Viewers of VisualPolitik, I have a very important announcement to make. Donald Trump... He's
back!
Yes, that’s right. Trump is back in the news. And why, you may ask? Well, because
of this.
(Trump sues Twitter, Google and Facebook alleging 'censorship'
BBC 07 July 2021)
As you know, after the storming of the Capitol, all the major internet platforms suspended
all of Donald Trump's accounts. Why? Well, because Trump was agitating his followers
hours before they stormed the Capitol. In other words, they didn't accuse him of organizing
the assault. But they did blame him for creating the climate of hatred that provoked the attack.
And this opens a very serious debate. To what extent are we talking about censorship? And
I know what many of you are thinking – they are private companies! Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube can make any rules they want. And yes, you're right.
The problem is that these three platforms have the oligopoly of online content. That
is, if YouTube takes down a channel... it is very difficult, almost impossible, for
that channel to find another similar platform from which to broadcast online.
But wait a minute! Because we're not just talking about a whim of the big tech companies.
In reality, Twitter, Facebook and Google are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On
the one hand, Trump and many others are denouncing them for violating freedom of speech.
But, on the other hand, many governments are pressuring them to remove all of what is considered
(((MAKE AIR QUOTES GESTURE))) "harmful content". Listen up.
(Facebook and YouTube face tough new laws on extremist and explicit video
Europe proposes new rules and fines to force social media firms to tackle online video
The Guardian 24 May 2017)
To give you an idea, some of these laws include fines of up to 50 million euros. The question
is, are we really talking about censorship, and how reasonable is it to demand that YouTube
protect us from "harmful content"? Today we are going to answer these questions, but first
let's take a look at some history.
(HOW MUCH FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS TOO MUCH?)
In November 2015, a Spanish girl was arrested at Barajas Airport in Madrid as she was about
to travel to Turkey to join DAESH. The most incredible thing about this story is that
the girl in question was not even born into a Muslim family. This girl was radicalized
by watching DAESH propaganda on social media.
There was a time, not so many years ago, when it was absurdly easy to find radical Islamist
propaganda videos. They were even on Instagram. Of course, in almost all democratic countries
there are laws prohibiting terrorist propaganda. That is, even if the constitution of any European
country recognizes freedom of speech, there are some limits: an explicit call to violence
is one of them.
The problem? That, no matter how many laws there are, it is very difficult to prevent
someone from creating a terrorist propaganda video and making it go viral. It's the other
side of the freedom that the internet gives us. Back then, only ONE platform had the algorithms
to detect DAESH videos in time.
And yes, that platform was YouTube. Why? That's a topic for another video. But the truth is
that Facebook, Instagram and Twitter had not bothered to prevent extreme groups such as
Daesh and many others from running wild. And that's what set the alarm bells off in many
governments.
Think about it: no matter how much the police pursued the terrorists, every day new followers
of Daesh were emerging who had been radicalized on the internet. And that's what prompted
several countries in Europe to come up with their own laws to hold Facebook and Twitter
responsible for the content they had: the first and the most significant was... Germany!
Think about it: since the 1950s, Germany has had very strict laws to prevent neo-Nazi speech.
Denying the Holocaust can be punishable by years in prison. And, in some cases, these
laws have led to absurd situations like this one.
(Wolfenstein Removed From Sale In Germany Due To Nazi Symbols
Gamasutra 22 September 2009)
[By the way, as of 2019, Germany has relaxed these laws and now, at last, Wolfenstein is
legal again in Germany].
The truth is that Germany has always had quite a few restrictions to prevent extremist speech.
So, in 2017, they decided to pioneer one more restriction. Yes, we're talking about the
so-called NETZDG law – yes, that's how everyone knows this law.
According to this law, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are obliged to remove "harmful" content
within 24 hours of being notified by the authorities. If they fail to do so, they may have to pay
fines of up to 50 million euros.
The problem? The problem is that what may have initially been a law to prevent terrorist
propaganda ended up turning into something much worse.
