[yvonne]

Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets since January discussing the virus and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans. 

It is too early to say conclusively what individuals or groups are behind the bot accounts, but researchers said the tweets appeared aimed at sowing divisions in America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...ikely-bots

[yvonne]

Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets since January discussing the virus and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans. 

It is too early to say conclusively what individuals or groups are behind the bot accounts, but researchers said the tweets appeared aimed at sowing divisions in America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...ikely-bots

[OutsiderFan]

Twitter has drastically improved its ability to stop new bot accounts from being created. Unfortunately, it has not been able to do anything about removing the ones registered before improving the account creation process that now requires human verification.

[OutsiderFan]

Twitter has drastically improved its ability to stop new bot accounts from being created. Unfortunately, it has not been able to do anything about removing the ones registered before improving the account creation process that now requires human verification.

[ChicagoCard]

Here's another concerning apparent reality, in the category of censorship...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1263447517032841218[/tweet]
The YouTube channel in question has had what seemed like unquestionably balanced interviews with Johan Giesecke, Neil Ferguson (of the Imperial College model), also Niall Ferguson, Natalie Dean, and Michael Levitt among others.

[ChicagoCard]

Here's another concerning apparent reality, in the category of censorship...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1263447517032841218[/tweet]
The YouTube channel in question has had what seemed like unquestionably balanced interviews with Johan Giesecke, Neil Ferguson (of the Imperial College model), also Niall Ferguson, Natalie Dean, and Michael Levitt among others.

[burger]

Here's another concerning apparent reality, in the category of censorship...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1263447517032841218[/tweet]
The YouTube channel in question has had what seemed like unquestionably balanced interviews with Johan Giesecke, Neil Ferguson (of the Imperial College model), also Niall Ferguson, Natalie Dean, and Michael Levitt among others.

I am not going to provide a link, but I clicked through to the summary of that interview, and it is completely full of shit.  There are outright lies about herd immunity, the virus "getting tired," and fear being a bigger problem than the virus. 

Thank goodness Youtube took this down.  Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that.  So I hope youtube and other social media continue this policy.

[burger]

Here's another concerning apparent reality, in the category of censorship...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1263447517032841218[/tweet]
The YouTube channel in question has had what seemed like unquestionably balanced interviews with Johan Giesecke, Neil Ferguson (of the Imperial College model), also Niall Ferguson, Natalie Dean, and Michael Levitt among others.

I am not going to provide a link, but I clicked through to the summary of that interview, and it is completely full of shit.  There are outright lies about herd immunity, the virus "getting tired," and fear being a bigger problem than the virus. 

Thank goodness Youtube took this down.  Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that.  So I hope youtube and other social media continue this policy.

[Goose]

Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that. 

If "most people" can't tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, we are screwed anyway. This is one place where "herd immunity" has proven effective in the past. From what I have seen of history, the real problems arise when one group manages to suppress every one else's ideas as "smart-sounding bullshit". That said, Utube is free to remove what they please.

[Goose]

Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that. 

If "most people" can't tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, we are screwed anyway. This is one place where "herd immunity" has proven effective in the past. From what I have seen of history, the real problems arise when one group manages to suppress every one else's ideas as "smart-sounding bullshit". That said, Utube is free to remove what they please.

[burger]

Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that. 

If "most people" can't tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, we are screwed anyway. This is one place where "herd immunity" has proven effective in the past. From what I have seen of history, the real problems arise when one group manages to suppress every one else's ideas as "smart-sounding bullshit". That said, Utube is free to remove what they please.

Saying the virus is nothing to be worried about is the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater--it's the sort of thing that will get people killed.

There is no right to spread misinformation in an emergency.  Free speech is not the primary issue here, nor should it be.  And there is no "one group" trying to suppress the speech of others.  We all have a vested interest in ensuring that people do not engage in risky behaviors because they have been lied to by "scientists."

[burger]

Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that. 

If "most people" can't tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, we are screwed anyway. This is one place where "herd immunity" has proven effective in the past. From what I have seen of history, the real problems arise when one group manages to suppress every one else's ideas as "smart-sounding bullshit". That said, Utube is free to remove what they please.

