What Content Should Be Banned on Social Networks?

What Content Should Be Banned on Social Networks?


David, can you explain in the context of your
views on free speech, which content should not be allowed on social networks? Okay, so my view on this is basically law
plus logic. Okay. There are a lot of different views about when
should content be removed from social networks. And oftentimes there is a total jumble of
legal arguments, moral arguments, arguments that use the term free speech in a completely
wrong way. So let’s kind of lay out my perspective on
this. My starting point is, unless the content is
illegal, then it should in principle be allowed on unless it falls under certain categories
of behavior or speech that a social network as a private business should have the ability
and I would argue responsibility, uh, to keep off of its network. So if the content is illegal, it should be
pulled, period, no questions asked. Next we get to stuff like targeted bullying
and harassment of individuals. I don’t want, if I were running a social network,
I would not want my social network to be in any way associated with perpetuating these
cycles of people who are attacked and targeted on the internet. And then it bleeds over into their real lives. Sometimes people become suicidal. There are people who have actually taken their
own lives because of bullying that was happening in great part online so that it can’t be used
as a tool for targeted harassment in that way. In the same way that if you follow someone
around in real life, much in the same way that is taking place online, even if you’re
not stocking them per se, if you’re constantly attacking them and insulting them and yelling
things at them, you would be able to call the police and the police would tell that
person you’ve got to go. Uh, there is no legal issue with social network
saying that’s not going to be the way that you can use this tool. That’s number one. Number two, it is perfectly reasonable for
social networks to say, even though it is not illegal to target people on the basis
of their immutable characteristics, sometimes in a membership, in what in some States are
called protected classes. Uh, we are not going to allow it on the platform. And again, if I was running a social network,
I would not want to see the platform used to target individuals or to attack individuals
on the basis of their religion, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation or whatever the case
may be. I wouldn’t allow it on my social network. If you don’t like that, then you can go and
either build a different social network or find a different one or lobby the social network
to change those rules. But that’s essentially the, my, my thinking. Uh, I don’t think that there is any responsibility
of a social network to block conspiracy articles or anything like that. I think once you start taking money to promote
things like, for example, the wrong voting day via advertising the way Facebook has been
facing lately, I think that’s a different question. But in principle, if you’re posting some kind
of conspiracy or fake news article, um, uh, as an individual, if it’s not, uh, attacking
or pushing bullying on individuals, if it’s not attacking or harassing people on the basis
of their membership in some protected class or immutable characteristic, I think that
that’s fine. I don’t think that social networks should
get involved in policing that, but, but those would be my parameters. Um, essentially, illegal content is not allowed. Targeted harassment, bullying, and encouragement
of bullying both online and in person against people should not be allowed. Uh, and, um, uh, attacks on people that are
either, uh, race-based nationality, um, uh, attacks on people with, with disabilities
for example. I wouldn’t allow any of that stuff on my social
network. Let me know what you think. We’ve got a great bonus show coming up for
you today. Become a member instantly. It joined pacman.com and you will get access
just as instantly to the world famous bonus show, the David Pakman [email protected] [inaudible].

91 Comments

  • Hatchet Jack says:

    gfg

  • Gabriel Díaz says:

    None.

  • C Lefke says:

    Answer: None.

  • Cael Ray says:

    No content should be removed from social networks. Trump 2020

  • Marc Ruffalo says:

    Shouldn't be anything that is a considered a protected class. The idea and concept of such a thing is the antithesis of free speech.

  • invalidname43 says:

    Everything should be allowed in it's own forum but not limited to anyone place but this is an issue that has so many variables to make a real choice and decision on how we use social media.this question will be one that will be around as long as social media is around.

  • Jesica Brierly says:

    Lovely content! Keep it up! Would you like to be YouTube friends? :]

  • Cael Ray says:

    This guy is a fucking joke channel right? people don't buy in to this shit, right?

  • Jim Dot Beep says:

    His Canadian is showing.

  • Chucky Lad says:

    who judges the judges though?

  • Rob4circleoflife says:

    Why at 88% reporting a mayor Pete has 13.2% Wikipedia has Petey getting 1+ delegates tba
    What the fuck!!! Under 15% is non viable- NO DELEGATES, right???

  • Bryan Springborn says:

    Whoever uses social media as a source of truth is just dumb.

  • Chucky Lad says:

    no no no no no David. What people say will be judged by the people but your view is purely subjective as is anybody else

  • Seven Pointed Star says:

    Like fraud and misinformation.

