Unlock eSignature Legality for Recruitment Proposal in United States with airSlate SignNow

How to eSign a document: e-signature legality for Recruitment Proposal in United States

all right everybody so hello welcome my name is robert grueller of course i am a criminal defense attorney typically i start the program by diving into a little bit of an introduction talking about watching the watchers and the police and the prosecutors and all that stuff but today we are doing something a little bit different we're doing an impromptu show about a digital bill of rights this is something that we've been workshopping just a little bit on our daily show called watching the watchers live which of course is something that takes place every day of the week we would love it if you joined us for that and on the program we've been responding a little bit to some of the activity that we've seen around out there on the internet in particular some of the platforming some of the censorship some of the demonetization that's going on and a lot of other issues and so as we've been sorting through it as we've been trying to figure out how to maybe respond to an evolving internet in an involving environment this idea came up about a digital bill of rights something that we can revisit as a society in the new digital age many of our laws like section 230 and some of the other regulations surrounding the internet companies were created back in the 90s and a lot of things have changed since then the internet has grown it has evolved the tech companies are now some of the biggest entities on the planet and people are starting to ask themselves is this the way we want to govern our internet life is this the way that we want our country to be governed or or sort of managed by these different individual companies and so what i've been doing is playing around with a digital bill of rights sort of a new set of rights that we would discuss and implement for the new age and so i really don't like a lot of videos that will tease you too much so let me just give you a quick overview of what the eight bill of rights or the eight digital bill of rights that i've come up with then we're going to dive into it i want to go a little bit deep on some of this stuff so let's just get to the good stuff right away this is the list that i've come up with now this is just my opening thoughts my opening ideas so let's take a look at them number one of course digital freedom of speech number two the right to digital personhood number three the right to deletion or removal the right to information the right to privacy the right to unfilter and i'm not real sure about this word on filter i'm open to suggestions on that number seven the right to do process number eight good faith protections and i'm going to explain what all of these are now i was mirroring the current bill of rights that we have which are the amendments one through 10. and so i don't have anything for amendments 9 and 10. now i know that these would be technically amendments 28 through 38 because we've got 27 amendments that are currently in our constitution but this would be you know i'm open for some other thoughts 4 9 and 10 don't necessarily have to have 10 but it's just it just feels good for synergy purposes so this is just an opening argument for me just some opening ideas i have never drafted a bill of rights before might be surprising to some people but i have never done so and i understand that when i was drafting these a lot of it was out of frustration a lot of it was because me personally as a content creator has had some frustrations trying to navigate it as a citizen i've also had frustrations trying to participate in the conversations i've had frustrations trying to receive information from certain individuals that i can no longer receive information from and so it's sort of borne out of my own frustrations and i understand that there's going to be some implicit biases here probably against some of the big tech companies but i tried to balance that out and so let me walk through a couple things that i think are important to understanding how i laid out the rest of these uh digital bill of rights or the dbor as i'm calling them so i i want to just make sure that that we as a community that anybody who's thinking about playing in this space or brainstorming with some of these ideas we're thinking about incentives what kind of incentives would these rules create for the big tech companies and more importantly what are some of the perverse incentives that might be created here we have to think through all of the different tentacles into the different facets that these rules might spill into and it could be you know more problematic than beneficial and i'm drafting these with all of that in mind and so here are just a couple of my thoughts here are some general frameworks on how i came up with this stuff so number one i wanted to use existing thinking and what i mean by that is we already have a lot of laws on the book we already have case law we already have principles that we can refer to from the federalist papers from the anti-federalist papers from the existing bill of rights we've got an existing constitution we've got you know thousands millions hundreds of thousands of court opinions that have already been drafted on a lot of these issues free speech free expression free association so we don't have to do a lot of thinking again these are sort of tried and true issues that have been around since the birth of man and all we can do is just sort of refer back to some of the tried and true principles we don't need to recreate a whole bunch of complicated stuff next i want to consider the internet as a whole so under number two the internet in its entirety as a whole and when i use the word internet i use it as sort of big i internet i'm talking about the entirety of the internet as an organic loosely defined entity not singling out any one particular entity not talking about facebook or google or youtube or stripe or pinterest or any of those just as an organic thing the internet has sort of blossomed to encompass a lot of different agencies a lot of different companies