Saying the virus is nothing to be worried about is the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater--it's the sort of thing that will get people killed.

There is no right to spread misinformation in an emergency.  Free speech is not the primary issue here, nor should it be.  And there is no "one group" trying to suppress the speech of others.  We all have a vested interest in ensuring that people do not engage in risky behaviors because they have been lied to by "scientists."

[Genuine Realist]

Here's another concerning apparent reality, in the category of censorship...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1263447517032841218[/tweet]
The YouTube channel in question has had what seemed like unquestionably balanced interviews with Johan Giesecke, Neil Ferguson (of the Imperial College model), also Niall Ferguson, Natalie Dean, and Michael Levitt among others.

I am not going to provide a link, but I clicked through to the summary of that interview, and it is completely full of shit.  There are outright lies about herd immunity, the virus "getting tired," and fear being a bigger problem than the virus. 

Thank goodness Youtube took this down.  Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that.  So I hope youtube and other social media continue this policy.

You still leave it up. That's the nature of an open society.

---

Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that. 

If "most people" can't tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, we are screwed anyway. This is one place where "herd immunity" has proven effective in the past. From what I have seen of history, the real problems arise when one group manages to suppress every one else's ideas as "smart-sounding bullshit". That said, Utube is free to remove what they please.

Saying the virus is nothing to be worried about is the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater--it's the sort of thing that will get people killed.

There is no right to spread misinformation in an emergency.  Free speech is not the primary issue here, nor should it be.  And there is no "one group" trying to suppress the speech of others.  We all have a vested interest in ensuring that people do not engage in risky behaviors because they have been lied to by "scientists."

And YOU are the one who decides what is misinformation, what isn't.  I can see how you'd find that attractive.

[Genuine Realist]

Here's another concerning apparent reality, in the category of censorship...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1263447517032841218[/tweet]
The YouTube channel in question has had what seemed like unquestionably balanced interviews with Johan Giesecke, Neil Ferguson (of the Imperial College model), also Niall Ferguson, Natalie Dean, and Michael Levitt among others.

I am not going to provide a link, but I clicked through to the summary of that interview, and it is completely full of shit.  There are outright lies about herd immunity, the virus "getting tired," and fear being a bigger problem than the virus. 

Thank goodness Youtube took this down.  Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that.  So I hope youtube and other social media continue this policy.

You still leave it up. That's the nature of an open society.

---

Perhaps people on the cardboard can tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, but most people don't have the background to do that. 

If "most people" can't tell the difference between smart-sounding bullshit and the truth, we are screwed anyway. This is one place where "herd immunity" has proven effective in the past. From what I have seen of history, the real problems arise when one group manages to suppress every one else's ideas as "smart-sounding bullshit". That said, Utube is free to remove what they please.

Saying the virus is nothing to be worried about is the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater--it's the sort of thing that will get people killed.

There is no right to spread misinformation in an emergency.  Free speech is not the primary issue here, nor should it be.  And there is no "one group" trying to suppress the speech of others.  We all have a vested interest in ensuring that people do not engage in risky behaviors because they have been lied to by "scientists."

And YOU are the one who decides what is misinformation, what isn't.  I can see how you'd find that attractive.

[ChicagoCard]

Do not have a science background, and also not comfortable with the message of the virus dying out whether that message comes from the President or this "scientist" of the removed youtube video. But it came as a bit of a shock as I saw it as part of a series providing a platform for various science people and other supposed thinkers, some of which I alluded to. I know the decision to take it down has nothing to do with that consideration. If it's about the "lie" about the virus dying out, then ok I guess. But clearly the interview was hardly a tissue of lies throughout. Part of what they were discussing was the concept of fear which although uncomfortable or tricky or whatever, surely has to be a topic unworthy of censure. But maybe it did actually cross the line. The message of the people behind that channel left it at that after the removal, let people be the judge.

