If the coronavirus epidemic has proved anything, it is that most Americans and their leaders are more concerned with their safety than defending their freedom.
Six months into the coronavirus era, for the most part, however, not all Americans are willing to continue to give the government extraordinary powers to deal with threats to government security. But the questions they need to consider are whether the same context should be extended to large tech companies to censor epidemics and what they can do to prevent international monopolies from shutting down free speech.
The latest example of censorship is so extreme and arbitrary that companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are concerned about not being able to overcome their political differences by shutting down their speeches. Or at least it would happen if the question of what to say or not to say about the epidemic was not bound up with partisan politics and the presidential election.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Dr. Scott Atlas, the country of lockdown justifies the loss and loss of life, Google should use the power of large technological monopolies in its ability to remove it from the virtual public square. National priority.
Removing all disagreements
YouTube, which is owned by Google, removed a video from an interview with Atlas posted by the Ha Atwar Institution in June where it serves as a senior partner. In it, Atlas, a renowned neuroradiologist and professor at Stanford University Medical Center as well as a critic on public health issues, spoke of his belief that an epidemic lockdown could do more harm than good. Since then, his views have been of more interest due to his appointment in August as a presidential adviser and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
That fact alone should make him alive that people should be able to hear his views on the epidemic. YouTube, however, removed the interview from its video streaming service last week for allegedly violating its terms of service. While the video is no longer available, the Hoover organization has published a transcript of the interview with Atlas.
The gesture of this move is similar to that given for many other examples of YouTube censorship of videos about the COVID-19 crisis. The company has taken responsibility for preventing the spread of epidemics and conspiracy theories about misinformation that could endanger public health.
Both Google and YouTube, which should be remembered, have been sharply criticized for standards that have diminished the effectiveness of news and opinion sources, including federalists.
The company, which has an effective monopoly on the Internet outside of China, has maintained that its decisions are not influenced by politics. However, he remains open about his desire to stop what he considers dangerous conversations about the epidemic. While remaining silent on the specificity of its algorithms or why it ultimately makes these decisions, the effort follows government officials to follow the same rules that direct viewers to consider credible sources against those who spread false information or conspiracies.
Such actions may be considered defensive when applied to videos that promoted actions that would endanger patients’ health, deny the existence of the disease, or promote conspiracy theories involving racial bias or traditional memes associated with anti-religion. Yet, a video of a widely respected think tank in which Atlas discusses data-based analysis of the devastating effects of lockdowns does not fit into an easily identifiable category that may qualify for a flagship.
Incredible question
Atlas did not rule out the severity of the disease or the need to take action to prevent its spread – he only questioned the effectiveness of broad lockdown. Atlas pointed to the consequent formation of severe economic hardship as well as other unintended consequences that compromised public health such as reduced doctor visits or treatment for other potentially fatal conditions as well as the impact of school closure on childhood development as well as its purpose. Ga l.
By any reasonable standards, the questions he raises as well as the information about the cost of the lockdown that he has discussed are not only appropriate comments but an important topic for public discussion. Its conclusion may be questioned. The same is true of the wisdom of opening all schools and his thoughts on whether such measures would contribute to another wave of infection. But, the idea that any discussion of these issues can be closed with a single click, raises the question of controlling the uncontrolled censoring power of a global opportunity monopoly like Google, it is all important.
As Avid Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity Noticed, “Science is about constantly questioning established dogmas, and openly discussing the available evidence with various people. To suppress that discussion, such as YouTube Done, to oppose science. ”
The motivation for this policy is clear. Any comments from left-wing billionaires who own Google and other major tech companies, as well as those who question their overwhelming leftist employee, the Trump Trump Cowden, are seen as a threat to President Trump’s alleged inability to deal with the epidemic. . Questions about the downfall or any advocacy to limit the economic and social suffering caused by these policies are seen as helping Trump’s re-election in some way.
Included in Big Tech Juggernaut
In recent months, more money changers have raised the issue of how to counter the ability of tech giants to control the Internet and social media to act as biased censors of public discourse. Twitter is not only outraged by President Trump’s willingness to allow “fact-checkers” to communicate his views on various issues, including the epidemic and the integrity of the election results, but also demands that his immunity be stripped of action under ambiguous provisions of federal law.
Pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Dissentation Act 1996, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be deemed to be the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This would make Twitter – as well as Facebook and YouTube – an Internet bulletin board that cannot be legally responsible for the content of content posted on its sites.
But with Twitter and now YouTube expanding their content censorship, their continued liberation from the same dangers faced by other publishers is no longer practical. Sen. The bill proposed by Josh Haley Valle (R-Mo.), Which seeks to remove his immunity under Article 230, has received right-wing support, although, at present, it is unlikely to pass.
Another pertinent and pertinent question is whether the government will eventually take action to enforce antitrust laws against Google or an entity that now clearly defends its unaccountable and unprecedented power over public communications. The attorney generals of all 50 states agree in principle with the Department of Justice that antitrust action is needed to limit its power. Yet Attorney General William Barr, who sees the issue as a priority, is reportedly facing resistance from left-leaning career lawyers within the DOJ and the Democratic State AG, such as slowing down efforts to block any announcement of legal action against tech giants. Before the election.
Dr .. Atlas’s arbitrary censorship of YouTube should be a lint-backed straw in terms of its ability to stop speech on Covid-19 issues. In the long run, these companies have used their vast wealth to influence Congress to continue to liberate the public from the dangerous monopoly of the information highway to make a profit.
Epidemics have increased their wealth and influence, but it should also be a turning point that will bring long-term emancipation to their power which has made them a greater threat to democracy than any politician.