a lot of different voices governments everything into this one organic entity we're calling that the internet now the internet the big-i internet is a power structure similar to the government right this general concept of the government the government itself is this amalgamation it's this consolidation of hundreds and thousands of different entities and agencies and different alphabet letters and all these things make this one giant power structure and so as we're talking through this it's kind of a similar concept the internet has a life of its own to a certain degree much like the government does and so while the original bill of rights was set in place to sort of restrict the government from encroaching on some of our fundamental basic civil liberties we're trying to make that same argument here about the internet and so i want to be clear we're not trying to punish any particular entity right i'm not angry really with jack dorsey or mark zuckerberg or any of these people we're just talking about this this sort of phenomenon of the internet that has bubbled up and and evolved over my entire life that is big i internet and we're going to get into a concept of the public sphere and how the internet has sort of morphed into the current public sphere but i just wanted to point that out that we're talking about the internet as a whole the next point is this concept of negative liberty versus active liberty and this is a concept that you can you can really get into the weeds with some of this stuff you can talk about active rights versus negative rights negative liberty versus active liberty but the general concept here at least when i was drafting these is not to be punitive to any of the internet companies to the big i internet don't want to punish them don't want to mandate a bunch of rules and regulations that make it difficult for them to comply with we're not going out there and saying you have to build this software and you know open up this entity we don't want them to balk at conforming to the regulations we want to reward them for providing more free speech more access more expression and less restrictions if they operate ing to those basic fundamental principles then they're protected for for that it's not that they have to go and you know build all of these different systems as long as they're just making things more free more accessible more expressive then they're going to be protected as a result of that we're also talking about simple construction of the rules when i say simple construction i'm talking about the drafting of the language i've seen other proposals out there on the internet where it's you know five ten pages of documents and it is intended to be this big long solution passed by legislation that once it's passed we're gonna know in the ins and out of everything every single line of conduct is defined and we know exactly what the rules and regulations are surrounding particular things and activities that's that's not the goal here what i'm trying to do is mirror our existing bill of rights which as i'm going to show you is very simple couple sentences for most of the amendments and what the what the sort of beauty in that is is you lay out those fundamental principles those key foundational issues our liberties are defined there and then the courts the congress they pass the they codify in statute how it should be put into effect the courts decide what is free speech they decide what's not protected and what is protected and so right now what we're just trying to do is lay out the basics lay out the foundational stuff i want it simple i don't want big complicated things because it's hard to convince people it's hard to be persuasive which is the next bullet point that this thing has to be persuasive people need to understand this if the goal here is to get this actually implemented to get a congress person to be able to take this up and detail it to their constituency and have them move this ball forward whether it's through a constitutional amendment which is the final bullet point or a convention of the states it has to be persuasive currently right now we're talking a lot about section 230 and liability and it just goes over the head of most people and it's very difficult to understand especially if you've got other congress people who are 80 years old and they don't even use the internet and they're trying to dictate how this stuff should work and they're trying to bring in all of the big tech ceos and ask them questions about a product about a platform that they don't even know that they don't even know how it works or how to use it so this needs to be simple so that the constituencies can understand it and when we talk about you know section 230 reform people's eyes glaze over they go what the heck are you talking about if you say how about a digital bill of rights so that you don't get kicked off the platform you are able to free you know to post what you want you can see the data that you want to see you're not being censored people can understand that and i think the likelihood of it getting traction is much more available if it is persuasive and it's not just limited to section 230 and those types of things and then lastly the goal here is mostly a thought experiment you know we just want to go and kind of toy around with these ideas i would love it if some of this stuff got implemented but as i said you know i am not somebody who is a a lobbyist or a political activist i like to sort of play around with thought ideas and if we could create something that we could draft into a constitutional amendment with your help i mean i can't think through all this stuff on my own i don't have the brain power to do it because it is it involves a lot of different aspects of life that i don't live in right i'm not part of a tech company never worked for a tech company i don't know what their pain points are and what difficulties they might have trying to comply with a new digital bill of rights and we certainly don't want to eliminate facebook or google with draconian policies we just want to make sure that the citizenry the people who are you know americans who are non-americans