[ChicagoCard]

Do not have a science background, and also not comfortable with the message of the virus dying out whether that message comes from the President or this "scientist" of the removed youtube video. But it came as a bit of a shock as I saw it as part of a series providing a platform for various science people and other supposed thinkers, some of which I alluded to. I know the decision to take it down has nothing to do with that consideration. If it's about the "lie" about the virus dying out, then ok I guess. But clearly the interview was hardly a tissue of lies throughout. Part of what they were discussing was the concept of fear which although uncomfortable or tricky or whatever, surely has to be a topic unworthy of censure. But maybe it did actually cross the line. The message of the people behind that channel left it at that after the removal, let people be the judge.

[terry]

I don't know where this guy got the idea that YouTube is a "free republic." It's a privately owned, privately operated, for-profit business. It has the right to choose which videos it wants to host, based on its judgment about the best interests of its business and its users. YouTube gets to decide whether a video is so misleading that it should be deleted, because YouTube owns the business. If YouTube chooses to reject someone's video, that person is free to post it elsewhere.

[terry]

I don't know where this guy got the idea that YouTube is a "free republic." It's a privately owned, privately operated, for-profit business. It has the right to choose which videos it wants to host, based on its judgment about the best interests of its business and its users. YouTube gets to decide whether a video is so misleading that it should be deleted, because YouTube owns the business. If YouTube chooses to reject someone's video, that person is free to post it elsewhere.

[OutsiderFan]

The Cardboard admins censor these boards for the same reason YouTube does theirs. Although the breadth of information YouTube allows is quite broader than the Cardboard, both are private organizations offering an information sharing service they control. The Constitution's right to free speech doesn't apply to a privately owned information service, and for damn good reason. 

If someone wants to share the content YouTube doesn't allow, they are welcome to create their own information sharing service to do so. If nobody can justify allocating the resources needed to do this, that's just the market working. Even web hosting companies can refuse to carry websites and apps that disseminate information they find objectionable.

[OutsiderFan]

The Cardboard admins censor these boards for the same reason YouTube does theirs. Although the breadth of information YouTube allows is quite broader than the Cardboard, both are private organizations offering an information sharing service they control. The Constitution's right to free speech doesn't apply to a privately owned information service, and for damn good reason. 

If someone wants to share the content YouTube doesn't allow, they are welcome to create their own information sharing service to do so. If nobody can justify allocating the resources needed to do this, that's just the market working. Even web hosting companies can refuse to carry websites and apps that disseminate information they find objectionable.

[Goose]

I don't know where this guy got the idea that YouTube is a "free republic." It's a privately owned, privately operated, for-profit business. It has the right to choose which videos it wants to host, based on its judgment about the best interests of its business and its users. YouTube gets to decide whether a video is so misleading that it should be deleted because YouTube owns the business. If YouTube chooses to reject someone's video, that person is free to post it elsewhere.

Absolutely true. You Tube can even take the video down for no reason at all, not just because it is misleading. That is also part of a free society, as it should be.Everybody has a right to free speech. They don't have a right to a free platform.

[Goose]

I don't know where this guy got the idea that YouTube is a "free republic." It's a privately owned, privately operated, for-profit business. It has the right to choose which videos it wants to host, based on its judgment about the best interests of its business and its users. YouTube gets to decide whether a video is so misleading that it should be deleted because YouTube owns the business. If YouTube chooses to reject someone's video, that person is free to post it elsewhere.

Absolutely true. You Tube can even take the video down for no reason at all, not just because it is misleading. That is also part of a free society, as it should be.Everybody has a right to free speech. They don't have a right to a free platform.

[BostonCard]

The fundamental problem that Youtube (and twitter and facebook) have complex algorithms that amplify certain videos, posts, or messages and suppress others.  The result is that controversial videos like this are not just on the platform, they are promoted by the algorithm (because the algorithms are tuned to amplify stuff that generates strong reactions, including controversial items).

I agree with others that actual video takedowns should be rare and only if they contain illegal material or material that might be dangerous (for example, a video suggesting that drinking methanol would prevent COVID-19 [not sure what to do about POTUS suggesting that injecting bleach would be a good idea]).