Weeks after the law was passed, both Twitter and Facebook removed the account of a member
of the Alternative for Germany party for posting anti-immigrant messages.
But then, days later, Twitter also deleted the account of the satirical magazine that
had mentioned this politician in order to make fun of her. And a few days later, Twitter
also closed the account of a comedian who made another joke about Alternative for Germany.
Conclusion, if you have Twitter in Germany... It’s best not to talk about immigrants!
Neither for nor against.
And don't think we're talking about just a couple of extreme cases! To give you an idea,
in the first six months of 2019 alone, YouTube had to delete more than 280 videos. And let's
face it, YouTube is the only company that has made its actions public. But we'll talk
about the differences between Facebook, Twitter and YouTube when it comes to moderating content
in another video coming soon. If you don't want to miss it, subscribe to this channel
and hit the little bell so you don't miss any of our updates.
What is certain is that this German law has created a benchmark. In 2020, France passed
another law to combat hate speech. The difference is that, in this case, the Constitutional
Court managed to overturn it.
And this is where the other big problem with legislation that wants to regulate fake news,
disinformation and hate speech comes in. Most democratic countries have constitutions
that recognize freedom of expression. Of course, all of them recognize certain exceptions such
as the right to honor. But, in this case, we are talking about something much deeper.
We're talking about being able to censor content on grounds that are... difficult to define.
However, within the European Union there are more and more voices calling for real policies
to curb "harmful content".
At the time of making this video, the Digital Services Act, which makes platforms responsible
for the content they have, is being processed. But the debate is still open. Many politicians
are afraid that this law will serve to silence certain political positions such as Euroscepticism
or anti-immigration speech.
And online platforms cannot be held responsible for the thousands of hours of content they
host. Not to mention how difficult it would be to fit this law into the constitutions
of many member states. There is still no political consensus on this issue.
And that is why, in spring 2021, the European Parliament has published the...
Study on “THE LIABILITY OF ONLINE PLATFORMS"....
That’s right! The doctrine is clear: online platforms are responsible for the content
they display. Not only should they act when there is a copyright violation but also when
there is a violation of public decency or morality. So this study proposes four different
scenarios: a) do nothing, b) create media education campaigns among the population <silent
confused> c) public-private regulation and d) self-regulation.
That’s right! At the moment, the most common scenario in Europe is for the platforms themselves
to self-regulate. That is to say, that they create a set of rules and take care of deleting
all the malicious content that may have crept in. So, where's the problem then? Well, we
are going to look at that right now.
(THE ORIGINS OF HAPPILY EVER AFTER)
What if I told you that the Hollywood happy ending was born as a response to censorship?
Yes, indeed! The happy ending was born at a time when movies weren’t allowed to end
badly.
Not, at least, if they wanted to receive the seal of approval to be shown in cinemas. I'll
give you an example: "Mister Smith Goes to Washington" is a Frank Capra film.
This movie tells the story of an idealistic politician who has to take on all the corrupt
senators in Washington. In theory, it doesn't appear to have any objectionable subject matter,
right? Remember that this movie is from 1939!
Criticizing the workings of the US system could be seen as... COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA!?
At the time, movies had to convey moral values. That meant that the bad guys had to be punished,
the good guy had to win, and the moral of the story had to be "moral" (((MAKE AN AIR
QUOTES GESTURE WITH YOUR FINGERS))).
And I know what many of you are thinking! How is that possible? If there's one thing
the United States is known for, it's freedom of speech. It is very clear in the first amendment
of the Constitution. And yes, you're right.
The problem? The problem is when you consider that cinema is NOT a means of expression.
I know! You'll think I've gone crazy. But that's exactly what happened. Don't forget
one thing: we are talking about the beginning of the 20th century. Back then, cinema was
a new technology, just like internet content platforms are now.
And that was precisely the judicial doctrine handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1915.
Watch for the final verdict.
