5 ms·

You seriously see no material difference in having your video on the YouTube vs on randomvideowebsite.com? It's not merely a question of finding a host to uploa

You seriously see no material difference in having your video on the YouTube vs on randomvideowebsite.com? It's not merely a question of finding a host to upload your file.

KGIII 9y ago
Not to mention the trouble when nobody will allow you to host your legal content because they disagree with the message. Hell, even registrars are refusing to point to an IP address. I know... We all hate Nazis. I get it. I don't like them and, being not white, they definitely don't like me. But, they are the current good example of what happens when the controllers decide you can no longer share your legal content. I don't know what the solution is, but I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. I want a world where we aren't cowards and trying to force conformity. I want a world where even the worst of us can express themselves, using the same tools as others, so long as it is legal content. Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are. I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance. Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      Yep, younger generations are being brain washed, unfortunately, to believe in an un-American authoritarian view on speech. I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I literally defend literal Nazis. The Nazis hate me but they actually seem slightly less hyperbolic than those who dislike that I defend their basic human rights. The White Nationalists tell me they'd kick me out of the country, which is funny because I'm mostly Native American. The others (I don't have a name for them) tell me that I don't even have a right to support their right to free expression. I'd rather be told that I'm hated then be told I have no right to speak. Really, I think we can pretty much all agree that the Internet is largely a basic human right. With that, so shouldn't other protections apply. I think it's probably going to take regulation to get beyond this. I'm kind of hoping it's sensible regulation but it seems destined to happen eventually.
        honestoHeminway 9y ago
        The internet did the worst thing one can do to a government. It proofed for 15 long years, that it is not needed - and things can be solved without all the kings men.
    - davidcbc 9y ago
      > A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. Do you have a link to this?
      - KGIII 9y ago
        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...
  - zaphirplane 9y ago
    I appreciate your argument and the "when they came for me" quote. As an intellectual argument doesn't the government also exist to protect people, this is mostly about where the line is drawn between protecting society from some of its harmful members and protecting society from the government. Hard line to draw
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      What I would say is that while gov has a role to protect people's physical safety, what else do you believe is a legitimate role in protecting people from? Is it government's responsibility to care for your emotions? Do you think gov should cover our ears from mean words? Burn books that say things that you disagree with? Who decides what is disagreeable? Me? You? Trump? Eric Schmidt? In a way, speech is already a very effective democratic institution. The more decentralized and the more participants, the more democratic. But if this voice is transferred from the people to the gov, the more power is handed from the people to the elites, and most likely the faster we will devolve into authoritarianism.
      - zaphirplane 9y ago
        There are cults, groups and generally evil people who gain memeber ship thru words - brain washing - those groups then cause physical harm, waiting for the harm to happen doesn't sound like protecting society While I appreciate your view I don't know where you live or who you are and I bet there is a group of people out there that hates you, and you would have a different view on freedom to publish the on google / Facebook when they target you
        wallace_f 9y ago
        To your first paragraph: Take another issue, like marijuana or alcohol prohibition. I don't have to personally be into those to say that it's not a legitimate role of government to tell me whether I can use them. Also here, you can find that some will die every year because of them, and make the same argument you made: that government should jump ahead and not allow it. If they dont, then they aren't protecting society, so your argument goes. Unfortunately here it's clear that life is far from perfect, but the moral question to ask is how can we make the best of it for all people? Should we ban everything because a few die: cars, sugar--what about swimming pools? Back flips? You see, I don't think this argument you made logically leads us to a very good world. Government can't protect us from everything. At some point we have to rely on faith in humanity. Not to mention with every power handed over from the people is given into the hands of government's propensity for corruption... So while I don't approve of every group that will use free speech same as I dont use marijuana or have a swimming pool, but I don't think it's a legitimate role of government to regulate any of that. In other words, I think more people will suffer w/o free speech than w/ it, but no solution will be perfect. Ok, however your second paragrapah is really concerning me.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  > I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. Yes, but we (speaking as a person, not a representative of any company) don't have to supply them with a platform to spread their hate and we don't have to sit idly by while they do it. > Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are Do we? What are they?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  You and parent seem to have missed my point. I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that using google is a choice, a choice with lots of alternatives. Google's choice not to host certain things is itself a speech act. Don't try to police Google's speech. Instead, make sure there are plenty of alternatives to Google for the people who Google doesn't want to host. If there's no alternative to google, then google's policing becomes a problem. THAT is why it's important that governments not censor speech -- you don't have alternative choices for government. And THAT is why privately owned censor-happy monopolies of the press are just as huge a threat to free speech as governments. But -- and this is my point -- there are a near infinite number of alternatives to google. Google does not have a monopoly of the press. If someone believes they can't speak freely because youtube won't host your videos, then that incorrect belief is a huge problem. A much larger problem than youtube choosing not to host their videos.
tanilama 9y ago
If people dislike Google that much, they should set their own websites, there are plenty of video hosting service out there that doesn't have as tight a control as Youtube has. The only reason that you want to post on Youtube, other than any other sites is that you want to make make money out of it.
throwawayjava 9y ago
1. No, I don't see that huge of a difference. I really don't think that youtube has nearly as much influence over what the vast majority of people see as you seem to think it does. 2. Regardless, the solution is to become less dependent on corporate-owned ad-distribution networks for finding information. And help others do the same. Modifying corporate behavior to match your preferences will never be a sufficient replacement for an informed, inquisitive, and self-sufficient populace. So focus on solving the latter problem instead of complaining about the first. I think some people are reading my comments as a defense of Google. But I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that the tools you need to get out from under Google already exist and are available today, as long as you want to speak (as opposed to e.g. make money from advertising). If you use google services, you're making a choice. A choice with lots of alternatives. Telling people otherwise does google a huge favor.