But there is a lot of stuff that doesn't meet that standard, but which social media shouldn't necessarily be promoting.  For stuff that is in the gray area, Youtube and other should have a flag that removes it from the algorithm so that it can remain on the platform, but would only be seen if someone specifically goes to it.  It would thus be hidden from being autoplayed, being recommended when someone views a different video, would not land on the homepage, and thus would not be amplified.

BC

[BostonCard]

The fundamental problem that Youtube (and twitter and facebook) have complex algorithms that amplify certain videos, posts, or messages and suppress others.  The result is that controversial videos like this are not just on the platform, they are promoted by the algorithm (because the algorithms are tuned to amplify stuff that generates strong reactions, including controversial items).

I agree with others that actual video takedowns should be rare and only if they contain illegal material or material that might be dangerous (for example, a video suggesting that drinking methanol would prevent COVID-19 [not sure what to do about POTUS suggesting that injecting bleach would be a good idea]).

But there is a lot of stuff that doesn't meet that standard, but which social media shouldn't necessarily be promoting.  For stuff that is in the gray area, Youtube and other should have a flag that removes it from the algorithm so that it can remain on the platform, but would only be seen if someone specifically goes to it.  It would thus be hidden from being autoplayed, being recommended when someone views a different video, would not land on the homepage, and thus would not be amplified.

BC

[burger]

I think taking down the videos completely is the best solution to active attempts to spread misinformation.  People don't look at the warnings and alternative links to trusted sites that some social media sites have been using to combat misinformation.  Even if youtube hides a video from search algorithms, people are really good at using other social media sites/networks to spread misinformation.  Check this out for a scary example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/techn...virus.html

More generally, leaving the videos up or the "teach the controversy" strategy plays into the hands of people spreading lies because most people aren't well-informed enough on subjects like epidemiology to distinguish truth from lies.  I'm a biology PhD, not a medical doctor.  Still, I can't tell you how many times my family has forwarded me sketchy links about the virus and asked for my opinion.  Most people do not have a doctor or even a knowledgeable person in their families to answer these questions.

What scares me is that if/when a vaccine is approved for covid-19, the anti-vaxxers are going to do everything possible to get out their lies.  I am strongly in favor of putting systems in place now to squelch those lies before they do serious damage.

[burger]

I think taking down the videos completely is the best solution to active attempts to spread misinformation.  People don't look at the warnings and alternative links to trusted sites that some social media sites have been using to combat misinformation.  Even if youtube hides a video from search algorithms, people are really good at using other social media sites/networks to spread misinformation.  Check this out for a scary example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/techn...virus.html

More generally, leaving the videos up or the "teach the controversy" strategy plays into the hands of people spreading lies because most people aren't well-informed enough on subjects like epidemiology to distinguish truth from lies.  I'm a biology PhD, not a medical doctor.  Still, I can't tell you how many times my family has forwarded me sketchy links about the virus and asked for my opinion.  Most people do not have a doctor or even a knowledgeable person in their families to answer these questions.

What scares me is that if/when a vaccine is approved for covid-19, the anti-vaxxers are going to do everything possible to get out their lies.  I am strongly in favor of putting systems in place now to squelch those lies before they do serious damage.

[Mick]

https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...-amendment

Interesting argument.  Twitter is a private platform and can handle users any way they want...except when a govt official uses it for an official purpose.  Then it temporarily becomes a public platform for purposes of users like Trump and AOC who want to block viewers.  At least that's the legal argument.

[Mick]

https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...-amendment

Interesting argument.  Twitter is a private platform and can handle users any way they want...except when a govt official uses it for an official purpose.  Then it temporarily becomes a public platform for purposes of users like Trump and AOC who want to block viewers.  At least that's the legal argument.

[TreesAndBirds]

Im not so sure that just because YouTube or Twitter are private property they get to exclude speech they dont like, specifically under the California constitution that has broader free speech protections than the US constitution. 