(The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple (...) and not to be regarded
as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion within the meaning
of freedom of speech.... -Mutual Film Corporation vs Industrial Commission
of Ohio, 1915)
Yes, that’s right.
Cinema wasn't considered a medium of expression. But wait a minute because the story doesn't
end here! Have you heard of the #MeToo movement? Well, it's not new either!
The Harvey Weinstein of 1920 was a comedy actor: ROSCOE "FATTY" ARBUCKLE. The Fatty
scandal was the perfect lurid story: sex, murder and Hollywood stars. The perfect cocktail
to sell newspapers. And you'll never guess who was the media mogul who made the most
out of this story? Exactly! William Randolph Hearst.
At the time, he already had several newspapers across the country. From one day to the next,
Hollywood sex scandals became the talk of every bar and barbershop in America. The whole
country was scandalized by the stars' lack of morals.
And in the midst of this moral panic, the states decided to start legislating. Since
movies were no longer considered a medium of communication, the various states in the
US were able to pass all sorts of censorship laws. By 1921, there were already 37 states
with censorship.
And that's when Hollywood decided to act. So the "Motion Picture Association” of America
created a code of best practices. But how do you create a code of good moral practices?
Well, that's easy. Who were the greatest experts in public morality at the time?
Well, obviously, the PRIESTS! That's how Hollywood came to hire this man you see on the screen:
WILLIAM HARRISON HAYS: a Presbyterian priest.
And don't think they spared any expense! Mr. Hays came to earn a salary of $100,000 a year
at the time. In today's dollars, we're talking more than $1.5 million a year. In addition,
this man hired a team of priests to help him create the code. A code that took years to
finish and has since become known as the "Hays Code". A censorship code with rules as detailed
as this one:
("Ministers of religion in their character as such, should not be used as comic characters
or as villains") -Extract from the Motion Pictures Production
Code)
From 1934, all films had to pass through a court of priests to be given the moral seal
of approval. And pay attention to one detail: we are talking about something much worse
than censorship. Hollywood censorship was not limited to eliminating a specific scene
or prohibiting this or that. As this was something accepted by the production companies themselves,
censorship affected the whole story.
For example, have you seen "The Maltese Falcon"? If you read the book it's based on, you'll
see that there's an openly homosexual character. Remember that literature WAS considered a
medium of communication. So novels did enjoy freedom of expression. However, in the movie,
that same character could be neither openly homosexual nor good.
So he ended up being a simply effeminate gentleman and, of course, the bad guy in the movie.
From the 1930s to the 1960s, you can find hundreds of examples like this. Luckily, in
the 1960s, the Supreme Court changed its doctrine. Today, movies in the United States enjoy the
same freedom of expression as any other media.
However, it seems that the same story is repeating itself with another new technology.
(European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech
European Commission 31 May 2016)
That’s right! But, before you drop your head in your hands, let me tell you that,
for the moment, this code is quite broad. That is, for the moment, the only limits set
are to avoid propaganda from terrorist groups, clear hate messages that were already banned
in almost all countries. The problem is that this code is from 2016. We are now in 2021
and Europe is asking for even more restrictions.
(Guidance on Strengthening the Code of Practice on Disinformation
European Commission 26 May 2021)
The big problem that Europe wants to solve is no longer hate speech but disinformation.
That is, the fake news and conspiracy theories that have grown like wildfire in the age of
the coronavirus. The problem is who says what is true and what is not? Can this really be
judged without being free of bias? And how can internet platforms regulate themselves?
That's what we'll talk about in an upcoming video here on VisualPolitik. And we'll take
a closer look at the differences between these three characters:
the CEO of YouTube, the CEO of Facebook and the CEO of Twitter. But in the meantime, you
can leave me your opinion in the comments. How do you think fake news can be filtered
on the internet? Should we really do it? You can leave me your answer in the comments.
In the meantime, don't forget that here on VisualPolitik, we release new videos every
week so subscribe to this channel and hit the little bell so you don't miss any of our
updates. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up and see you in the next one.
Regards and see you soon.