people who want to be a part of the conversation have the the ability and the freedom to do that because of our inalienable rights that we've already defined in our current bill of rights so a constitutional amendment would be great we could set it up so that we could draft the document send it to a lot of different representatives and senators they could formally introduce it or we could present it at a convention of the states if that were to be something so let's dive into it now i want to get into some political theory and i want to go back through and take a look at and sort of flesh out each one of those bullet points then we're going to get into the text of the digital bill of rights so let's take a look at how the original bill of rights back in the 1700s was implemented and what some of the thought process was behind it so if you just look on wikipedia very good articles actually about the bill of rights the u.s bill of rights the first 10 amendments that were added to the u.s constitution they were proposed from 1787 to 88 debate over the ratification of the constitution long debate we've talked about some of this here between the anti-federalists and the federalists the bill of rights amendments were added to the constitution they wanted specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights specifically they wanted it in there they didn't want to just say well you know the government has some freedom to define these they said nope we're not signing on to this thing unless it's clear and it's specifically about clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the u.s congress are reserved for the states and the people these concepts were codified and amendments were built upon earlier found in earlier documents they were leading on the virginia declaration of rights in 1776 northwest ordinance in 1787 the english bill of rights magna carta james madison somebody who i've talked about a lot federalist 51 and others who studied the deficiencies of the constitution point it out and then crafted a series of corrected proposals they originally were talking about 12 articles they settled on 10 and it looks like they were they were uh some of them well hold on okay so uh madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend protection and i wanted to make a point here that of incorporation so the original bill of rights was was originally drafted for just the federal government and then once we had the 14th amendment of course the the first 10 amendments are the bill of rights so 1 through 10 are the bill of rights then we had the 14th amendment during the reconstruction era after the civil war and what happened was we had an incorporation of those rights so originally the first 10 only applied to the federal government if you were a state person and you said hey i want to exercise my third amendment privilege against quartering the courts would have said well that doesn't apply to you that's a that's a federal protection if your state wants to quarter somebody they can now what ended up happening practically is a lot of the states still took the same principles in our federal constitution our bill of rights and implemented them at a state level but what you would what you would see is after the 14th amendment was passed an incorporation so slowly the courts started to say okay yes the second amendment also applies to the states the first amendment applies to the states and so on until most of the bill of rights have now been incorporated into the states and so what i wanted to make the point about here is that it's it's specifically it's limiting the government's power right that's what this was all about it specifies guarantees personal freedoms and rights just to limit the government's power and anything that it's not def that's not defined in this is reserved back to the people and mike the the the reason why i think this is so important is because the government is just this this beast that will naturally gobble up more and more power it's just the nature of bureaucracy that's my opinion on how this stuff works but once you get bureaucrats into power it's very unlikely that they're going to give any of that up and that's why you see time and time again you know these these small government conservatives they get into power then suddenly they're passing more executive orders and spending more money than anybody else in the country they're going to wait a minute right because they're in power and they're just consolidating a lot more power and so what the founders were saying all right well we got to be very clear here the people have to be the the counterbalance to the consolidation of power the people have to be able to respond protect their rights and reserve that because the government is ever encroaching against them same type of thing is happening here with big tech with the internet and i'm not just saying big tech and meaning facebook google youtube twitter it's the internet right the internet is consolidating power we see this all around us just naturally speaking amazon runs most of the internet because of amazon web services google runs most of the searches because of google they're good at it and they've consolidated their power facebook basically run social media they own instagram they own whatsapp then you've got twitter which is really the main place that the political conversation is having is happening so it's the same concept the people have to protect themselves and guard themselves against the burgeoning power that just tends to consolidate itself whether it's the government or whether it's big eye internet whether it's this concept of this organic entity which is almost like a pseudo government in a way right they're they're very closely connected they are centralizing conversations around the big i internet they're all taking place there and so we need to protect the people's interests by just making sure that we're checking these big power structures whether it's the government whether it's the internet whether it's the the military whether it's the health care industry these are pillars of power and so there are times in our country where we