|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||20d 23h 38m 53s|
(Reuters) - Google has won the dismissal of a lawsuit in California accusing YouTube of censoring conservative content.
In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.
The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos, including through its “Restricted Mode” setting, on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.
But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), did not qualify as “state actors” subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.
“Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,” Koh wrote.
“Plaintiff has not shown that defendants have engaged in one of the very few public functions that were traditionally exclusively reserved to the state,” she added.
The San Jose, California-based judge also dismissed a claim that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager’s videos were “inappropriate.”
Koh gave Prager a chance to amend its lawsuit, and said the case “demands an analysis” of California’s state constitution “in the age of social media and the internet.”
Peter Obstler, a lawyer for Prager, said his client will review its legal options, including a possible appeal.
facebook-data-history/three-faceboo k-users-sue-over-collection-of-call -text-history-idUSKBN1H4032
In court papers, Google had acknowledged that deciding which videos to restrict “may involve difficult, subjective judgment calls,” but said it should not be liable for trying to keep YouTube “safe and enjoyable for all users.”
YouTube, in a statement, said Prager’s videos “weren’t excluded from Restricted Mode because of politics or ideology,” and Koh’s decision “vindicates important legal principles that allow us to provide different choices and settings to users.”
Google drew attention last August when it fired an engineer, James Damore, who had written an internal memo saying that biological differences led to fewer women in various technology jobs.
Damore sued Google in January, saying it was biased against white men with conservative views.
The case is Prager University v Google LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-06064.
>It's no surprise the left is trying to suppress it.
I still get ads for it on Youtube, so I really doubt anyone is trying to suppress it (or if they are, they're doing a shit job). Case in point, from >>240905:
>Google drew attention last August when it fired [...] James Damore
Damore then went on to make an ad for PragerU where he bitched about how evil Google was, which was then run as an ad on Youtube. I'm pretty sure at that point they were trying to directly provoke Google, but Youtube kept running the ads anyway. If the goal was to suppress that viewpoint, Google is doing a shit job.
On a related note, PragerU ads are also the only ads I have ever watched where I felt like the advertiser was actively hating my guts. It's like the conservative version of the smug elitist liberal; whether or not you agree with them it just feels like they think you're lower than plebeian trash.
You would think a conservative organization like them would understand that a private platform isn't responsible for protecting their freedom of speech.
Not saying youtube isn't shit, for a host of reasons, but if you think 1A applies to them you're an idiot.
In this video they claim that SETI was listening in on the whole universe (they weren't, https://www.seti.org/), claim that there are 50 criteria for life (don't name the criteria, or cite anyone, NASA says therr are three, https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forst
udents/postsecondary/features/mars_ life_feature_1015.html), regularly swap between the terms 'Intelligent Life' and 'Life' to mislead the audience, changes a quote from Peter Schenkel (https://www.csicop.org/si/show/set i_requires_a_skeptical_reappraisal) to make it look like he is dismissing the prospect of intelligent life in the universe when he is just reducing the estimates. Lastly, it uses the argument that the odds against life and the existence of the universe are astronomical, but the way to get around massive odds is to go through the iteration a massive amount of times and physicists have theorized that their have been and will be plenty more big bangs, overwhelming the odds against existence. The existence of the multiverse is demonstrated by the Double Slit Experiment where only sending a single photon or electron through the double slit will still produce an interference pattern, indicating that the particle is in multiple places at once.
More to come. Comments have character limits.
Or there's this one, where they claim that there were four big bangs (a cosmological, biological, anthropological and psychological one) and it's based entirely on ignoring evidence. Firstly, the youtube commentator misunderstood what Physicists claim the Big Bang (or 'Cosmological Inflation' for the name of the theory itself) is, instead of all of matter coming from nothing, the theory of 'Cosmological Inflation' claims that matter comes from a dense point of energy, a singularity since matter and energy can be converted to each other. When he talks about the second big bang he uses three definitions of abiogenesis, 'Life from Nothing', 'Life from Dead Stuff' and 'Life from Non-Life' (the only correct definition), misleading viewers in the same way as the last video. He then ignores how scientists themselves have replicated abiogenesis (https://www.nature.com/news/minima
l-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-har ness-synthetic-life-1.19633 and http://science.sciencemag.org/conte nt/323/5918/1229). The third and fourth big bang he talks about has the premise of completely ignoring the works of Anthropologists for the last few centuries. He is basically ignoring that the process of humans from animals has been both described and tracked, including how the brains of mammals develop over time. It's basic stuff taught in any anthropology textbook. He ignores how animals have been seen to perform art (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w FByveXo48), react to music (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj su3SGAdLs) or pay homage to their dead (https://www.newscientist.com/artic le/dn8209-elephants-may-pay-homage- to-dead-relatives/). Outright telling students that evidence doesn't exist when it does is not education, it's the opposite of education.
claims polar caps are both melting and growing at the same time, and haven't done anything other than blowing up a few rockets for a few decades now. Even Musk has beaten them to the blow-up rate by now.
