The Legality of the Censorship of Big Tech Monopolies

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

The Legality of the Censorship of Big Tech Monopolies

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 2 months 4 days ago (Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:44 pm)

As time moves on, so will the push by radical Zionists to censor debate on the Holocaust, even if it means shredding the First Amendment in the process. Something similar to this has already happened in regard to BDS in America. See "The Israel Anti-Boycott Act", which if passed, would prohibit American citizens from boycotting 'Israel" (occupied Palestine).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... e-bill/720

The way I see it, the United States will be unlikely to actually CRIMINALIZE holocaust revisionism, but will likely allow tech giants to do their dirty (and unconstitutional) work for them.

The argument that I have against various European nations criminalizing holocaust revisionism is that it hinders historical inquiry, and should not even be regarded as being a law.

However, because big tech giants such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc, are not technically government bodies, it would not legally be considered to be censorship for them to bar revisionists from their platform (though Zuckerberg has said good things in regard to allowing revisionists on Facebook).

If things continue as they are, in my view, all big tech companies will join the dark forces of Google, and bar revisionists from every big tech company.

This would be a catastrophe and horrible. My opinion on this would be to allow these monopolies to do what they will, and that the United States government should pass a federal law prohibiting tax dollars from funding any tech company which suppresses free speech. This would discourage them from censorship, and bring further attention to the reality of big tech companies censoring free speech.

The alternative would be to ban monopolies, but I'm not sure how that would work, and where the line would be between a 'big company' and a 'monopoly'.


If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: The Legality of the Censorship of Big Tech Monopolies

Postby EtienneSC » 2 months 4 days ago (Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:26 pm)

As I have noted on another thread, this is correct. The following appears to reflect Google's current or recent policy on historical searches:
A rating of Fails to Meet should be assigned to results that are helpful and satisfying for no or very few users. Fails to
Meet results are unrelated to the query, factually incorrect (please check for factual accuracy of answers), and/or all or
almost all users would want to see additional results. These results completely fail to meet the user intent, such as a lack
of attention to an aspect of the query (or user location) that is important for satisfying user intent. Fails to Meet may also
be used for results that are extremely low quality, have very stale or outdated information, be nearly impossible to use on
a mobile device, etc.
Fails to Meet should be used for the following types of Lowest Page Quality results: [.....] Pages that directly contradict well-established historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.
The examples specifically include revisionism:
Google_Zensur_2018.PNG
Google_Zensur_2018.PNG (100.46 KiB) Viewed 403 times

The links in the document go to Wikipedia and the SPLC websites. Although the example is Stormfront, the reason given would apply to revisionism generally. Hence they are deliberately censoring search results based on the views of the SPLC and Wikipedia editors. Source:
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//insidesearch/howsearchworks/assets/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
https://thomasdishaw.com/bookmark-400-links-google-doesnt-want-visit/

Alternative search engines include: Good Gopher, DuckDuckGo, Yandex, Searx.me and Qwant.com.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9581
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The Legality of the Censorship of Big Tech Monopolies

Postby Hannover » 2 months 4 days ago (Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:55 pm)

JLAD said:
However, because big tech giants such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc, are not technically government bodies, it would not legally be considered to be censorship for them to bar revisionists from their platform (though Zuckerberg has said good things in regard to allowing revisionists on Facebook).

True they are not govt. bodies, but if they receive taxpayers money, which they have for various federal contracts, they are then subject to legal actions for free speech restrictions.
It remains to be seen if that is used against their censorship practices.

- Hannover

The tide is turning, the world awakes.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: The Legality of the Censorship of Big Tech Monopolies

Postby EtienneSC » 2 months 4 days ago (Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:00 pm)

Here are some further examples from the Google handbook of how they rank, classify and perhaps censor search results on holocaust-related queries:
Google_Zensur_2018.PNG
Google_Zensur_2018.PNG (100.46 KiB) Viewed 391 times

Google_Zensur_2018d.PNG
Google_Zensur_2018d.PNG (124.68 KiB) Viewed 392 times

Google_Zensur_2018c.PNG
Google_Zensur_2018c.PNG (60.66 KiB) Viewed 392 times

Google_Zensur_2018b.PNG
Google_Zensur_2018b.PNG (146.23 KiB) Viewed 392 times

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3220
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Legality of the Censorship of Big Tech Monopolies

Postby Hektor » 2 months 4 days ago (Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:14 pm)

EtienneSC wrote:Here are some further examples from the Google handbook of how they rank, classify and perhaps censor search results on holocaust-related queries:
Google_Zensur_2018.PNG


This is quite amusing, AFAIK stormfront is actually a debate site that allows both pro and contra on the Holocaust.
And they'd have documents relating to the subject there. This even more applies to CODOH, were we frequently discuss documents that supposedly prove the Holocaust. We don't dispute what is actually backed by authentic documents, what we dispute is what is added or insinuated they mean. We don't dispute deportation, internment and even a certain level of mortality of Jews, we just happen to put it into the right historical context. What we dispute is a physical extermination program, industrial scale use of homicidal gas chambers and a mortality figure of six million for Jews.

Hannover wrote:.....
True they are not govt. bodies, but if they receive taxpayers money, which they have for various federal contracts, they are then subject to legal actions for free speech restrictions.
It remains to be seen if that is used against their censorship practices.


Private bodies can of course redact and decide what is presented on the platform or not.
If a free speech case could be build up against them (either for monopoly or government funding reasons), they most likely will insist that e.g. Stromfront or Codoh sites are still listed in their results, just that they are buried for the reasons given in the guide.

Ironically, the guide can actually work counterproductive and lead people to have a look at the sites that have been put down by e.g. google.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 21 guests