YouTube – Page 2 – Social Media Legality

Can Social Media Be Regulated?

In 1996 Congress passed what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provides immunity to website publishers for third-party content posted on their websites. The CDA holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This Act passed in 1996, was created in a different time and era, one that could hardly envision how fast the internet would grow in the coming years. In 1996, social media for instance consisted of a little-known social media website called Bolt, the idea of a global world wide web, was still very much in its infancy. The internet was still largely based on dial-up technology, and the government was looking to expand the reach of the internet. This Act is what laid the foundation for the explosion of Social Media, E-commerce, and a society that has grown tethered to the internet.

The advent of Smart-Phones in the late 2000s, coupled with the CDA, set the stage for a society that is constantly tethered to the internet and has allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon to carve out niches within our now globally integrated society. Facebook alone in the 2nd quarter of 2021 has averaged over 1.9 billion daily users.

Recent studs conducted by the Pew Research Center show that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital services”

While older members of society still rely on news media online, the younger generation, namely those 18-29 years of age, receive their news via social media.

The role Social Media plays in the lives of the younger generation needs to be recognized. Social Media has grown at a far greater rate than anyone could imagine. Currently, Social Media operates under its modus operandi, completely free of government interference due to its classification as a private entity, and its protection under Section 230.

Throughout the 20th century when Television News Media dominated the scenes, laws were put into effect to ensure that television and radio broadcasters would be monitored by both the courts and government regulatory commissions. For example, “[t]o maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election.”

What these laws and regulations were put in place for was to ensure that the public interest in broadcasting was protected. To give substance to the public interest standard, Congress has from time to time enacted requirements for what constitutes the public interest in broadcasting. But Congress also gave the FCC broad discretion to formulate and revise the meaning of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as circumstances changed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority is constrained by the first amendment but acts as an intermediary that can intervene to correct perceived inadequacies in overall industry performance, but it cannot trample on the broad editorial discretion of licensees. The Supreme Court has continuously upheld the public trustee model of broadcast regulation as constitutional. The criticisms of regulating social media center on the notion that they are purely private entities that do not fall under the purviews of the government, and yet these same issues are what presented themselves in the precedent-setting case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969. In this case, the court held that “rights of the listeners to information should prevail over those of the broadcasters.” The Court’s holding centered on the public right to information over the rights of a broadcast company to choose what it will share, this is exactly what is at issue today when we look at companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat censuring political figures who post views that they feel may be inciteful of anger or violence.

In essence, what these organizations are doing is keeping information and views from the attention of the present-day viewer. The vessel for the information has changed, it is no longer found in television or radio but primarily through social media. Currently, television and broadcast media are restricted by Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules which “require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station.” This is a restriction that is nowhere to be found for Social Media organizations.

This is not meant to argue for one side or the other but merely to point out that there is a political discourse being stifled by these social media entities, that have shrouded themselves in the veils of a private entity. However, what these companies fail to mention is just how political they truly are. For instance, Facebook proclaims itself to be an unbiased source for all parties, and yet what it fails to mention is that currently, Facebook employs one of the largest lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. Four Facebooks lobbyist have worked directly in the office of House Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi herself has a very direct connection to Facebook, she and her husband own between $550,000 to over $1,000,000 in Facebook stock. None of this is illegal, however, it raises the question of just how unbiased is Facebook.

If the largest source of news for the coming generation is not television, radio, or news publications themselves, but rather Social Media such as Facebook, then how much power should they be allowed to wield without there being some form of regulation? The question being presented here is not a new one, but rather the same question asked in 1969, simply phrased differently. How much information is a citizen entitled to, and at what point does access to that information outweigh the rights of the organization to exercise its editorial discretion? I believe that the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 1969 and that the government ought to take steps similar to those taken with radio and television. What this looks like is ensuring that through Social Media, that the public has access to a significant amount of information on public issues so that its members can make rational political decisions. At the end of that day that it was at stake, the public’s ability to make rational political decisions.