  • Ricto Ectol says:

    Private businesses shouldn’t be a PLATFORM of free speech if they censor anything beyond illegal.
    Private businesses SHOULD be a Publisher as it currently operates according to current law as it’s been explained by lawyers.
    The fact that Facebook,twitter are acting like publishers but being protected by the government like they are a Platform is an injustice I don’t hear about on networks for some reason.

  • Gary Turbo says:

    Its whatever the owner decides

  • Stop Playing The Game says:

    NOTHING – the law is often falsely equivocated with what is moral. Most of the time the law is immoral

  • Blake Raynor says:

    WorldStar like videos are allowed but Gavin Mcinnes Alex Jones Milo etc who have been framed put in a box and booted. The left have become humorless pearl clutching puritans.

  • Rob4circleoflife says:

    Snowflake

  • Unelected Leader says:

    The DP Show has said nice things about Sanders. DP Show gonna get banned for being Russian assets because DNC.

  • Toni Popkin says:

    I would hope if a person is posting clearly false (paid advertising) information we could get to the point of not allowing it.

  • Heather Spoonheim says:

    You forgot about Justin Bieber – Ban that sh*t from social networks!

  • Comrade20 says:

    The content should be from illiterate activities such as pranks that seem too extreme or child exploitation, also those that exploit anyone's passing, but honestly why use social media m, it's a data mine

  • Micheal Klee says:

    Bernie 2020 union Strong 💪 Chicago Carpenters .

  • JM1993951 says:

    False information should at least come with an obvious disclaimer labeling it false. Most right-wingers will shrug it off, but it may cause a few of them to do some basic research.

  • aerialdarkguy says:

    I do agree that you are not guaranteed a platform. Keep in mind that removal moderation at scale is a practically impossible task. Automated bots are gamed, communities abused reporting to get unpopular figures removed, and context can change meaning in posts. Unfortunately pressure from tech backlash and politicians taking potshots at section 230 is going to ruin the internet.

  • AtheistCat 2 says:

    David,
    I would agree with much of your points, only I would expend to include those that are socially dangerous such as anti vax, and things like jilly juice and MMS and other pseudo science medical treatments.

  • Jesse Cole says:

    I'd suggest maybe allowing everything but constant solicitation for money and clickbait, but that would wipe out this show completely… so I guess just allow it all.

  • Zombie Prodigy says:

    I suppose it also depends on what counts as bullying. So for example, everyone bashes republicans for not supporting a single-payer system, and from their eyes it may be bullying

  • Eliu Crespo says:

    Oh, the David Packman show for starter's.

  • Zak Jamieson says:

    Ban all the things

  • Zak Jamieson says:

    David attacks and targets Donald Trump on a daily basis. So does he get banned in this stupid scenario?

  • Zak Jamieson says:

    Man this guy sucks.

  • Ariella Waltman says:

    Why ban when you can block

  • Stephen Lott says:

    If it's legal it should be allowed. Any other standard will be too subjective and too easily abused.

  • Dee Lee says:

    Racist slurs definitely shouldn’t be on social media

  • Thrunabulax says:

    Free speech is free speech. If you don't like what they're saying on the internet, you can block them. If someone can advocate or celebrate their own immutable characteristics, they can be criticized. Religion is not an immutable characteristic. Social media borders on being a public utility or a public square. The problem with MSM is that they used private ownership of what was essentially the public square to control what we were allowed to see and hear.

  • Lisa Carr says:

    I left a long time ago. Don't miss it a bit. I like Bernie.

  • ralusek says:

    Reddit has (or had, rather) the model right with the concept of subreddits. In other words, people can moderate their own subreddits/communities on the platform, and content consumers can tailor the communities they belong to according to their own tolerances. The people on reddit that are absolutely obsessed with getting what they deem to be "hate" subreddits removed from the platform altogether always confuse the hell out of me…do not participate in those communities.

  • TheLuigiLightning says:

    Your face.

  • Truth Troll says:

    No anti-vax.
    Probably other things too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.

  • Jake Haas says:

    Don't ban anything. In a marketplace of ideas, the best will prevail and the bad ideas will be swept aside.

  • Sam Mjolnir says:

    For fuck sakes social networks are an option, like the radio station or TV channel you can change the dial or shut it off, oversensitive babies.

  • jdubbjazzbass says:

    OK ………get rid of of those goddamn dumbass dumbdick douchebag conservatives,that would be a good start!! they are the ones that are behind most of the bullshit………….

  • thatsnotagoodidea says:

    The US constitution is perfect. You can say anything as long as it is not a call to violence.

  • Phantom X says:

    Truth in advertising laws should cover all advertising, including political ads. Here is a pretty basic rule. If you want to run for the privilege of governing us, then you should have the basic ability to tell the truth. If you need to lie in order to get elected, then you have no business running for politics. Let's bring integrity back into the system.