have considered this we said okay we have to modify how we're going to respond and we want to provide more people with more civil rights this has been a conversation that we've been having in this country for a very long time you can go back and look at all of the civil rights that we've had let's take a look at civil rights what do they mean what are we talking about here this was posted over on britannica which is an encyclopedic website written by rebecca hamlin she's an assistant professor of political science grinnell college iowa she contributed an article on civil rights and i have a highlight here from her examples of civil rights include the right to vote okay that didn't exist for everybody when this country was founded women didn't have it african-americans didn't have it the right to a fair trial the right to government services the right to public education the right to use public facilities as our country evolved we extended more rights civil rights are an essential essential component of democracy when individuals are being denied opportunities to participate in political society they are being denied their civil rights in contrast to civil liberties you get in the weeds here with some of this terminology which are freedoms that are secured by placing restraints on the government civil rights are secured by positive government action often in the form of legislation civil rights laws attempt to guarantee full and equal citizenship for people who have traditionally been discriminated against on the basis of some group characteristic when the enforcement of civil rights is found by many to be inadequate a civil rights movement may emerge in order to call for equal application of the laws without discrimination right and this has happened you know many many times we still are working through a lot of this stuff in the obergefell case we just had same-sex marriage legalized that is a that is a new right that is a and they didn't frame it that way they're not saying that this you know this was already existing they're just recognizing it now and we just we've seen this constant movement and so we can have a conversation about this what about digitally where we're spending a lot of our time as i'm going to get to this is not a new idea wikipedia has a list of many other organizations who've also talked about bill of rights we've got a consumer bill of rights a homeless bill of rights somebody was drafting taxpayer bill of rights academic bill of rights veterans bill of rights gi homosexual bill of rights library bill environmental bill of rights creators bill of rights for comic writers and artists they've got one donor's bill of rights for philanthropic donors law enforcement officers they have theirs california voters islamic bill of rights for women in the mosque new jersey anti-bullying bill of rights credit card holders sexual assault survivors bill of rights but these were all listed on wikipedia there's nothing there for the digital bill of rights not on there and there's pretty good evidence i think there's a good argument that the internet is the new public square 250 years ago 300 years ago in the 1700s the political debates were happening in the public squares this is a photograph from a postcard of the public square out in cleveland 1905 not that long ago this is a postcard found this from an article over on cloudflare this is where the conversation was happening in the public square this type of speech was protected this is the free speech this is the free expression that was taking place that's not happening though today the internet now is officially the public square ing to alyssa starzart starzak she wrote this in 2017 over on a blog at cloudflare cloud cloudfair is a tech company that provides dns services we use them here provide a lot of services actually she wrote in this article the supreme court issued an opinion confirming something we at cloudflare have long believed the first amendment protects access to the internet using sweeping language justice kennedy compared internet access to access to a street art or park saying quote essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views to protest others or to simply learn and inquire and conclude that to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of first amendment rights so there's some framework there these are things that are very important and most of the conversation now is taking place on the internet these are some statistics over from and you can see here although average time in minutes now this is a global number if i'm not mistaken this is the data mobile time on the internet is going up year after year after year 2021 it's expected to be 155 minutes on the mobile phone on the internet and this is a global number i think that's probably a lot higher in the united states desktop usage is going down as you can see but the rest of people are on mobile that's a that's a low number i think two and a half hours when i look at my screen on time it's a lot higher than that don't want to admit what it is but it's a lot higher than that okay and most and most of that is happening because i am reading the news i'm participating in the news i'm thinking about what to talk about on this show and we are talking politics we're talking life it's the public square it's taking place on twitter and elsewhere and this is just trending up and up and up add covet into the mixture the covet lockdowns it's even more important now more things are going digital courts are going digital we're making court appearances we used to have to go down physically to court all the time going on zoom access to the internet is becoming more and more important over the over time not less protections are more essential now than even last year because there is no alternative there is no public square if you wanted to go out there and host a rally like you saw in that photograph you're not allowed to do that right now in most places because of covid the only alternative now is to go online as i mentioned simplicity i think is very important with this digital bill of rights let's take a look at the preamble to the bill of rights because