Those of you who were in the Bay Area during the ‘80s may remember when the Cal Supreme Ct required the PruneYard shopping Center to allow people to exercise free speech rights on their private property. A summary and whole line of related cases is here...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyar..._v._Robins

Im not a constitutional law scholar, so maybe Im missing something, but seems to me if Pruneyard cant discriminate against free speech on its private property, Im unclear why Twitter or YouTube which also hold themselves out as open to the public and have aspects of our traditional “town halls” would be able to do so. 

Thats not to say “anything goes” or there are no limits, but Im unclear that they have an absolute right to limit free speech.

[TreesAndBirds]

Im not so sure that just because YouTube or Twitter are private property they get to exclude speech they dont like, specifically under the California constitution that has broader free speech protections than the US constitution. 

Those of you who were in the Bay Area during the ‘80s may remember when the Cal Supreme Ct required the PruneYard shopping Center to allow people to exercise free speech rights on their private property. A summary and whole line of related cases is here...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyar..._v._Robins

Im not a constitutional law scholar, so maybe Im missing something, but seems to me if Pruneyard cant discriminate against free speech on its private property, Im unclear why Twitter or YouTube which also hold themselves out as open to the public and have aspects of our traditional “town halls” would be able to do so. 

Thats not to say “anything goes” or there are no limits, but Im unclear that they have an absolute right to limit free speech.

[BostonCard]

https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...-amendment

Interesting argument.  Twitter is a private platform and can handle users any way they want...except when a govt official uses it for an official purpose.  Then it temporarily becomes a public platform for purposes of users like Trump and AOC who want to block viewers.  At least that's the legal argument.

That seems to be a reasonable argument.  Though at least as I read in the summary of the link you sent, it's the government officials who can't block twitter users.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...-amendment

Interesting argument.  Twitter is a private platform and can handle users any way they want...except when a govt official uses it for an official purpose.  Then it temporarily becomes a public platform for purposes of users like Trump and AOC who want to block viewers.  At least that's the legal argument.

That seems to be a reasonable argument.  Though at least as I read in the summary of the link you sent, it's the government officials who can't block twitter users.

BC

[BostonCard]

Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets since January discussing the virus and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans. 

It is too early to say conclusively what individuals or groups are behind the bot accounts, but researchers said the tweets appeared aimed at sowing divisions in America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...ikely-bots

Note that bots aren't necessarily bad, per se.  For example, you could imagine a twitter bot that scoured MedrXiv and tweeted anytime a new COVID-19 related publication was added to the pre-print server. Or you could imagine one that posted real-time updates of new COVID cases/deaths scoured from each state's public health department.  AS with any tool, bots can be used for good or evil.

BC

[BostonCard]

Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets since January discussing the virus and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans. 

It is too early to say conclusively what individuals or groups are behind the bot accounts, but researchers said the tweets appeared aimed at sowing divisions in America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...ikely-bots

Note that bots aren't necessarily bad, per se.  For example, you could imagine a twitter bot that scoured MedrXiv and tweeted anytime a new COVID-19 related publication was added to the pre-print server. Or you could imagine one that posted real-time updates of new COVID cases/deaths scoured from each state's public health department.  AS with any tool, bots can be used for good or evil.

BC

[terry]

There has been some litigation about whether YouTube is a public forum and whether its users are entitled to free speech protection.

Prager University sued Google (YouTube's parent) because YouTube had restricted some of Prager's videos. Specifically, YouTube put some videos in "Restricted Mode" and barred advertising on those videos. 

Prager argued that YouTube is effectively a "public forum" and cannot restrict free speech. Prager sued in both federal court and state court, invoking both federal and state law.

Prager's federal lawsuit was dismissed by the federal district court. The federal Court of Appeals affirmed last February. The Court of Appeals explained that the YouTube platform is not a public forum and that YouTube's moderation of the forum is not the equivalent of government action. Prager's videos therefore were not protected to the First Amendment, which protects only against the government. From the opinion:

"PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Just last year, the Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). The Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment." 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...-15712.pdf

Prager's lawsuit in state court was dismissed by the California Superior Court last November. An appeal is pending. The Superior Court recognized that under California law, as explained in the Robins v. Pruneyard case, private property can sometimes take on the characteristics of a public forum for free speech. This principle of California law provides broader free speech protection than federal law does. However, the court held that YouTube's Restricted Mode designation and ban on advertising do not raise "public forum" concerns, and that there is no public right of access to be treated favorably with respect to these features.

