6 ms·

Its Youtube, not a public space and not something government controlled. They are free to say what is and isn't on their system. What if you made a system and s

by sqeaky 9y ago

Its Youtube, not a public space and not something government controlled. They are free to say what is and isn't on their system. What if you made a system and someone took that from you and they demanded that ISIS be given equal rights to people with your political leanings? Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.

MrZongle2 9y ago
"Don't tolerate intolerance." Sure. Just define "intolerance".
- sqeaky 9y ago
  I think ISIS is a reasonable start at a definition. The more they want to hurt people the less tolerant they are.
  - MrZongle2 9y ago
    Well, I'd agree with that....but the ultimate problem isn't where a definition starts.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      We can stop with what's already illegal. It is not legal to incite violence. Videos demanding that the infidels be killed are not legal. Neither are videos calling for the death of people for any other reason.
      - MrZongle2 9y ago
        Yes, but what's illegal changes. Consider: during Prohibition here in the U.S., alcohol was illegal. Were a similar situation develop, should discussion of alcohol distilling be illegal? What about where to find a speakeasy? What about simply discussing how wrong a ban on alcohol is?
word_gamebdbdbd 9y ago
I won't tolerate your intolerance towards ISIS. See how it's just a meaningless word game?
- res0nat0r 9y ago
  It all boils down to the fact that YouTube is Google's service and they can ban anything they want weather any of us like it or not.
  - word_gamebdbdbd 9y ago
    Yes, I agree with you that it's within their rights to do so. The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube. If I cannot participate in these discussions, my ideology, and perhaps my welfare, will suffer. Giving public speeches in my town is increasingly meaningless, because this is not where discussions take place in the digital age.
    - res0nat0r 9y ago
      But Google is a private company and there are no laws (rightfully) to force them to display your opinions if they don't want to do so. Free speech laws just apply to the government not silencing you, not private companies.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      > The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube. Then people have willfully given up their rights. Google and the companies they bought and developers they pay made their software services. People own this stuff it is property and the property owners get the say as long as they follow the laws. One could even argue they have to remove this stuff because much of it is "calls to violence" which are illegal and not protected by the first amendment. This might sound snide and dismissive, but that is not what I am going for, so I am sorry. You are free to make any service you like and host it. It has literally never been easier. Look at 4chan. The first versions cost nearly nothing to setup and maintain and that is about as free as speech gets. You can have whatever rules you like on your property. You apparently haven't gone through the effort of making a giant video or communication service so you have to play by the rules of the people who own the ones that exist. If you think you shouldn't have to make one to (to enforce your rules) then petition to make one, but that is really asking for trouble in my opinion.
ekianjo 9y ago
> Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless. What does that even mean? You can still have speech you dont agree with, nobody is forcing you to see it.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  The real effects of leaving ISIS recruiting videos on youtube is people dying. They actually do succeed in recruiting people and those people do bad things. Shouldn't this be stopped?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    So do you agree that US military videos should be taken off of Youtube as well? The real effect is that some people do indeed die after joining.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      That is really a trollish comparison. The US military is under the under the control of a democratically elected government. Even considering that there have been abuses, There is a categorical ethical difference. The ISIS videos are often calls to violence, showing beheadings and encouraging beheadings. Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books. Either way its not my choice, its Google's choice. Oh and the law has some say, calls incite to violence are not protected under even the first amendment. Google has to remove at least some of these because they are illegally asking for violence and people. This law has just been selectively enforced because that is how strong the First Amendment is. It is so strong it protects even more speech in more places than was intended.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        I don't consider this trollish at all, I'm legitimately asking. Just because you don't like that your argument can be flipped around doesn't change anything. > Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books. I do consider that and I can't defend America in this case. We have historically targeted civilians, condoned rape, and definitely answer to a book that I strongly consider outdated. This is the problem that I have with censorship: It usually ends up being OK if the "good guys" do it, but we can't let "them" do the same thing, or people might listen to them! I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
raghavtoshniwal 9y ago
Although I agree with the whole YouTube deciding what they want on their platform narrative, the argument loses some steam when talking about edge cases. There are a lot of conflicts where the distinction between quelling extremist content and removing anti-establishment rhetoric is a thin one. Once YouTube starts content censorship of any kind, they might quickly find themselves having to pick sides in somewhat grey areas. Making such value judgements and making them consistently becomes a challenge.
dilap 9y ago
But I think Youtube is a public space, one of the most important ones there is right now. The fact that it is owned by a large corporation rather than a government is immaterial. I also think the power Google of today wields over my life is probably comparable to the power the government of 1789 wielded over its citizens. Is it really wise to so readily accept arbitrary behavior from Google just because they're a private company? At a certain point, companies become big and powerful enough that I think it's reasonable to hold them to similar standards as governments.
- cisanti 9y ago
  The monster called Alphabet needs to be shaken down by the governments.
- quirkot 9y ago
  Yes. This. So Much Of It.
- aero142 9y ago
  Your argument doesn't hold up as long as there are compeditors. When you start needing government or regulator approval and it comes qith strings attached, things change.
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  You thinking YouTube is a public space doesn't make it so, even if you put is in italics. YouTube is a company. It has employees, a business model, and a TOS. It decides what is acceptable content. You are free to patronize another video site if you don't like it. In the 90s, if you argued your local mall was a public space because a lot of people spent time there and that's where the conversation was happening, you would be just as wrong.
  - defen 9y ago
    In a certain sense, a mall is a public space, though. Meaning, you can't exclude people simply because they belong to a protected class. A privately-owned mall is very different from a privately-owned home or club in that regard.
jimmaswell 9y ago
There should be some kind of line drawn when a service is something people are essentially forced to rely on or is so ubiquitous. "Common carrier" phone companies aren't allowed to selectively censor your use of them, and it seems reasonable that something the likes of Facebook should maybe have to be held to a similar standard when it's so ubiquitous and a major part of modern communication. There are also precedents such as malls not being allowed to limit speech on the premises in California, along with some other states having similar enforcement of certain rights on some kinds of private property.
- snerbles 9y ago
  See Privately-Owned Public Spaces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space

