The point is that speech hosted on "new frontiers" is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless to whether or not it's protected by the First Amendment.
No, the reason is probably just as stupid as it sounds, they don't want to investigate the claims so it's easier to close the channel and keep the music publishers happy.
I agree but you would think the world leading company in AI would be smart enough to detect bans that deserve further investigation such as in this case: a channel with more than 770k subscribers, no content with nudity or violence whatsoever in 10 years, no controversies in the comments or downvotes, no automatic detection of copyright violation in 10 years etc. There aren't that many channels with these characteristics and google certainly has the money to investigate manually the very few channels that reach this threshold and they certainly have the AI to detect even more heuristics to avoid false positives like this one.
They are just so arrogant and know that they will never get in trouble with the law that they just won't even spend a dime or a second thought on these issues no matter how life ruining they can be. Pretty sad.
For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.
That's not exactly true.
"Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely."
Someone randomly spouting off that people of a race or ideology should be wiped out doesn't always/exactly pass this legal test.
Great point. Visit any US neo-Nazi website and you’ll see language that one could argue is “threatening to a specific group”. But unless it’s “hey, everyone gather at 5 pm on Main St so we can start shooting people”, it’s still protected language.
That's actually a point that I don't think has been decided yet, specifically "imminent". It's been ruled that "at some unspecified point in the future" doesn't count, but I can't find a case (with an admittedly short search) about where the exact boundaries are.
I don't know what the exact legal definition of imminent is, but the layman's definition involves the thing happening soon.
It may well depend on how close to 5 it is (but what timezone?).
The same sentence with the words "right now" would almost certainly meet the test though (assuming the action was actually likely to occur).
The First Amendment does protect that though. As long as the speech isn't intended to incite imminent lawless action, calling for murders is absolutely protected.
E.g. "We should go harm X" is arguably illegal, since it's an immediate call to action.
However, "It'd be great if X died" or "All Y should die" are certainly protected.
In the same vein, this is why "Punch a Nazi" is totally legal: assault is illegal, but you're not immediately inciting a lawless action. "Let's go punch that Nazi", less so.
The essential thing missing from all of these discussions (unless I am misunderstanding people) is the immediacy of the incitement. The context in which the speech matters. That is where the imminent and likely parts properly arise from.
If you write a book advocating for violence against x or y group or individuals that is permissible, but if you were in a crowded square and advocated the same thing when those targets were also in the square and it is likely that your incitement will lead to violence then it is not. That's incitement, it's imminent, and it is for a lawless act. But again, if you did it at home on your blog in some nebulous sense that isn't likely to cause some specific event then it is protected speech.
An important distinction here is that "true threats" are a separate category from what we are talking about. A true threat doesn't have a "likely" or "imminent" component and so is even broader in scope than violent speech in general. That is, true threats are not protected.
It's not a matter of what kind of speech 1A governs, but what kind of entities.
The government is the entity that is not allowed to restrict legal free speech. Private corporations are not bound by the same rule; they can restrict all they want.
So if I sent a note with the content you just described to everyone I know via UPS and you define this content as a crime, then UPS should be held liable in facilitating this crime? So therefore UPS needs to inspect the content of every package that it delivers to avoid culpability in crimes like this?
Or somehow UPS is different from a social media entity. Then what legally is a social media entity?
These are interesting times. The rules will certainly change; it remains to be seen if they will ultimately change for the better.
If the UPS was already opening the mail of everyone to add its own pamphlets when you discuss x or y, yes they should be responsible for facilitating crime that they know of then.
Interesting, so the implication is that web companies are generating advertising from user-submitted content, therefore it's been read by the company, so therefore any cross-user communication needs to be reviewed by a person or a sufficiently accurate AI for endorsement through publication.
So in your framework, transmission of user content + advertising based on that content = culpability. I wonder if social media companies would figure out a way to legally prove transmission of a message without viewing its contents as a way to avoid culpability and maintain some level of profitability.