  • Christopher says:

    None. This utopian society of correctness you yearn for means nothing if the underlying feelings remain. What you’ve accomplished is further alienation and division under the guise of political correctness.

  • Rocker LAST says:

    Just ban kpop

  • M Gray says:

    Is this video 4:20 for a reason?

  • Ingeborg Svensson says:

    Take another medium to clarify what we are talking about. What should not allowed to be printed on paper and is it the responsibility of the paper mill to enforce it? There is a lot of false advertising going on, should we hold the manufacturers of the paper it is printed on responsible for that? Should they determine what is allowed to be written on it?

  • Urhoboman5 says:

    Absolutely none!

  • Traykov540 says:

    Too bad YouTube is a monopoly in the video hosting space

  • Diego Hernandez says:

    EDIT: I believe I’m missing something from the list so feel free to add suggestions because it’s not coming to my mind right now..

    Content should ONLY be removed when it’s child pornography, someone’s “exposed” private pornographic content, copyright content, a call for violent action, libel or slander, and violence/harassment against a(n) individual/group. (Furthermore, people who attempt to silence others simply because of a different belief or stance, and are not willing to have CIVIL discussions on said topics should be egregiously fined for not allowing a diverse school of thought.)

  • Tucker J says:

    2:45 lmao, did you really just make the "build your own network" argument? Disingenuous hack.

  • WH012Vids says:

    Harassment, threats and doxing. I think everything else should be left to the user to just block. Harassment, threats and doxing is an automatic termination though.

  • Q says:

    Ban FOX STATE PROPAGANDA T.V
    Ban OAN Extremists STATE T.V ++
    Ban MSDNC FRAUD Hardball Chris.M
    Ban Ttump on Twitter just look at him.
    Ban Ttump CASINOS on Atlantic city BOARDWALKS never AGAIN.
    Ban Clinton NEWS network.

  • adoredpariah says:

    Using new media technology (like social media) is also often considered "published work" by the standards of media law (applied to journalism for example), and at the very least it is public speech (mostly on a private platform so by their standards, but nonetheless) and can be and should be subject to the same kind of standards.

  • Total Control 871 says:

    You say this only because social media is owned and operated by liberal elites. Hell…I can't even spell the word ✡ Juew correctly without the NON VIOLENT NON SLUR comment being deleted.

    THIS IS WHY I STILL SUPPORT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! So that the minority voice will always have a foot hold.

  • Raigan Avalon says:

    "Targeted bullying and harassment…" Define bullying and harassment, please. Cause I'd probably agree with it if it has a clear definition.

  • QTee says:

    Any form of depravity… ugh . I can't stand heinous behaviour

  • Matt Roberts says:

    Content that breaks the law (that's a lot wider than you might realise as naming someone standing trail can be breaking the law as an example), deliberate fake news/misrepresentations of facts.

  • Oopzies says:

    Facebook is the worst for it.

  • Anal fabrics says:

    If you agree ISIS recruitment videos shouldn't be allowed online, you should also agree fascist propaganda shouldn't be allowed. They're both violent far right ideologies.

  • IDIOT BOX says:

    Discrimination.
    Discrimination isn’t free speech

  • paulbsmokin says:

    Nah! You guys obviously are ok with censorship. Unless one is being physically threatened, they should be allowed to speak their mind. This is another reason the left is losing.

  • Dave says:

    I would like to see boobies, but I understand why it’s prohibited

  • Rob4circleoflife says:

    Argentinian Snowflake ❄️

  • drewblay says:

    If it isn’t illegal then platforms need to be coerced to leaving it up, no questions asked.

  • eat a sandwich says:

    If you arent impeding on another person's rights. You cant restrict what someone is saying. Noam chomsky defended a holocaust deniers right to speak who obviously was wrong but its not up to a higher power to decide its up to people to disregard him and become educated. If you open up the pandoras box of censorship that's very dangerous

  • Rick Noah says:

    I'm puzzled by the term "illegal content". Not sure what that implies. Wandering around YT, with creative searching, I've seen damn near anything except child porn. Can someone give me some examples that will absolutely have the police visiting you ?? Just curious….

  • Halon's Razor says:

    Socialism isn't logical, I guess David would ban that?
    But hey have to give him credit without much thought he got a nice subjective term in there which means he can ban anything he doesn't like.

  • One Humanity says:

    NO SPEECH SHOULD BE BANNED

    IT IS AGAINST OUR GOD GIVEN (NOT MAN GIVEN) RIGHTS!

    IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND

    IF YOU DONT LIKE OR CANT HANDLE SOMETHING ONLINE
    CHANGE THE CHANNEL!

    IT IS UP TO THE CHANNEL OWNER TO DECIDE WHO IS A DEBBIE DOWNER!

    IF YOU DONT LIKE THE LAW OF THIS LAND
    GET THE FUCK OUT, WE DONT NEED YOU!

  • J Hitchcock says:

    I disagree regarding the fake news. I think if something is demonstratively false the network should block or correct it.

  • JoeGamer81 says:

    Your harassment arguments don't really hold up. Constant engagement in person is not the same as constantly having someone in your mentions. For one, you can block that person and never see their words again. Secondly, social media is not your house or your yard or even the grocery store; it's a town square, and others are free to speak to you if you are putting your views out for consumption.

    Protected class stuff is bullshit. It's used as a tool of suppression, not genuine protection. Of course, you don't need protection on Twitter or Facebook, because they're just words, and actual threats and harassment is illegal and can be handled by the authorities. Loudly disagreeing with you online is not a crime, and you don't get to hide behind your protected class to silence dissent.

  • Bobby Gupta says:

    Nothing illegal and no doxxing, NSFW mode for xxx content, temp suspension at most for “cyberbullying” (and bans for specifically trying to incite someone to kill themselves). That’s it. Everything else should be allowed. I literally got permabanned from twitter for tweeting at Jennifer Rubin after she wrote a “bernie bros are terrible tweet” that she’s an insufferable terrible propagandist and Jeff Bezos should fire her and replace her with at least a more likeable one

  • Daren Dillinger says:

    David Pakman, I just listened to this upload twice and by your standard Joe Rogan would be off your platform. Excluding targeted, You lost me when you said any attacks of a protected group. Who defines what is an attack and what is a critique and/disagreement? Joe Rogan disapproval of Trans-women in sports has been viewed as attacks on Trans Rights. We agree to disagree over free speech standards and even the rights such platforms like YouTube and Facebook have. You are way too conservative and pro-corporate than me. As long as our Tech Overlords receive Section 230 benefits of limited liability then they should be limited to what is legal only. How can you support YouTube’s authoritarian behavior after YouTube has screwed independent media?! David I hope you will liberalized your views on Free Speech and stand next too free speech advocates like Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Jimmy Dore, and Nick Gillespie to name a few.

  • todd prifogle says:

    Why don't you take a good look art Rupert Murdoch his history his agenda his current involvement and impact on American political debacle .

  • R Nickerson says:

    To everyone commenting about how they're not on social media anymore/don't use is for one reason or another/etc… you know YouTube is social media, right?

  • doobiewah357 says:

    The New York Times finally admits that the Obama Admin deployed multiple spies against the Trump Campaign in 2016. FBI agent Stephen Somma, first identified last May as a likely culprit, is the FBI agent who directed Stefan Halper to target the Trump campaign and fabricate dirt against it. Sorry Don Lemon, Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Madcow, Chris Cuomo, Jim Acosta, etc. – TRUMP WAS RIGHT !

  • Autumn Blues says:

    Anything about Trump should be removed. 🤣

  • Petitio Principii says:

    Pictures of children, talk about sports or countries I'm not interested in. Things I don't like in general.

  • Rob Fahey says:

    Political content should be banned. All of it on both sides. I’m sick of political fake news all over everything on social

  • Bob Mac says:

    In Trumps case everything should be screened before posting.

  • True Republican says:

    The short answer, any content that undermines our corporations ruling over the country with their two political parties and their toadies. Aren't the American people proud to pay the highest amount for health care and drugs than any other country on earth? Are we not number 1? USA! USA! USA!

  • Penny McCUlloch says:

    If you would not say it to your mother or priest then don't post it .

  • Janelle McCoy says:

    I agree.

  • The End Of It All says:

    Sorry the companies themselves are private companies but what they host are public squares, so I don't think they should be able to regulate speech other it is harassing or threatening in a violent way.

  • The End Of It All says:

    Omfg David u are driving me crazy today lol… The reason why private companies can't make their own rules is because not everyone CAN make their own social media, so like my previous comment private companies but a very public squares, that is why companies are allowed to fired you because it lamens terms you might as well be outside your job screaming it.

  • Liason Lee says:

    Ban anything tied to money, social media should be socialistic, not capitalistic.

    Other than that I am at a disagreement with David. Also, stop being a sissy, I GOT HARRASSED ON INTERNET so many times I have no problem with that. Things will go haywire if we start policing the network. Today, your opponent got silenced, tommorow, it'll be you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *