pushing Zuckerberg forward in that role.
Way too long already... I'll leave this as context... and address the Facebook unique problems later, in another post... |