The case did not involve action by YouTube to completely delete videos, so the Superior Court did not need to rule on whether deletion would deny access to a public forum under California law. However, the court expressed doubt about whether the Robins v. Pruneyard case's rationale could be applied to declare a site like YouTube a "public forum." From the opinion:

"Defendants correctly urge that even to recognize the core YouTube platform as a public forum would be a dramatic expansion of Robins. As one federal court observed, "[t]he analogy between a shopping mall and the Internet is imperfect, and there are a host of potential 'slippery slope' problems that are likely to surface were [Robins] to apply to the Internet." (hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2017) 273 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1116 [observing that "[n]o court has expressly extended [Robins] to the Internet generally"]."

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/v...historical

[Edit -- I just realized that this post is off-topic with respect to Covid-19. However, I don't think it violates the "no politics" rule. So I'm not sure whether it's suitable for this board. I'm happy to delete this if it's inappropriate.]

[terry]

There has been some litigation about whether YouTube is a public forum and whether its users are entitled to free speech protection.

Prager University sued Google (YouTube's parent) because YouTube had restricted some of Prager's videos. Specifically, YouTube put some videos in "Restricted Mode" and barred advertising on those videos. 

Prager argued that YouTube is effectively a "public forum" and cannot restrict free speech. Prager sued in both federal court and state court, invoking both federal and state law.

Prager's federal lawsuit was dismissed by the federal district court. The federal Court of Appeals affirmed last February. The Court of Appeals explained that the YouTube platform is not a public forum and that YouTube's moderation of the forum is not the equivalent of government action. Prager's videos therefore were not protected to the First Amendment, which protects only against the government. From the opinion:

"PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Just last year, the Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). The Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment." 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...-15712.pdf

Prager's lawsuit in state court was dismissed by the California Superior Court last November. An appeal is pending. The Superior Court recognized that under California law, as explained in the Robins v. Pruneyard case, private property can sometimes take on the characteristics of a public forum for free speech. This principle of California law provides broader free speech protection than federal law does. However, the court held that YouTube's Restricted Mode designation and ban on advertising do not raise "public forum" concerns, and that there is no public right of access to be treated favorably with respect to these features.

The case did not involve action by YouTube to completely delete videos, so the Superior Court did not need to rule on whether deletion would deny access to a public forum under California law. However, the court expressed doubt about whether the Robins v. Pruneyard case's rationale could be applied to declare a site like YouTube a "public forum." From the opinion:

"Defendants correctly urge that even to recognize the core YouTube platform as a public forum would be a dramatic expansion of Robins. As one federal court observed, "[t]he analogy between a shopping mall and the Internet is imperfect, and there are a host of potential 'slippery slope' problems that are likely to surface were [Robins] to apply to the Internet." (hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2017) 273 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1116 [observing that "[n]o court has expressly extended [Robins] to the Internet generally"]."

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/v...historical

[Edit -- I just realized that this post is off-topic with respect to Covid-19. However, I don't think it violates the "no politics" rule. So I'm not sure whether it's suitable for this board. I'm happy to delete this if it's inappropriate.]

[fullmetal]

In the hypothetical where huckters and hoaxsters are asking Youtube to publish their videos to the world for personal gain, it is entirely appropriate for Youtube to deny access to that platform whether as a company or as a collection of individuals who have decided that such videos run counter to the values of the company or those of the collection of individuals.  It is not censorship, just as a business asking a newspaper to run ads for free and being denied is not censorship in that the business did not meet the newspaper's standard for publication (monetary), and these videos did not meet Youtube's standard for publication (safe, not malicious, not dangerous, does not cause harm).

It is precisely because others cannot tell whether these videos are false that Youtube should not give these publishers access to their platform.

