While the boys drink Crowhill’s audacious braggot, they discuss some of Prager’s recent outrageous statements and the social media censorship of Prager University.
Prager suggests that the worldwide lockdown may be the greatest mistake in human history. Quite a claim, which the boys evaluate.
The next big issue about Prager is his censorship on YouTube and other social media outlets.
Who gave them the right to do this?
QUOTE: The next big issue about Prager is his censorship on YouTube and other social media outlets. Who gave them the right to do this?
YouTube/Google are private companies, as such, they have the ability to censor on “their” platform. As well, the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of private entities to reject messages they decline to endorse. Access to social media isn’t a right. Patrons agree to conditions of usage before they are permitted to use most platforms. This gives the owner the right to choose what’s displayed.
That said, it doesn’t seem as if YouTube/Google practices a great deal of censorship relative to Prager. As I understand, they limit access to a small number of PragerU videos for viewers who choose Restricted Mode. Restricted Mode (often applied in schools to keep children from viewing inappropriate content) affects less than 2 percent of YouTube viewers. As well, YouTube hasn’t shut down PragerU’s YouTube channel nor barred them from producing videos on any topic. Prager alleges this filtering is due to conservative bias. Yet, Google’s records show that the Huffington Post, Vox, Buzzfeed, NowThis, and The Daily Show all have much larger swaths of content restricted under YouTube’s policy. Seventy-one percent of videos from The Young Turk, a very far-leftist venue, are blocked…which is significantly less that PragerU’s share.
What’s ironic is PragerU attracts millions of dollars in donations and pays its key employees six-figure salaries but pays nothing to YouTube, which allows PragerU to use its online platform for free. PragerU has gained great notoriety through YouTube and their videos gain millions of views each week. Yet, Prager makes negative insinuations because YouTube filters some videos from a small population of users who opt to be shielded from certain kinds of content. Maybe YouTube/Google should remind Prager that their services are free and if they don’t like the way they manage their platform, Prager is “free” to leave.
We go into some of those issues in the podcast.
My problem with this “Google is a private company / you can take your business elsewhere” stuff is (1) being a private company does not exempt them from all obligations, and (2) there is hardly an elsewhere to take your business to. IOW, they are close to being a monopoly.
Re: #1, it comes down to the platform / publisher distinction. A “platform” doesn’t exercise editorial control. A publisher does, and publishers have obligations that platforms do not. Many of these social media monstrosities have managed to have it both ways, claiming to be a platform to avoid liability for the content they post, but still exercising control over the content.
I believe all the FANG companies should be broken up and regulated.
I suspect these issues need to be continually monitored as the Internet and social media has fundamentally changed the way we communicate and do business. Per the information available, it seems Google/YouTube are managing their obligations appropriately and are well within their rights.
As for Prager, I think he’s trying to have it both ways. He’s gaining significantly from using a platform he pays nothing to utilize. Yet, he’s accused them of doing something wrong when they have a very strong legal stance for their practices and his “bias” allegations can be objectively demonstrated to be wrong.
Again, I say, if Prager (or others) doesn’t like YouTube’s practices, he’s free to go, start his own platform, “compete” for market share and show others how it should be done more appropriately. Isn’t that the American way?