Radio Free Asia is a US funded broadcasting corporation whose stated mission is “to provide accurate and timely news and information to Asian countries whose governments prohibit access to a free press.”According to Wikipedia, it is based on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and was established in the 1990s with the aim of promoting democratic values and human rights, and diminishing Chinese Communist control. With social media surpassing print newspapers for the first time as a means for US consumers to get their news, inherent bias and outright censorship in social media and other tech company platforms almost begs the question of whether we will eventually need a “Radio Free America” here in the states to provide a non-censored source of news, just as Radio Free Asia provides to communist and despotic countries in Asia.
Speaking with a friend and fellow blogger, Marv Langston, he noted that he switched to YouTube to get all of his television shows (like many others who are cable cutting to save costs) but that YouTube censors certain FoxNews shows so he now can’t watch them. In a similar fashion, Prager University (PragerU) has sued YouTube for blocking over 200 of its videos, and demonetizing many others. The offensive material from PragerU’s videos that demanded censorship from public view includes videos titled “Why America Must Lead,” “The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War,” and “The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians.” Hardly the stuff of nightmares and dark parts of the human mind, and hard to imagine them requiring censorship by any impartial arbiter.
This is certainly part of an overall conversation occurring nationwide about whether tech companies that have assumed the role of news venues should be required to abide by the First Amendment and allow their viewers to see everything that is posted, or whether they should determine what they will show the viewers based upon their own selections. Private companies certainly are not required to put forth views with which they disagree, but tech companies have aggressively and vociferously fought against being designated as “publishers”, vs “platforms”, to try to avoid any accountability for the bias of their content.
As noted by Senator Ted Cruz in the City Journal:
” While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” As Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion. When questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month, and in a subsequent op-ed, Cruz reasoned that ‘in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums.’ On the flip side, they should be considered to be a ‘publisher or speaker’ of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.'”
Senator Cruz, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, has a valid argument that will likely end up at the Supreme court in the next 18 months. From a practical standpoint, however, if a tech company uses its power and monopoly to become the primary provider of news and information to the vast majority of the U.S. public, do we as a society want that company to determine what we see or don’t see? Is there a real difference between the state owned media in China and Cuba censoring anything that could be considered against the interests of the ruling party and Google and Facebook censoring anything that they as corporations consider to be against their interests or beliefs? It’s a different bureaucracy and set of people, but neither determining group was elected. There is an argument that anyone who uses YouTube or Facebook as their channel for news is effectively “electing” to have that company determine what it will see, but if that’s the case then those companies must be completely transparent about what it is that they censor and don’t censor before allowing anyone to sign up for their services. Simply burying this language in the EULA (which no one ever reads) is not sufficient. There should be a requirement to allow an opposing point of view from content providers who were censored and a readily available list of all censored items so that subscribers can easily determine what they will be missing when they “elect” the employees of these tech companies to determine what the consumer will be allowed to see. Subscribers should also be provided a continuing list of notifications of what exactly is censored by these tech companies so that they can make an informed decision as to whether they want to continue to use the tech company’s services and censorship or not. Transparency is critical here, but transparency is anathema to tech companies that would much prefer to do their censorship in back rooms and blame any high profile censoring incidents (e.g. Mitch McConnell’s Twitter account suspended) on “algorithms” and inscrutable “processes” rather than a particular person who didn’t want the public to see something with which they disagreed.
Granted, right now there are other places to see Fox News shows that Google censors, but if the major tech companies continue to expand their reach and potentially uses their market power to force other distributors of news to follow Silicon Valley’s more “woke” censoring standards, it’s conceivable in ten years that the only place to read Breitbart or see Fox News might be on Radio Free America, run on underground servers.
5 Responses
Eric, pardon this lengthy response. As you alluded to in your blog, transparency is the issue and the cloud of Section 230 of the CDA of platforms versus publishers/authors. It’s going to be a growing concern but it should be a surprise.