by sqeaky 9y ago

MrZongle2 9y ago

"Don't tolerate intolerance." Sure. Just define "intolerance".

sqeaky 9y ago
I think ISIS is a reasonable start at a definition. The more they want to hurt people the less tolerant they are.
- MrZongle2 9y ago
  Well, I'd agree with that....but the ultimate problem isn't where a definition starts.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    We can stop with what's already illegal. It is not legal to incite violence. Videos demanding that the infidels be killed are not legal. Neither are videos calling for the death of people for any other reason.
    - MrZongle2 9y ago
      Yes, but what's illegal changes. Consider: during Prohibition here in the U.S., alcohol was illegal. Were a similar situation develop, should discussion of alcohol distilling be illegal? What about where to find a speakeasy? What about simply discussing how wrong a ban on alcohol is?

word_gamebdbdbd 9y ago

I won't tolerate your intolerance towards ISIS. See how it's just a meaningless word game?

res0nat0r 9y ago
It all boils down to the fact that YouTube is Google's service and they can ban anything they want weather any of us like it or not.
- word_gamebdbdbd 9y ago
  Yes, I agree with you that it's within their rights to do so. The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube. If I cannot participate in these discussions, my ideology, and perhaps my welfare, will suffer. Giving public speeches in my town is increasingly meaningless, because this is not where discussions take place in the digital age.
  - res0nat0r 9y ago
    But Google is a private company and there are no laws (rightfully) to force them to display your opinions if they don't want to do so. Free speech laws just apply to the government not silencing you, not private companies.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    > The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube. Then people have willfully given up their rights. Google and the companies they bought and developers they pay made their software services. People own this stuff it is property and the property owners get the say as long as they follow the laws. One could even argue they have to remove this stuff because much of it is "calls to violence" which are illegal and not protected by the first amendment. This might sound snide and dismissive, but that is not what I am going for, so I am sorry. You are free to make any service you like and host it. It has literally never been easier. Look at 4chan. The first versions cost nearly nothing to setup and maintain and that is about as free as speech gets. You can have whatever rules you like on your property. You apparently haven't gone through the effort of making a giant video or communication service so you have to play by the rules of the people who own the ones that exist. If you think you shouldn't have to make one to (to enforce your rules) then petition to make one, but that is really asking for trouble in my opinion.

