Comments on: YouTube Isn’t a Company Town (Duh)–Prager University v. Google

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:32:00 +0000

In reply to Vince.

“Censorship” is when the government restricts private speech. When private actors determine what content they want to present to their audience, it’s called “editorial discretion.” For an explanation of why I prefer editorial discretion by Internet services over government censorship, see this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3911509

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:56:00 +0000

So why are you so in favor of censorship? Because that’s what this piece reads to me. It reads like one big pro-censorship puff piece.

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 01:39:00 +0000

In reply to Ramsey Ramerman. I think using the term "due process" is value-loaded and therefore more distracting than helpful. Forcing media publishers to disclose information always raises First Amendment concerns.

By: Ramsey Ramerman

Ramsey Ramerman — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 23:33:00 +0000

The problem with trying to restrict Google’s bias is that such restrictions infringe of Google’s First Amendment rights. But what about giving users lesser First Amendment protections?
Here’s the theory — section 230 gives websites government-granted immunities that effectively allow websites to publish and censor without the liabilities that a newspaper publisher would have to face. This government-granted power justifies imposing some First Amendment responsibilities. While restriction on Google’s power to censor based on viewpoint makes no sense in light of 230, the First Amendment also provides certain due process protections and imposing these protections on Google would not interfere with its ability to censor based on viewpoint. These protections would include notice of what types of posts Google will censor and appeal rights to prevent against secret rules and ex post facto censorship.
The notice requirement would have to be balances so that algorithms couldn’t be gained but it would mean that before YouTube could specifically target Prager U, it would have to adopt and provide notice that it is intended to take such action.
There is precedent for imposing First Amendment restrictions on private businesses when those businesses exercise government-granted authority beyond the “all in” company town theory. Statutory immunity is a government power. And the limited due process restrictions only impose a modest restriction that is commiserate with the powers granted by 230.
I am interested in your thoughts and if you are interested I’d be happy to share my research.

By: Researchers’ Challenge to CFAA Moves Forward–Sandvig v. Sessions – Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:19:12 +0000

[…] The court’s forum analysis is of course is new, and a big leap from the Supreme Court’s decision in Packingham. I’m not aware of any other court applying a forum-analysis to the internet, or portions of it. Compare this with Judge Koh’s ruling in Prager University v. Google which Eric blogged about. […]