The issues of selective or censored posting on social media sites is an example associated with the larger issue of exempting 21st century technology applications and business relationships from common social, business, and regulation practices. Tech companies have sought to be an exemption larger because of the means of communication and stakeholder relationships. Historical examples include:
– Uber and Lyft: Taking the position that they are not taxis because they originally were not hailed curbside, by voice telephone, or internet. Does hailing a ride one must pay for by a smartphone app make it not commercial taxi service? Both companies have standards of the vehicles and the drivers just as taxis. Both companies control the rates. Both companies take from the drivers a percentage of the fare paid.
– Airbnb: Offers their product as a brokerage service for arranging or offering lodging, not as a lodging proprietor or operator. However, their website shares commonality in appearance, offerings, and phraseology of traditional hotels and motels. The lodging individual or shadow company owners must meet Airbnb standards just as a lodging franchise owner must. Airbnb does collect lodging taxes for lodging within specific jurisdictions, publicly stating it willingly complies with lodging taxes; but Airbnb also continues its historical fight against these taxes through lobbying and lawsuits. Is the relationship between Airbnb and the property owner really any different than the relationship between hotels and their franchise building owners and operators?
I offer the position that both ride sharing and lodging marketplaces are examples of evolution in technology and business, not a revolution deserving a cloak of noncompliance with common business requirements and practices. I only argue for these companies to be treated as their business really is. It’s another argument altogether about the validity, scope, and scale of the requirements and practices, especially taxation or fees without representation.
My position is similarly guided in my opinion of social media practices. Can social media demand the same protections for freedom of speech and the press gained in the United State through Article 3 of the Bill of Rights while not commonly applying the practices of the press? Though not by law, the press, both written and televised, generally practices validation of the information and generally practices identification of the source. These are the primary differences between the institutionalized press and social media. I, for one, do not accept at face value news and opinions. Consideration of the validity of the information requires knowledge of the authors’ foundations.
Notice I wrote “validity” of the information, not agreement with the information. I can consider information valid and thus permitting a process of agreement of not. It is my personal practice to receive both a supporting foundation and an opposing foundation to most news and opinions in the press.
Social media currently falls short in the freedom of the press argument. This is not just the fault of the media platform, it is also the fault of the authors of the information and the readers, viewers, or listeners. The shortfall is a result of the technology revolution in communication and communication devices in conflict with generally accepted standard of conduct of the business of the press, just as ride sharing or lodging reservation companies have within their business models. Newspapers, television, and radio traditionally take responsibility for the reporters and the talking heads of opinion. Social media has avoided taking responsibility for the posters of information. Readers, viewers, and listeners of the press, television, and radio traditionally know the foundation of the publishers they choose. With social media many posters intentional hide their foundation and purpose, some of which is nefarious. We don’t accept this of the traditional news and opinion platforms.
This creates the conflict regarding freedom of the press and social media. We will as a society demand freedom of social media without identification of the posters and their purpose? If so, would we then accept the lack of source validation and editorial restraint from the traditional media publishers? As a society, will we make demands for social media platforms the same as we do of the press? If not, how do we then fault the social media platform for controlling content? Is it not their right?
I know not the ultimate answer, but I do know it’s currently a conundrum.
Tony, first, thank you for reading. Second, thank you even more for such an well thought out and erudite analysis of the specific issue at hand as well as the role of technology companies in disrupting not only business models but the regulatory structures built around those models. Although I would normally argue that less regulation is better, there is definitely a valid argument that the regulatory and business practice structures in place in the industries you’ve mentioned have achieved some sort of balance over the years that has worked. Though the balance could be adjusted, complete lack of adherence to any regulations or common practices may not be in the best interest of consumers as a whole.
Again, thank you for the thought provoking commentary.
why when watching fox and friends, youtube, blocks out video, eample, when showing the barbed fence around capital and instead the video is covered up with a picture of Trump? i have been seeing this happen last 3 days on all kinds of different news video FOX is trying to show?
I have experienced the same thing. And today when listening to Trey Gowdy on Fox on YouTube, potions of his monolog were cut out. They do this type of censorship to the Tucker Carldon show also.
It’s miraculous the way You Tube can both cover their ears with both hands not to have to listen to diverse opinions and clutch their pearls at the same time.