>trying to pick political discussion appart for not being scientifically accurate enough
>not understanding science
Your arguments are weak, but let's leave this for now.
If the only thing you can do is attack the creationism videos, those being of the lowest quality, and you still need to put that much effort into it, I'd say they're doing better than a lot of other channels.
Nasa doesn't claim that the ice caps are both melting and growing at the same time, they're claiming that different ice caps are melting and growing and that the net melt rate is higher than the net growth rate of polar ice caps worldwide. They have also done plenty more than launch a few rockets (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release
/nasa-invests-in-shapeshifters-biob ots-other-visionary-technology check out the Latest News tab on the left of the page) it just doesn't interest people without an interest in science.
>trying to pick political discussion appart for not being scientifically accurate enough
>not understanding science
Yes, when you get scientific facts wrong when the topic is science itself, it makes your arguments weaker. Also, I've yet to see any actual university that PragerU attacks to publish such shit in the objective fields. If they can't get objective fields right then how can they be trusted to display a balanced and nuanced view on subjective fields? You also overestimate the effort needed. It took about 20 minutes to create both posts.
These are recent things. Nasa was a bureaucratic drain of finances for 2 decades and more. Musk popped to the scene and blew up twice as many rockets for a tenth of the money, so they had to get some of their shit together.
But these are still just promises and "investments".
>when you get scientific facts wrong when the topic is science itself, it makes your arguments weaker.
I guess Harvard, Yale, Stanford,... etc. must be pretty weak universities, since they published some utter garbage in the past with a science sticker on it, right?
Not that prageru even claims to be a real uni, just a source of views.
>These are recent things. Nasa was a bureaucratic drain of finances for 2 decades and more.
You're making general claims about NASA to a guy who's made specific claims about things that Prager U is hosting. The equivalent for you to be to link to specific articles or videos published by NASA that are factual garbage fires.
>I guess Harvard, Yale, Stanford,... etc. must be pretty weak universities, since they published some utter garbage in the past with a science sticker on it, right?
Every now and then garbage gets through the door. Part of being a responsible scientific institution is making sure to recant, refute, or correct that garbage which ends up being published for whatever reason. Has Prager U done any of the same?
At the end of the day those who publish under a platform are judged by their peers.
Look, man, it's cool and all that you're conservative, but at least try to use respectable sources of conservative opinion and not a soundbite factory. I suggest National Review, Manhattan Institute / City Journal, maybe Heterodox Academy or Reason if you're one of those "non-standard" conservatives or something. Prager U is just distilled talk radio.
>Part of being a responsible scientific institution is making sure to recant, refute, or correct that garbage which ends up being published for whatever reason.
1.) PragerU never claimed to be a responsible, scientific institution. They provide a viewpoint with some evidence and some arguments.
You should reserve this level of anger for Politifact, or Snopes.
2.) A lot of actual, as in, in demand of respect, institutions have never recanted some of their bullsit, and despite claims of neutrality, have insisted of being politically active. You seem to be from USA, and I don't know or care enough about USA to give you explicit details, other than what I've noticed in passing. Insisting on false claims for 10+ years though, I'd call refusing to recant.
3.) You can still manipulate while correcting your claims. It is one of the reasons why people believe whites/browns/jews are no.1 pedos, rapists, serial killers, (pick your biasses), for instance.
>At the end of the day those who publish under a platform are judged by their peers.
Yup. Judged by their peers.
The instant they called themselves a university they made a claim of authority. Don't give me some bullshit fine print. No one reads that shit. Perception is 9/10ths of reality. They just see the U and think oh this is an authority on the matter. Which is exactly why YouTube had to restrict them.
They're playing stupid games and earned a stupid prize.... I suppose the cherry on top is that the same people who advocate for private firms doing as they please now have their panties in a twist when it's turned against them... Morality of convenience. The religious right is getting just a taste of the bullshit they've put people through for decades and now they're having a temper tantrum. P. A. T. H. E. T. I. C.
>A lot of actual, as in, in demand of respect, institutions have never recanted some of their bullsit
Name some specific instances, as in specific studies which were proven to be false and for which representatives of Harvard/Yale doubled down rather than admit fault when confronted with the issue.
This is just retarded. There's literally politifact in the post, and you're ignoring it.
CNN, Fox, etc. have all been caught making shit up and just rolling with it. As in, intentional spread of false information. They've still got "news" in the name. They're not blocked by youtube (although, Fox did get slapped a few times, never CNN).
You're also implying anything with the name of university should deliver quality content all the time.
I get it, though. You hate religious people because it's cool to do so now in the west (as it used to be in the east, but less so now), you live in a bubble and like it, some things offend you, so you want them to go away.
But why are you on 4chan then?
a bit of search:
Why is Buzzfeed in mainstream category and not fringe?
