4 ms·

To me YouTube being a private organization is beside the point; I would like the dominant mediums of communication of our era to be open and free, not restricte

by dilap 9y ago

To me YouTube being a private organization is beside the point; I would like the dominant mediums of communication of our era to be open and free, not restricted and censored. It makes very little practical difference if the censorship comes from a large company or a government if at the end of the day you can't say what you want. And yes: I do believe in the basic free speech bargain. I do think it's better to have ISIS recruitment videos (and anti-ISIS videos, and everything else) up freely than to have some organization sitting in judgement of what's "acceptable" and not. Of course it's a trade-off. There is a cost to social harmony from free speech (& democracy!). China seems to be doing pretty well with a very different approach; they value social harmony highly. But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary. Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Do you believe that videos of 3-year olds executing prisoners is really worth broadcasting? Old men getting their head stabbed with a bayonet until they die? Pilots burned alive? I'm all for free speech, but why should Google distribute that for free so we can have more lone wolf terrorist attacks?
- snerbles 9y ago
  Such videos are already against Google's terms of service. This new policy and the tech that backs it are little more than a political cudgel.
- dilap 9y ago
  If those things are happening in the world, then I do think it's valuable to be able to see them. Recent example: Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    There's a strong point to be made that taking the trouble to burn a man alive inside a big jail is only valuable to them because the citizens of their enemy countries are watching. And there's also the difference between reporting horrible, graphical news, and being the platform for ISIS to tell and show them in their terms.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy Do you have a source for that? The only one I could find is The Weekly Standard which doesn't cite any officials or sources itself.
    - dilap 9y ago
      Yeah, that's my source too, by way of Twitter. I would assume they're not just completely making it up, but who knows?
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        Stories with no cited sources, anonymous or otherwise, are almost certainly making it up (or, to be charitable, conflating several disjunct events into a causal stream that doesn't exist.)
- tajen 9y ago
  That's not what he's talking about. For example, today, it is much easier on social media to share left-wing opinions than to explain the drawbacks of, for example, positive discrimination or massive fundings for [insert minority here]. Maybe that's what you want – not be aware of those drawbacks. But those people who are censored still exist, are more rejected, and they can't confront their ideas, so they derive towards extremism. Now you can't hear their demands, you get surprised with their votes (hello Trump voters) and they keep being racists (or insert minority here). Extremism isn't a birth defect. It's a reaction to circumstances. Go visit 9Gag. Under anonymity, huge numbers of young people have very pronounced hatred towards minorities and SJWs. I'd prefer seeing this debate happening on Youtube and public spaces than excluding them than not knowing where they are.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Sounds similar to a fair bit of video game content. Bayonetting innocents, adolescents brutally murdering other adolescents... Drawn or photorealistically rendered or real, where do you draw the line?
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    One is fiction and the other is not.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      If ISIS released purely fictional accounts using actors and advanced CGI of the exact same content, you would be OK with it showing up on YouTube then? Would a disclaimer blunt its impact as a recruitment tool?
- pageandrew 9y ago
  What an absolute joke of a response. > But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary. Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos. What about that isn't clear to you? He supports it on principle.
soundwave106 9y ago
Well, the private organization thing is really the issue in a nutshell: Google is not a public space, no matter how large it is. What drives them is revenue, not free speech. Google is a company backed by advertising. Youtube has faced very noticeable controversy from advertisers (including a "boycott" -- https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a...) over "hate speech" and other offensive content. In my opinion, this update is a direct response to that issue (the paragraph on "de-monetizing" content that is found unacceptable, but still within content guidelines, suggests to me as much). This is all about placating advertisers, who didn't want an advertisement for Brand XYZ appearing to ISIS recruitment videos and the like. I can't really think of a way to get around this -- to do so, you are basically asking Google to force brands to pay for content they find objectionable. (Which they won't do, in the end.)
- dilap 9y ago
  Hmm, but why cut off comments or restrict search results if it's just about placating advertisers? There seems to be more here at play. I agree Google doesn't care about free speech. I'm not sure about the best remedy to the problem. Things as diverse as legislation to alternative non-centralized social network to simply trying to change corporate and cultural values all come to mind...
groby_b 9y ago
You never had the right to a platform for your speech, starting day one of the country you profess to love. "Freedom of speech" was always intended as freedom from the doctrine of seditious libel, freedom from the government shielding itself against inconvenient speech. There is a reason every single state constitution has provisions on the abuse of speech, and that is because we always saw the potential for this. (Why not the constitution? Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction over speech. It's up to the states. See e.g. Federalist #84) This idea that "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" is a completely misguided idea that has no basis in reality, the constitution, or even the debates the founders had.
- dilap 9y ago
  You're arguing legalese but I'm arguing morals and ideals. > "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" That's not an accurate summary of what I want. Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'? That is, I'm saying that pervasive communication mediums like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring content. That's all. (Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves?)
  - groby_b 9y ago
    > You're arguing legalese but I'm arguing morals and ideals. Sure you are. Except... you tie them specifically to the American interpretation. Which is firmly rooted in the Constitution/1st amendment, and what our founders thought about it. Quoth: "But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly" So, either you subscribe to those specific values, or you should scrub the patriotic rah-rah from your argument. > Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'? Nobody "suppresses" anything. If you want to be a white supremacist, host your own server. These platforms are private entities - they get to choose who is welcome. (cf https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/) > Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves? Yes. Once a line is crossed, because at that point it turns from speech to acts of aggression utilizing speech. As I said above, everybody arguing free speech understood that back when we decided what basic rights we wanted or didn't want. And please don't argue "slippery slope", because that's a strawman. There's a very clearly recognizable line from free speech to hate speech, be it white supremacy, gay bashing, nazism, or ISIS. And the vast majority of people is perfectly capable of recognizing that line (Here's an interesting read on the whole concept that there are limits to tolerance: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...)