we want we want to model some of this the preamble to the bill of rights this is all you know basically explaining what happened and why they did this the conventions of the states they've adopted their constitution they expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers they want further declaratory and restrictive clauses to be added these are the articles that they went through and now some proposals that i've seen on the internet are just are long right pages and pages of documents this is what the bill of rights looks like this is the entirety of it you can fit it all on one page first amendment second third fourth fifth sixth seventh eighth ninth and tenth and now i'm not going to read through all of them but what i did just for the sake of brevity is i summarize them so first amendment what i did is i numbered the amendments and you can disagree with some of this if you'd like that's fine i numbered the amendments gave a clear sort of quick description of them and then identified what the liberty interest was what do we do what are we trying to protect what is important here first amendment freedom of speech press assembly protest redress of grievances and religion what are we talking about the liberty interest is expression and participation just a general keep and bear arms personal protection quartering autonomy protection against intrusion unreasonable searches and seizures privacy rights private property rights due process of law just compensation the government can't take your property without compensating you with just compensation grand jury proceedings double jeopardy protections for the accused same for amendment 6 7 and 8. all protections for the accused we have speedy in public trials and partial juries right to counsel and witnesses jury trials in federal cases excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment all sort of due process claims nine and ten all other rights are reserved to the people if it's not enumerated here it's not enumerated in the constitution it's not listed here it goes back to the people the people are sovereign against the government federal government limited to enumerated powers sovereignty of the people so when we're thinking about this new bill of rights we can just model this it doesn't have to be all that complicated what do we want to do we want to focus on protecting expression participation personal autonomy prevention against intrusion we want to protect due process before you de-platform and throw people off the internet maybe they're entitled to some due process because the liberty interest is so important because it's part of the public square there's nowhere else to go if you're d platform you're being denied your ability to participate in the country practically not legally right now but practically you are and i am empathetic to the argument that they're private companies and they're free to do what they want but so were a lot a lot of other private businesses back during the segregation era right those are the same arguments that they made hey it's our business we can do whatever the hell we want and we said as americans no you can't okay you can't do that it's not separate but equal anymore you are not allowed to send one group of people over here and another group of people over here why because we as americans don't want that garbage happening anymore it's wrong civil rights movement fix it still working on it but you know right it's it's a work in progress and this is the same concept currently we're in an environment that doesn't feel quite right doesn't feel like it's in synergy synergy with some of the fundamental liberties and principles that we hold dear as americans so we can model the existing bill of rights apply it to the digital era so let's get into it the first amendment the first digital bill of rights the digital freedom of speech and so this is what i wrote i wanted to keep it simple you're going to see it's very simple here the internet big-i internet shall have no laws of bridging the freedom of speech expression or of the press or of the users big u users to peaceably assemble on the internet okay very very similar to the first bill of right doesn't talk about religion doesn't talk about petition to address the internet for a redress of grievances or any of those things big eye internet this stuff would be defined by the courts by the legislature it would be codified at some point it would be interpreted just like the first amendment has been interpreted users is the word that i came up with to talk about users but you could use people i just use users for clarity and so you can just start to bet you know balance this out it's pretty big pretty broad peaceably assembled you want to be a part of a group you want to go on facebook and be part of a group and you're doing it peacefully got to let you do it if they want to censor you or delete your content they can't do that because you have an absolute right to the digital freedom of speech that's number one a lot of pros and cons on that now again as i said don't want to be overly burdensome on the big tech companies i'm going to explain what their protections are in amendment 8. the way that this is going gonna work is as long as they're operating within the bubble of liberty within the digital bubble of liberty as long as they're adhering to the first seven digital bill of rights they get protection from the eighth it's called good faith protection and i'm gonna explain what that works like what that what that looks like so the first response to this is probably gonna be well what if you have people saying bad things on there what if you have people saying dangerous things i think that's a that's something that we have already litigated a lot we've already talked about what is free speech and what is not free speech those same rules might apply now they are setting the bar much lower currently they're saying if it's dangerous at all ing to whatever definition that they want to come up with that's enough to eliminate this this would be raising the bar it's got to be closer in alignment with what is already considered to be not free speech we already