I agree that the prevalence of botnet accounts on Youtube is a pernicious aspect of the social media platform.  Too often, people are easily exploited via confirmation bias into retweeting or publishing tweets that seem authoritative by virtue of mass presence in a vicious positive feedforward effect.

[fullmetal]

In the hypothetical where huckters and hoaxsters are asking Youtube to publish their videos to the world for personal gain, it is entirely appropriate for Youtube to deny access to that platform whether as a company or as a collection of individuals who have decided that such videos run counter to the values of the company or those of the collection of individuals.  It is not censorship, just as a business asking a newspaper to run ads for free and being denied is not censorship in that the business did not meet the newspaper's standard for publication (monetary), and these videos did not meet Youtube's standard for publication (safe, not malicious, not dangerous, does not cause harm).

It is precisely because others cannot tell whether these videos are false that Youtube should not give these publishers access to their platform.

I agree that the prevalence of botnet accounts on Youtube is a pernicious aspect of the social media platform.  Too often, people are easily exploited via confirmation bias into retweeting or publishing tweets that seem authoritative by virtue of mass presence in a vicious positive feedforward effect.

[oregontim]

Wow wow wow, this is so important. I'm not surprised at the possibility, but shocked to see it's that high. That's h*ge. And who are we kidding — it has h*ge impact on the vote. It's literally killing us.

I advertise on both Twitter and Facebook. We should all understand how frighteningly easy it is to amplify a post or tweet. In either case, I can send my opinion to millions of people who see it as my opinion. $10 per day buys me single-digit thousands of views per week. So the budget is the only limit.

And with bots it gets worse. I get emails regularly offering me 1,000 twitter bots accounts, plus a script to automate them, for as little as $29.95. So simple software turns me into the sorcerer's apprentice, waving a baton, managing thousands of multiplications of whatever I want to say.

I buy those bots and do the scripting software and now my opinion goes out as 1,000 different people. For free. And if I have the budget to advertise, then there's another multiplier.

Do we think for a minute that Twitter on any politically related public policy issue isn't 46% bots? Do we realize how much that affects all of us?

This is really tough for me because it's between the devil and the deep blue sea. I've been all for net neutrality for decades. I don't want government regulation. And I understand how Facebook and Twitter don't want to become judge and jury. And shouldn't be. But damn, if we do nothing, public opinion is for sale and this reality has a lot to do with election results and public policy,

Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets since January discussing the virus and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans. 

It is too early to say conclusively what individuals or groups are behind the bot accounts, but researchers said the tweets appeared aimed at sowing divisions in America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...ikely-bots

[oregontim]

Wow wow wow, this is so important. I'm not surprised at the possibility, but shocked to see it's that high. That's h*ge. And who are we kidding — it has h*ge impact on the vote. It's literally killing us.

I advertise on both Twitter and Facebook. We should all understand how frighteningly easy it is to amplify a post or tweet. In either case, I can send my opinion to millions of people who see it as my opinion. $10 per day buys me single-digit thousands of views per week. So the budget is the only limit.

And with bots it gets worse. I get emails regularly offering me 1,000 twitter bots accounts, plus a script to automate them, for as little as $29.95. So simple software turns me into the sorcerer's apprentice, waving a baton, managing thousands of multiplications of whatever I want to say.

I buy those bots and do the scripting software and now my opinion goes out as 1,000 different people. For free. And if I have the budget to advertise, then there's another multiplier.

Do we think for a minute that Twitter on any politically related public policy issue isn't 46% bots? Do we realize how much that affects all of us?

This is really tough for me because it's between the devil and the deep blue sea. I've been all for net neutrality for decades. I don't want government regulation. And I understand how Facebook and Twitter don't want to become judge and jury. And shouldn't be. But damn, if we do nothing, public opinion is for sale and this reality has a lot to do with election results and public policy,

Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets since January discussing the virus and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans. 

It is too early to say conclusively what individuals or groups are behind the bot accounts, but researchers said the tweets appeared aimed at sowing divisions in America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...ikely-bots