These large Social Media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter have long outgrown their place as a private entity, they have grown into a public medium that has tethered itself to the realities of billions of people. Certain aspects of it need to be regulated, mainly those that interfere with the Public Interest, there are ways to regulate this without interfering with the overall First Amendment right of Free Speech for all Americans. Where however Social Media blends being a private forum for all people to express their ideas under firmly stated “terms and conditions”, and being an entity that strays into the political field whether it be by censoring heads of state, or by hiring over $50,000,000 worth of lobbyist in Washington D.C, there need to be some regulations put into place that draw the line that ensures the public still maintains the ability to make rational political decisions. Rational decisions that are not influenced by anyone organization. The time to address this issue is now when there is still a middle ground on how people receive their news and formulate opinions.

Alarming Side of Youtube

Social media has now become an integrated part of an individual’s life. From Facebook to twitter, Instagram, snapchat to the latest edition, that is TikTok, social media has made its way into a person’s life and occupies the same value as that of eating, sleeping, exercising etc. There is no denying the dopamine hit you get from posting on Instagram or scrolling endlessly, liking, sharing, commenting and re-sharing etc. From checking your notifications and convincing yourself, “Right, just five minutes, I am going to check my notifications” to spending hours on social media, it is a mixed bag. While I find that being in social media is to an extent a way to relax and alleviate stress, I also believe social media and its influence on peoples’ lives should not cross a certain threshold.

We all like a good laugh. We get a good laugh from people doing funny things on purpose or people pranking other people to get a laugh. Most individuals nowadays use some sort of social medial platforms to watch content or make content. YouTube is once such platform. After Google, YouTube is the most visited website on the internet. Everyday about a billion hours of videos are watched by people all over the world. I myself, contribute to those billion hours.

Now imagine you are on YouTube, you start watching a famous youtuber’s videos, you then realize this video is not only disturbing but is also very offensive. You stop watching the video. That’s it. You think that is a horrible video and think no more of it. On the contrary, there have been videos on YouTube which have caused mass controversy all over the internet since the platforms birth in 2005. Let us now explore the dark side of YouTube.

There is an industry that centers around pranks done to members of the public which is less about humor and more about shock value. There is nothing wrong with a harmless prank, but when doing a prank, one must be considerate how their actions are perceived by others, one wrong move and you could end facing charges or a conviction.

Across the social media platform there are many creators of such prank videos. Not all of them have been well received by the public or by the fands of the creators. One such incident is where YouTube content creators, Alan and Alex Stokes who are known for their gag videos plead guilty to charges centering around fake bank robberies staged by them.

The twins wore black clothes and ski masks, carried cash filled duffle bags for a video where they pretended to have robbed a bank. They then ordered an uber who, unaware of the prank had refused to drive them. An onlooker called the police believing that the twins had robbed a bank and were attempting to carjack the vehicle. Police arrived at the scene and held the driver at gunpoint until it was revealed and determined that it was a prank. The brothers were not charged and let off with a warning. They however, pulled the same stunt at a university some four hours later and were arrested.

They were charged with one felony count of false imprisonment by violence, menace or fraud, or deceit and one misdemeanor count of falsely reporting an emergency. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison. “These were not pranks. These are crimes that could have resulted in someone getting seriously injured or even killed.” said Todd Spitzer, Orange County district attorney.

The brothers accepted a bargain from the judge. In return for a guilty plea, the felony count would be reduced a misdemeanor resulting in one year probation and 160 hours of community service and compensation. The plea was entered despite the prosecution stating that tougher charges were necessary. The judge also warned the brothers, who have over 5 million YouTube subscribers not to make such videos.

Analyzing the scenario above, I would agree with the district attorney. Making prank videos and racking up videos should not come at the cost of inciting fear and panic in the community. The situation with the police could have escalated severely which might have led to a more gruesome outcome. The twins were very lucky, however, in the next incident, the man doing a prank video in Tennessee was not.

In filming a YouTube prank video, 20 year old Timothy Wilks was shot dead in a parking lot of an Urban Air indoor trampoline park. David Starnes Jr, admitted to shooting Wilks when he and an unnamed individual approached him and a group wielding butcher knives and lunged at them. David told the police that he shot one of them in defense of himself and others.

Wilks’s friend said they were filming a video of a robbery prank for their YouTube channel. This was a supposed to be a recorded YouTube video meant to capture the terrified reactions of their prank victims. David was unaware of this prank and pulled out his gun to protect himself and others. No one has been charged yet in regard to the incident.