by dilap 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Do you believe that videos of 3-year olds executing prisoners is really worth broadcasting? Old men getting their head stabbed with a bayonet until they die? Pilots burned alive? I'm all for free speech, but why should Google distribute that for free so we can have more lone wolf terrorist attacks?

snerbles 9y ago
Such videos are already against Google's terms of service. This new policy and the tech that backs it are little more than a political cudgel.
dilap 9y ago
If those things are happening in the world, then I do think it's valuable to be able to see them. Recent example: Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy.
- euyyn 9y ago
  There's a strong point to be made that taking the trouble to burn a man alive inside a big jail is only valuable to them because the citizens of their enemy countries are watching. And there's also the difference between reporting horrible, graphical news, and being the platform for ISIS to tell and show them in their terms.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy Do you have a source for that? The only one I could find is The Weekly Standard which doesn't cite any officials or sources itself.
  - dilap 9y ago
    Yeah, that's my source too, by way of Twitter. I would assume they're not just completely making it up, but who knows?
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      Stories with no cited sources, anonymous or otherwise, are almost certainly making it up (or, to be charitable, conflating several disjunct events into a causal stream that doesn't exist.)
tajen 9y ago
That's not what he's talking about. For example, today, it is much easier on social media to share left-wing opinions than to explain the drawbacks of, for example, positive discrimination or massive fundings for [insert minority here]. Maybe that's what you want – not be aware of those drawbacks. But those people who are censored still exist, are more rejected, and they can't confront their ideas, so they derive towards extremism. Now you can't hear their demands, you get surprised with their votes (hello Trump voters) and they keep being racists (or insert minority here). Extremism isn't a birth defect. It's a reaction to circumstances. Go visit 9Gag. Under anonymity, huge numbers of young people have very pronounced hatred towards minorities and SJWs. I'd prefer seeing this debate happening on Youtube and public spaces than excluding them than not knowing where they are.
falcolas 9y ago
Sounds similar to a fair bit of video game content. Bayonetting innocents, adolescents brutally murdering other adolescents... Drawn or photorealistically rendered or real, where do you draw the line?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  One is fiction and the other is not.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    If ISIS released purely fictional accounts using actors and advanced CGI of the exact same content, you would be OK with it showing up on YouTube then? Would a disclaimer blunt its impact as a recruitment tool?
pageandrew 9y ago
What an absolute joke of a response. > But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary. Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos. What about that isn't clear to you? He supports it on principle.

soundwave106 9y ago

Well, the private organization thing is really the issue in a nutshell: Google is not a public space, no matter how large it is. What drives them is revenue, not free speech. Google is a company backed by advertising. Youtube has faced very noticeable controversy from advertisers (including a "boycott" -- https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a...) over "hate speech" and other offensive content. In my opinion, this update is a direct response to that issue (the paragraph on "de-monetizing" content that is found unacceptable, but still within content guidelines, suggests to me as much). This is all about placating advertisers, who didn't want an advertisement for Brand XYZ appearing to ISIS recruitment videos and the like. I can't really think of a way to get around this -- to do so, you are basically asking Google to force brands to pay for content they find objectionable. (Which they won't do, in the end.)

dilap 9y ago
Hmm, but why cut off comments or restrict search results if it's just about placating advertisers? There seems to be more here at play. I agree Google doesn't care about free speech. I'm not sure about the best remedy to the problem. Things as diverse as legislation to alternative non-centralized social network to simply trying to change corporate and cultural values all come to mind...

groby_b 9y ago

You never had the right to a platform for your speech, starting day one of the country you profess to love. "Freedom of speech" was always intended as freedom from the doctrine of seditious libel, freedom from the government shielding itself against inconvenient speech. There is a reason every single state constitution has provisions on the abuse of speech, and that is because we always saw the potential for this. (Why not the constitution? Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction over speech. It's up to the states. See e.g. Federalist #84) This idea that "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" is a completely misguided idea that has no basis in reality, the constitution, or even the debates the founders had.

dilap 9y ago
You're arguing legalese but I'm arguing morals and ideals. > "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" That's not an accurate summary of what I want. Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'? That is, I'm saying that pervasive communication mediums like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring content. That's all. (Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves?)
- groby_b 9y ago
  > You're arguing legalese but I'm arguing morals and ideals. Sure you are. Except... you tie them specifically to the American interpretation. Which is firmly rooted in the Constitution/1st amendment, and what our founders thought about it. Quoth: "But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly" So, either you subscribe to those specific values, or you should scrub the patriotic rah-rah from your argument. > Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'? Nobody "suppresses" anything. If you want to be a white supremacist, host your own server. These platforms are private entities - they get to choose who is welcome. (cf https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/) > Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves? Yes. Once a line is crossed, because at that point it turns from speech to acts of aggression utilizing speech. As I said above, everybody arguing free speech understood that back when we decided what basic rights we wanted or didn't want. And please don't argue "slippery slope", because that's a strawman. There's a very clearly recognizable line from free speech to hate speech, be it white supremacy, gay bashing, nazism, or ISIS. And the vast majority of people is perfectly capable of recognizing that line (Here's an interesting read on the whole concept that there are limits to tolerance: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...)