This is like suggesting that if you build a spam filter, you need to build a filter that scans content and catches and reports every type of crime possible to commit ever.
Everything novel has this problem, and fortunately our epistemology is up to the task. We set our priors to a weighted linear combination of other similar things and then revise as evidence comes in.
For instance, MMR II was approved in 1978. How do we know that people who were given MMR II won't spontaneously die at the age of 60? Or perhaps to bring it closer to another problem, how do we know they won't spontaneously develop Autism Spectrum Disorder at the age of 60? There hasn't been time. It's a pretty novel vaccine.
There is no indication whatsoever that MMR has likely long-term health effects, and there are indications that C19 could have long-term health effects, and what we appear to learn month by month is more alarming, not less, with respect to the question of whether or not C19 is a "you either die of it in a month or you're fine" situation.
It also doesn't have to be a universal effect for it to generate effectively universal concern among parents. If it turned out that 1/20 kids suffered permanent kidney damage due to infection, most parents would keep their kids home. Look at the stats on school shootings and note that we pointlessly traumatize kids to assuage the concerns of parents. That's your figure of merit: that's how powerful the long-term C19 effect would need to be to change the behavior of the median parent.
I agree with these (hopefully not incorrectly) restated things I think you believe:
* It is more likely that MMR has few significant long-term health effects than if COVID-19 does
* COVID-19 effects are unlikely to be binary outcome
* Effects need not be universal for them to affect parental behaviour
However, none of that agreement is important to the discussion I was hoping to have. My comment was solely on the epistemology. I suspect you also use the same methods I was talking about in my previous comment.
If that is the case, then perhaps some other day we can argue about what the priors are. If we're good about it, we'll end up with the Aumann Agreement Theorem (+ corollaries) result, and rapidly agree (through likely both of us shifting our priors as we exchange information).
I think we have no disagreement and am happy to conclude this here.
Just to give you one possible side effect: sterility. There are plenty of viruses that when caught as a child do not give much in terms of symptoms but will make you sterile for life. That's not something that will come out in the next two months.
It could, but we have a lot of data on those diseases and typically a weakened or reduced dose live virus shot has a known outcome with some outliers where the shot leads to the disease or something worse in the relatively short term.
For COVID-19 we are still guessing at most of this, hopefully the long term effects are not too bad and those effects of contracting the disease will get reduced over time.
But I would definitely not rule out some shocker long term effect at this stage that we are unaware of, especially not when taking into account developing organisms such as children, where effects can stay hidden for a long time.
I think we're close to agreement, but not quite. We're not, after all, guessing at most. For instance, it's pretty unlikely that COVID-19 will cause you to grow three extra feet from your nose within the next 60 years.
There are some things we don't have high certainty on, but our epistemology would be faulty if we ignored how other coronaviruses behave, just like it would be faulty if we ignored how other attenuated viruses behave when we examine if MMR-2 will cause instadeath at age 60.
But there are quite a few examples of some pretty nasty effects that only show up when a person reaches maturity. So better to take this the slow and the sure way, more evidence is better.
Private company. I don't care. Jumping from Microsoft doing a thing about this to a law being passed restricting speech is quite the stretch and would be against the 1st.
Lest you think it's a typo, the number of symptomatic tests is a critical number to know.
It's not about whether the individuals beings tested have been harmed, it's about whether testing shows us the infection rate in the population or not. If 100% of tests were of symptomatic patients, the numbers tell us almost nothing.
> The obsession with total cases is maddening. First, they are driven significantly by amount of testing.
I think more significantly they're driven by total cases. Are you suggesting we test less?
Also you seem to have a very black and white view of outcomes. It's not clear cut between alive or dead. There's many things that we still don't know about this virus and the harm it causes.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-ef...
What long term? This disease has existed for about 6 months in the public eye (and a bit longer now that there are cases in Europe being found from October/November) how can you even consider talking about long term effects when we haven't yet lived through the time it can be considered "long term".
Or do you work with the concept "long term = next quarter"?