ekianjo 9y ago

> Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless. What does that even mean? You can still have speech you dont agree with, nobody is forcing you to see it.

sqeaky 9y ago
The real effects of leaving ISIS recruiting videos on youtube is people dying. They actually do succeed in recruiting people and those people do bad things. Shouldn't this be stopped?
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  So do you agree that US military videos should be taken off of Youtube as well? The real effect is that some people do indeed die after joining.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    That is really a trollish comparison. The US military is under the under the control of a democratically elected government. Even considering that there have been abuses, There is a categorical ethical difference. The ISIS videos are often calls to violence, showing beheadings and encouraging beheadings. Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books. Either way its not my choice, its Google's choice. Oh and the law has some say, calls incite to violence are not protected under even the first amendment. Google has to remove at least some of these because they are illegally asking for violence and people. This law has just been selectively enforced because that is how strong the First Amendment is. It is so strong it protects even more speech in more places than was intended.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      I don't consider this trollish at all, I'm legitimately asking. Just because you don't like that your argument can be flipped around doesn't change anything. > Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books. I do consider that and I can't defend America in this case. We have historically targeted civilians, condoned rape, and definitely answer to a book that I strongly consider outdated. This is the problem that I have with censorship: It usually ends up being OK if the "good guys" do it, but we can't let "them" do the same thing, or people might listen to them! I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

raghavtoshniwal 9y ago

Although I agree with the whole YouTube deciding what they want on their platform narrative, the argument loses some steam when talking about edge cases. There are a lot of conflicts where the distinction between quelling extremist content and removing anti-establishment rhetoric is a thin one. Once YouTube starts content censorship of any kind, they might quickly find themselves having to pick sides in somewhat grey areas. Making such value judgements and making them consistently becomes a challenge.

dilap 9y ago

But I think Youtube is a public space, one of the most important ones there is right now. The fact that it is owned by a large corporation rather than a government is immaterial. I also think the power Google of today wields over my life is probably comparable to the power the government of 1789 wielded over its citizens. Is it really wise to so readily accept arbitrary behavior from Google just because they're a private company? At a certain point, companies become big and powerful enough that I think it's reasonable to hold them to similar standards as governments.

cisanti 9y ago
The monster called Alphabet needs to be shaken down by the governments.
quirkot 9y ago
Yes. This. So Much Of It.
aero142 9y ago
Your argument doesn't hold up as long as there are compeditors. When you start needing government or regulator approval and it comes qith strings attached, things change.
booleandilemma 9y ago
You thinking YouTube is a public space doesn't make it so, even if you put is in italics. YouTube is a company. It has employees, a business model, and a TOS. It decides what is acceptable content. You are free to patronize another video site if you don't like it. In the 90s, if you argued your local mall was a public space because a lot of people spent time there and that's where the conversation was happening, you would be just as wrong.
- defen 9y ago
  In a certain sense, a mall is a public space, though. Meaning, you can't exclude people simply because they belong to a protected class. A privately-owned mall is very different from a privately-owned home or club in that regard.

jimmaswell 9y ago

There should be some kind of line drawn when a service is something people are essentially forced to rely on or is so ubiquitous. "Common carrier" phone companies aren't allowed to selectively censor your use of them, and it seems reasonable that something the likes of Facebook should maybe have to be held to a similar standard when it's so ubiquitous and a major part of modern communication. There are also precedents such as malls not being allowed to limit speech on the premises in California, along with some other states having similar enforcement of certain rights on some kinds of private property.

snerbles 9y ago
See Privately-Owned Public Spaces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space