5 ms·
YouTube finally notices Infowars is peddling dangerous conspiracies
- IntronExon 9y agoTranslation: Unilever’s threat woke them up to the reality that they’re on the way to being held accountable for the content they host, and they’re scrambling. Infowars is bad news in every sense of the phrase, but it’s just the tip of a vast iceberg of awful Youtube is going to have to address.
- imhelpingu 9y agoOh good, I hate free expression.
- astrodust 9y agoI'm sorry, when did YouTube become an arm of the government?
- grawprog 9y agoWhat does free expression have to do with the government? Im not saying YouTube has to give free expression or that I think infowars is particularly good or even remotely something worth watching but why is free expression something to do with the government? Just curious.
- astrodust 9y agoThe US government considers free expression, freedom of speech, to be important. This does not mean that private citizens or entities need to adhere to the same rules. Just as the US government can't censor you, it also can't compel a private company to host something it wants no involvement with under the guise of "free expression". YouTube deleting that video is free expression on the part of YouTube. Deal with it.
- grawprog 9y agoOk that's fine again...I never said they should. I just don't understand what freedom of expression has to do with the government. The post you responded to didn't even mention the government. I never said the government should be involved. I asked what they had to do with it. You are the only person that mentioned the government. I was asking why you jumped to the government when the poster above mentioned blocking free expression. A private company can block free expression with their free expression. The government isn't the arbiter of free expression. Free expression just is. A private entity's free expression is capable of blocking another's. I think that is dangerous in and of itself. I think that's what the original commenter was getting at. I don't think the government should intervene. I think everyone as individuals should be aware and make decisions based on facts. I don't like anyone that limits free expression government or other wise. I think as a private company YouTube can do this if they if they wish. But as an individual I can choose to dislike this if I wish.
- astrodust 9y agoIt's specifically the US government that's guaranteeing a right to free speech and protecting freedom of expression. This is also a uniquely American thing, many other countries have significant restrictions on free speech. Free speech can be interpreted many ways, but one of those is to curate your platform and decide which messages you want to promote, and which you don't want to. YouTube is not an arm of the government so it's free to do whatever it wants so long as their actions are not discriminatory as defined by law. You're also free to complain about it.
- acct1771 9y agoSee for yourself, I suppose. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ Also, freedom of expression isn't a legally protected concept, it's a societal virtue.
- astrodust 9y agoProhibition was to promote a so-called societal virtue of temperance. It was also legally protected. This sword cuts both ways.
- zaroth 9y agoUnderrated comment. When a monopolistic video platform with a leftist bent is compelled by its financiers to censor specific content, for reasons other than incitement of violence, or libel, I’m allowed to feel like we’ve slipped one step closer to the abyss, even if the site isn’t run by the USG.