The above incident is an example of how pranks can go horribly wrong and result in irreparable damage. This poses the question, who do you blame, the 20 years old man staging a very dangerous prank video, or the 23-year-old who fired his gun in response to that?

Monalisa Perez, a youtuber from Minnesota fatally shot and killed her boyfriend in an attempt to film a stunt of firing a gun 30 cm away from her boyfriend, Predo Ruiz, who only had a thick book of 1.5inch to protect him. Perez pleaded guilty to second degree manslaughter and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

Perez and her boyfriend Ruiz would document their everyday lives in Minnesota by posting pranks videos on YouTube to gain views. Before the fatal stunt, Perez tweeted, “Me and Pedro are probably going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever. His idea, not mine.”

Perez had previously experimented before and thought that the hardback Encyclopedia would be enough to stop the bullet. Perez fired a .50-calibre Desert Eagle, which is known to be an extremely powerful handgun which pierced the encyclopedia and fatally wounded Ruiz.

Perez will serve a 180-day jail term, serve 10 years of supervised probation, be banned for life from owning firearms and make no financial gain from the case. The sentence is below the minimum guidelines, but it was allowed on the ground that the stunt was mostly Ruiz’s idea.

Dangerous pranks such as the one above has left a man dead and a mother of two grieving for fatally killing her partner.

In response to the growing concerns of filming various trends and videos, YouTube have updated their policies regarding “harmful and dangerous” content and explicitly banned pranks and challenges that may cause immediate or lasting physical or emotional harm. The policies page showcases three types of videos that are now prohibited. They are: 1) Challenges that encourage acts that have an inherent risk of sever harm; 2) Pranks that make victims they are physical danger and 3) Pranks that cause emotional distress to children.

Prank videos may depict the dark side of how content crating can go wrong but they are not the only ones. In 2017, youtuber, Logan Paul became the source of controversy after posting a video of him in a Japanese forest called Aokigahara near the base of Mount Fuji. Aokigahara is a dense forest with lush trees and greenery. The forest is, however, infamous for being known as the suicide forest. It is a frequent site for suicides and is also considered haunted.

Upon entering the forest, the youtuber came across a dead body hung from a tree. The actions and depictions of Logan Paul around the body are what caused controversy and outrage. The video has since been taken down from YouTube. An apology video was posted by Logan Paul trying to defend his actions. This did nothing to quell the anger on the internet. He then came out with a second video where he could be seen tearing up on camera. In addressing the video, YouTube expressed condolences and stated that they prohibit such content which are shocking or disrespectful. Paul lost the ability to make money on his videos through advertisement which is known as demonetization. He was also removed from the Google Preferred program, where brands can sell advertisement to content creators on YouTube.

That consequences of Logan Paul’s actions did not end there. A production company is suing the youtuber on the claims that the video of him in the Aokigahara resulted in the company losing a multimillion-dollar licencing agreement with Google. The video caused Google to end its relationship with Planeless Pictures, the production company and not pay the $3.5 million. Planeless Pictures are now suing Paul claiming that he pay the amount as well as additional damage and legal fees.

That is not all. Youtube has been filled with controversies which have resulted in lawsuits.

A youtuber by the name of Kanghua Ren was fined $22300 and was also sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for filming himself giving a homeless man an oreo filled with toothpaste. He gave 20 euros and oreo cookies to a homeless which were laced with toothpaste instead of cream. The video depicts the homeless man vomiting after eating the cookie. In the video Ren stated that although he had gone a bit far, the action would help clean the homeless person’s teeth. The court, however, did not take this lightly and sentenced him. The judge stated that this was not an isolated act and that Ren had shown cruel behaviour towards vulnerable victims.

These are some of the pranks and videos that have gained online notoriety. There are many other videos which have portrayed child abuse, following a trend by eating tidepods as well as making sharing anti-Semitic videos and using racist remarks. The most disturbing thing about these videos is that they are not only viewed by adults but also children. In my opinion these videos could be construed as having some influence on young individuals.

Youtube is a diverse platform home to millions of content creators. Since its inception it has served as a mode of entertainment and means of income to many individuals. From posting cat videos online to making intricate, detailed, and well directed short films, YouTube has revolutionized the video and content creation spectrum. Being an avid viewer of many channels on YouTube, I find that incidents like these, give YouTube a bad name. Proper policies and guidelines should be enacted and imposed and if necessary government supervision may also be exercised.