have a framework for that we've got legal precedent for that amendment two the right to digital personhood all users shall have the right to exist in their true identity on the internet once again big-i internet that means anything okay doordash pinterest facebook google in all of them and all users shall have the right to exist in their true identity now i put true identity there because if you want to participate in this you gotta identify yourself okay you don't have a right to get on the internet and participate anonymously because i'm mirroring the public square argument okay you could go stand at a public square but at least your face is there at least somebody know hey is that rob over there yeah that's rob right you're participating you have some skin in the game in a little in in a certain way okay this i think you know this is probably controversial for some people and they may want to extend this further than that to be well you don't need it doesn't even have to be your true identity if you want to be anonymous you can be anonymous i'm trying to balance some of these factors but i'm open for comments on that you have a right to digital personhood you can go out there and be a part of it just like you can go out and be a part of the public square public square now on the internet if you want to go participate you want to identify yourself have at it and i think just speculating on this that people who are identified people who are speaking through their their own identity and not some pseudonym or an avatar or a domain you know a sort of a public handle then it's less likely that they would be needlessly volatile i think you might just see sort of a natural calming of language it's easy to go out there when you have an anonymous identity and start blasting everybody for everything but if you if it's your name and your identity it might clamp down on some of that you know dangerous speech just speculating on that amendment three the right to absolute absolute deletion users shall have the right to permanently remove all data from the internet okay and this is internet big eye now i don't know how you would implement this but if you as a user wanted to go and delete your facebook data i know you can do it i know it's very difficult to do it and i don't really know if they actually do do it right i don't know if they actually delete it same with google same with face i'm sorry twitter if you just want to say hey i'm out it's your data you have the right to pull it back off and they should make it easy to do it that's amendment number three absolute deletion number four the mobility of information now this is probably the most burdensome on the tech companies users shall have the ability to move their internet data between providers without impediment so what i was thinking of here is sort of an open protocol where you would be able to take your followers or your list of data and move them from one platform to another almost seamlessly and i know that that would be sort of a big ask of the tech companies because they would have to speak the same language right they'd have to basically create you know apis or something like that that all communicated with one another so that you can convert a twitter follower into a facebook follower into a google whatever you know something like that so you'd have to build out these communication technology but if you could by statute to find what that looks like and you could just go onto one social media platform pick up your data and say i'm out of this one pick up my data i'm going to take it over to a different platform and plug it back in you can move things around because i think currently part of the issue is if you get if you get booted off a platform you got to start over on a whole different platform and you cannot get your data back even though you've been contributing your data to that platform which is helping that platform become a profitable growing entity you're contributing to it you should be able to take that and move it around don't know how practical this one is i think and i would admit i think this is probably the most burdensome amendment here number five the right to digital privacy no user data shall be shared without express user consent given in an intelligible agreement so you leave this up to courts what is intelligible mean is this 300 pages of a terms of service that nobody reads or has any idea what it means right robin hood we just learned everybody just learned they can just sell your shares if they want if you disparage them did anybody read that when they signed up for it largely right now the answer is doesn't matter they click they clicked yes i agree nobody reads it they know that nobody reads it it's filled with legalese that's impossible to decipher unless you're an attorney even if you're an attorney so intelligible agreement would say hey this is what we're going to this is what we're going to sell you sign up for an account on facebook we're going to sell your occupation your name your location your profession what you know all of these different things you cool with that it's intelligible you say yeah i'm cool with that no problem boom i agree bullet points easy to decipher intelligible because right now it's happening i think is a lot of people don't even know what they're getting into we have amendment number six the right to unfilter providers of internet services shall offer users unfiltered uncensored and unrestricted access to the platform at the user's discretion this is pretty strong language i think this could be tampered down i was probably mad when i wrote this uncensored unrestricted access but here is my point on this i think that currently the algorithms are set up in a certain way they want to show you content that is going to agitate you so that you engage with it make you laugh so that you engage with it make you sad so that you engage with it and they're going to limit the the reach of certain content for certain purposes for protection against lawsuits because they don't want to contribute to dangerousness because they don't want to be seen as endorsing one political side or another that's