You seriously see no material difference in having your video on the YouTube vs on randomvideowebsite.com? It's not merely a question of finding a host to upload your file.

KGIII 9y ago

Not to mention the trouble when nobody will allow you to host your legal content because they disagree with the message. Hell, even registrars are refusing to point to an IP address. I know... We all hate Nazis. I get it. I don't like them and, being not white, they definitely don't like me. But, they are the current good example of what happens when the controllers decide you can no longer share your legal content. I don't know what the solution is, but I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. I want a world where we aren't cowards and trying to force conformity. I want a world where even the worst of us can express themselves, using the same tools as others, so long as it is legal content. Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are. I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist.

wallace_f 9y ago
It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
- KGIII 9y ago
  That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance. Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    Yep, younger generations are being brain washed, unfortunately, to believe in an un-American authoritarian view on speech. I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I literally defend literal Nazis. The Nazis hate me but they actually seem slightly less hyperbolic than those who dislike that I defend their basic human rights. The White Nationalists tell me they'd kick me out of the country, which is funny because I'm mostly Native American. The others (I don't have a name for them) tell me that I don't even have a right to support their right to free expression. I'd rather be told that I'm hated then be told I have no right to speak. Really, I think we can pretty much all agree that the Internet is largely a basic human right. With that, so shouldn't other protections apply. I think it's probably going to take regulation to get beyond this. I'm kind of hoping it's sensible regulation but it seems destined to happen eventually.
      - honestoHeminway 9y ago
        The internet did the worst thing one can do to a government. It proofed for 15 long years, that it is not needed - and things can be solved without all the kings men.
  - davidcbc 9y ago
    > A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. Do you have a link to this?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...
- zaphirplane 9y ago
  I appreciate your argument and the "when they came for me" quote. As an intellectual argument doesn't the government also exist to protect people, this is mostly about where the line is drawn between protecting society from some of its harmful members and protecting society from the government. Hard line to draw
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    What I would say is that while gov has a role to protect people's physical safety, what else do you believe is a legitimate role in protecting people from? Is it government's responsibility to care for your emotions? Do you think gov should cover our ears from mean words? Burn books that say things that you disagree with? Who decides what is disagreeable? Me? You? Trump? Eric Schmidt? In a way, speech is already a very effective democratic institution. The more decentralized and the more participants, the more democratic. But if this voice is transferred from the people to the gov, the more power is handed from the people to the elites, and most likely the faster we will devolve into authoritarianism.
    - zaphirplane 9y ago
      There are cults, groups and generally evil people who gain memeber ship thru words - brain washing - those groups then cause physical harm, waiting for the harm to happen doesn't sound like protecting society While I appreciate your view I don't know where you live or who you are and I bet there is a group of people out there that hates you, and you would have a different view on freedom to publish the on google / Facebook when they target you
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        To your first paragraph: Take another issue, like marijuana or alcohol prohibition. I don't have to personally be into those to say that it's not a legitimate role of government to tell me whether I can use them. Also here, you can find that some will die every year because of them, and make the same argument you made: that government should jump ahead and not allow it. If they dont, then they aren't protecting society, so your argument goes. Unfortunately here it's clear that life is far from perfect, but the moral question to ask is how can we make the best of it for all people? Should we ban everything because a few die: cars, sugar--what about swimming pools? Back flips? You see, I don't think this argument you made logically leads us to a very good world. Government can't protect us from everything. At some point we have to rely on faith in humanity. Not to mention with every power handed over from the people is given into the hands of government's propensity for corruption... So while I don't approve of every group that will use free speech same as I dont use marijuana or have a swimming pool, but I don't think it's a legitimate role of government to regulate any of that. In other words, I think more people will suffer w/o free speech than w/ it, but no solution will be perfect. Ok, however your second paragrapah is really concerning me.
davidcbc 9y ago
> I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. Yes, but we (speaking as a person, not a representative of any company) don't have to supply them with a platform to spread their hate and we don't have to sit idly by while they do it. > Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are Do we? What are they?
throwawayjava 9y ago
You and parent seem to have missed my point. I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that using google is a choice, a choice with lots of alternatives. Google's choice not to host certain things is itself a speech act. Don't try to police Google's speech. Instead, make sure there are plenty of alternatives to Google for the people who Google doesn't want to host. If there's no alternative to google, then google's policing becomes a problem. THAT is why it's important that governments not censor speech -- you don't have alternative choices for government. And THAT is why privately owned censor-happy monopolies of the press are just as huge a threat to free speech as governments. But -- and this is my point -- there are a near infinite number of alternatives to google. Google does not have a monopoly of the press. If someone believes they can't speak freely because youtube won't host your videos, then that incorrect belief is a huge problem. A much larger problem than youtube choosing not to host their videos.

tanilama 9y ago

If people dislike Google that much, they should set their own websites, there are plenty of video hosting service out there that doesn't have as tight a control as Youtube has. The only reason that you want to post on Youtube, other than any other sites is that you want to make make money out of it.

throwawayjava 9y ago

1. No, I don't see that huge of a difference. I really don't think that youtube has nearly as much influence over what the vast majority of people see as you seem to think it does. 2. Regardless, the solution is to become less dependent on corporate-owned ad-distribution networks for finding information. And help others do the same. Modifying corporate behavior to match your preferences will never be a sufficient replacement for an informed, inquisitive, and self-sufficient populace. So focus on solving the latter problem instead of complaining about the first. I think some people are reading my comments as a defense of Google. But I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that the tools you need to get out from under Google already exist and are available today, as long as you want to speak (as opposed to e.g. make money from advertising). If you use google services, you're making a choice. A choice with lots of alternatives. Telling people otherwise does google a huge favor.