Free speech, should it be so free?

In the United States everybody is entitled to free speech; however, we must not forget that the First Amendment of the Constitution only protects individuals from federal and state actions. With that being said, free speech is not protected from censorship by private entities, like social media platforms. In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides technology companies like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram as well as other social media giants, immunity from liabilities arising from the content posted on their websites. The question becomes whether it is fair for an individual who desires to freely express himself or herself to be banned from certain social media websites by doing so? What is the public policy behind this? What are the standards employed by these social media companies when determining who should or should not be banned? On the other hand, are social media platforms being used as tools or weapons when it comes to politics? Do they play a role in how the public vote? Are the users truly seeing what they think they have chosen to see or are the contents being displayed targeted to the users and may ultimately create biases?

As we have seen earlier this year, former President Trump was banned from several social media platforms as a result of the January 6, 2021 assault at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. It is no secret that our former president is not shy about his comments on a variety of topics. Some audiences view him as outspoken, direct, or perhaps provocative. When Twitter announced its permanent suspension of former President Trump’s account, its rationale was to prevent further incitement of violence. By falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and January 6 which ultimately led to violence and chaos. As a public figure and a politician, our former president should have known that his actions or viewpoints on social media are likely to trigger a significant impact on the public. Public figures and politicians should be held to a higher standard as they represent citizens who voted for them. As such, they are influential. Technology companies like Twitter saw the former president’s tweets as potential threats to the public as well as a violation of their company policies; hence, it was justified to ban his account. The ban was an instance of private action as opposed to government action. In other words, former President Trump’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

First, let us discuss the fairness aspect of censorship. Yes, individuals possess rights to free speech; however, if the public’s safety is at stake, actions are required to avoid chaos. For example, you cannot scream “fire” out of nowhere in a dark movie theater as it would cause panic and unnecessary disorder. There are rules you must comply with in order to use the facility and these rules are in place to protect the general welfare. As a user, if you don’t like the rules set forth by that facility, you can simply avoid using it. It does not necessarily mean that your idea or speech is strictly prohibited, just not on that particular facility. Similar to social media platforms, if users fail to follow their company policies, the companies reserve the right to ban them. Public policy probably outweighs individual freedom. As for the standards employed by these technology companies, there is no bright line. As I previously mentioned, Section 230 grants them immunity from liabilities. That being said, the contents are unregulated and therefore, these social media giants are free to implement and execute policies as they seem appropriate.

In terms of politics, I believe social media platforms do play a role in shaping their users’ perspectives in some way. This is because the contents that are being displayed are targeted, if not tailored, as they collect data based on the user’s preferences and past habits. The activities each user engages in are being monitored, measured, and analyzed. In a sense, these platforms are being used as a weapon as they may manipulate users without the users even knowing. A lot of times we are not even aware that the videos or pictures that we see online are being presented to us because of past contents we had seen or selected. In other words, these social media companies may be censoring what they don’t want you to see or what they may think you don’t want to see. For example, some technology companies are pro-vaccination. They are more likely to post information about facts about COVID-19 vaccines or perhaps publish posts that encourage their users to get vaccinated. We think we have control over what we see or watch, but do we really?

There are advantages and disadvantages to censorship. Censorship can reduce the negative impact of hate speech, especially on the internet. By limiting certain speeches, we create more opportunities for equality. In addition, censorship prevents the spread of racism. For example, posts and videos of racial comments could be blocked by social media companies if deemed necessary. Censorship can also protect minors from seeing harmful content. Because children can be manipulated easily, it helps promote safety. Moreover, censorship can be a vehicle to stop false information. During unprecedented times like this pandemic, misinformation can be fatal. On the other hand, censorship may not be good for the public as it creates a specific narrative in society. This can potentially cause biases. For example, many blamed Facebook for the outcome of an election as it’s detrimental to our democracy.

Overall, I believe that some sort of social media censorship is necessary. The cyber-world is interrelated to the real world. We can’t let people do or say whatever they want as it may have dramatic detrimental effects. The issue is how do you keep the best of both worlds?

Category: YouTube

Subscribe By Email