fine they can keep all of those algorithms but you as a user if you just want to go through a raw unrestricted timeline you have that option you just say okay show me things chronologically show me all my followers chronologically let's see what they posted that's it the algorithm responds now i don't know how you would manage this or what the sort of the tech back you know background would look like or how that programming would work but you could say all right i want to sort by the most frequently contacted i want to sort by the most recently posted people who are active on online right now you know something quantifiable something that is less about the algorithm and more user experience on what data they are seeing because right now what's happening is these these companies are acting like filters and they they're showing you what they want to show you and you as a user don't understand the complicated algorithmic manipulations that are taking place behind the scenes and you're getting fed information that is not necessarily raw it's been curated it's been filtered for you and so as people who want to participate in the public square we want to see what else is out there we want to just have a free unfettered access to our contacts to the information so six is the right to unfilter seven is the right to digital due process providers of internet services shall not deny users access to any part of the platform without affording to due process which must include and i just threw some ideas on this one a specific and clear explanation of the policy violation that has been identified specific reference to the policy violation at issue what is the policy so what is the policy and how do we violate it provide a meaningful opportunity to rectify the violation provide an opportunity for an appeal to be heard by an identifiable person a human not a machine not a random email provide a written explanation upon determination of the appeal so that we as users know and provide details about other legal options to the users and so you know obviously on this channel we've been the subject of some of this stuff we had our chat platform just eliminated we paid for it got an email gone no no opportunity to rectify that i think there were over a thousand people in there they didn't like something they didn't tell us what it was just deleted we sent a response hey we're willing to operate within your terms what can we do we reviewed your account our decision is final thanks for playing gone right and it's not just it's not just happening to us it's happening all over the internet we just saw this last week there was a demonetization crucification crucifixion around all of youtube it wasn't just conservative websites i'm seeing a lot of other liberal channels that have all gotten demonetized and i feel really badly for them there was one one person who's out there saying hey this was my entire income this was my full-time job i've been grinding content on this thing forever and i just got an email no more okay you had you as a person as a content creator you have a reliance on that stream of revenue we got demonetized fortunately i have a separate day job so we're okay but there are many other people who are not right and they're leaning on these big tech companies and they're providing value to them and they just get the rug pulled right out from under them i feel terrible for them sad so maybe some due process before they can take action depriving you of the other liberties that we've defined in amendments one through six if they're going to encroach on any of those things you've got to have due process identify the policy identify how you breached it identify how you can rectify it give them meaningful opportunity to rectify it speak with a person about it tell them about your other legal options and the last amendment here amendment number eight and then we're going to take a look at some questions from the chat over on locals the chat will be on locals i think i can take a look at youtube today too if all of those different amendments are complied with which we just created with amendments one through seven one through six sort of this bubble of digital liberty that i think people should be entitled to or at least arguably those things before they're taken away you get due process and if any of the internet the big i internet if anybody in that space is complying with amendments one through six or removing them through due process after amendment seven then they get what's called amendment eight good faith protection providers of internet services who comply in good faith with the articles shall be immune from liability okay this is basically what section 230 says they're immune from liability in a court of law in the following instances now i got specific here just to make a point but i don't think that the final amendment should be this specific okay transmission of illicit imagery claims of defamation offers to engage in illegal services sale of drugs prostitution all of those things okay if the users are doing those things if the users are are making dangerous statements if they're doing all of that the tech companies are immune for it providers though who are failing to abide by any article in this bill are not subject to good faith protection so you create the little balloon of liberty you say as long as you're operating in this if you're granting more people the freedom of expression the freedom of speech the freedom to participate you're granting them digital personhood you're following due process before you de-platform or remove anybody we're going to protect you google facebook parlor amazon all of them you're good don't worry about it but the moment you start censoring people adding context reducing reach deep platforming people you lose those protections you lose the good faith protection from the new digital bill of rights you're now subject to suit because you're violating civil liberties you're violating civil rights and this is stuff that i've just been toying around with kind of having some mental gymnastics some mental fun about it i know there are some other proposals that are out there as well