Also, they literally use Buzzfeed to determine what's "fake news" category and what isn't (page 5). Let's not mention that their sample is already heavily biassed (Nearly 2/3 women, no attempts at correcting).
In short, bullshit.
Doubling down comes from the fact that they quote other Yale "researchers" who have done the same kind of shitty research.
I'm guessing you just don't have much personal experience with academia. If you did, you'd know there's always both good, and complete shit, no matter what university.
>CNN, Fox, etc. have all been caught making shit up and just rolling with it.
These sites often issue retractions when proven wrong.
>CNN, Fox, etc. have all been caught making shit up
Stop screaming about "false claims for 10+ years" and have the decency to point to specific examples of what's been pointed out about Prager U. You have been responding to specifics with sweeping claims. This is stupid because your claims are unfalsifiable.
>Why is Buzzfeed in mainstream category and not fringe?
I haven't done an assessment of Buzzfeed, so I wouldn't know.
>Nearly 2/3 women, no attempts at correcting.
This is not a clinical study. If a paper cited 2/3rds sources written by men it would not be a real criticism.
>Doubling down comes from the fact that they quote other Yale "researchers" who have done the same kind of shitty research.
All researchers cite other research.
>In short, bullshit.
Your equivalent of blatantly unscientific statements about physics is the fact that a paper, somewhere, used Buzzfeed as a source, once. Wow. That's insane. I'm retracting what I said about quality sources: you're the kind of person who belongs at a university like Prager U, because you have no standards and never well. I hope your degree serves you well.
Do you have an issue with any specific sites listed as a "fake news" source? Buzzfeed isn't even listed as a mainstream source in Table 1.
As for their skewed sample, they weren't trying to get a nationally representative sample, and they were honest about it.
>Furthermore, it is unclear that a nationally representative survey would actually be more
representative than Mechanical Turk with respect to the relevant target population for this work: people who respond to online surveys.
But most importantly, going back to the original question, has the methodology in this paper been publicly called out and addressed, in a journal review or letter of some sort? It's only been about a month since it was published, and I see no one citing this paper either. Call it sloppy research if you want, but I asked about their reaction to being called out on their sloppy methodology.
You realize that "representative" isn't a binary property of a sample? There's different populations that samples can be representative of, and here they explicitly state they're not interested in being representative of the general population, only the population that does online surveys.
You do not understand the basics. And neither does the Yale group.
They should not have passed their 1st year.
What IS the population of the people that do online surveys?
Why would you want to determine what people who are motivated to answer online surveys think, as opposed to the general population?
See, fallacies like these is how you can make political predictions that completely topple over.
>Here, we consider an alternative approach to fighting misinformation online: using crowdsourcing (rather than professional fact-checkers) to assess the reliability of news websites
>And by using crowdsourcing rather than professional fact-checkers, this approach may avoid perceptions of systematic liberal bias, and thus achieve broader perceptions of legitimacy across the political spectrum.
This paper is trying to assess how using crowdsourcing would work as an alternative to having media outlets fact check. People who don't take online surveys won't have any input in such a hypothetical crowdsourcing rating system, only people who are willing to take online surveys would be involved. Did You fully read at least the introduction and tried to understand its main points before making such criticisms?
This paper isn't even peer-reviewd, it's a paper that hasn't been fully put through the system. If this paper is the worst you can say against the system, it's not convincing.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>Congress shall make no law
Either they are very stupid either they knew from the begining this was going nowhere. Youtube is not a state actor hence it can't be regulated as such. They should have gone for a state actor but the problem is that the first amendment only covrs law writen not unwriten laws.
Now the challenge will be following the judge to see if their is a conflict of interest. Who does she know on the Google/YouTube team? Who does she socialize with that is, or is close to, the Google/YouTube group or their major share holders? Are there any financial/asset gains that can be linked between the judge, her family, and YouTube, Google, the board, and shareholders? Is the a middle man helping them cover up possible collusion between judge and Company?
>Hurr durr philsophically sourced morality isn't real because it can't be empirically proven
>Hurr durr religious sourced morality is superior even though religion can't be empirically proven either
I'm religious myself but this is one shit argument where the atheists are correct.
All morality is subjective to your opinions regardless of whether you believe in God or not. Believing in God merely shifts your subjectivity from morality to theology. Thus your basis is still subjective. Anyone who can't understand this is a literal double digit IQ brainlet.
>judge throws out frivolous lawsuit
>"let's character assassinate the judge! that'll solve our problems!"
you have no more right to post videos on youtube than you do to write articles for reuters
why just the other day i penned an article about how liberal pedophile cucks were raping millions of children every day and reuters refused to publish it
it's like communism
Do you actually think that google is only successful cause their competitors rolled over and let google fuck them in the ass? Google does provide excellent services despite all the SJW BS they've been doing, or would you like to name some other company that offers a search engine, map services, mail, online storage and creation of office document, translations, etc, on the same level as Google or above?
page took 0.0106 seconds to execute