3 ms·
Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeball
by braveo 10y ago
Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online.
These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal).
So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
- gwright 10y agoWho said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
- braveo 10y agoIf there's one thing I definitely don't care about, it's the exact definition of censorship. What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made. So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it. But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s