11 ms·

We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun

We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.

slivym 9y ago
I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it. To me there are two models: - You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site. - You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site. Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes. The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.
- prepend 9y ago
  What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values. This could end up being a maximizing rule for revenue. So a pseudo morality may be as simple as “legal, pr coverage, max revenue).
  - slivym 9y ago
    Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.
    - Rebelgecko 9y ago
      I still see ads on reddit for alcohol and tobacco products (well, I did until yesterday when I turned uBlock back on for reddit). A subreddit that links to wine for sale is bad, but if those same links are purchased as ads it's allowed. I think that says a lot about the morals behind this change.
    - williamjennifer 9y ago
      Sincerely i was so crushed when my Husband of 8 years left me and moved to Texas to be with another woman. The pains was just too much for me to bear that I couldn't just bear it anymore. I traveled to greet my friend and her family during Christmas celebration then i explained to her, how my husband has abandon me and my children for a period of time and be with another woman, and my friend told me about Dr Ogbefun the great spell caster who had helped her in the past before, when i contacted him with his email via ogbefunhearlingtemple@gmail.com i explain to him, how my Husband has been with another woman for two year now and that's the problem am facing in my marriage now and i need to end it by killing her, and i don't want to make use of assassin because it will be risky so i needed to do it in a spiritual way that's why i decided to contact him, he assured me not to worry as i have contacted the right person at the right time, i co-operated with him and in less than a week she die, she slept and never woke up, and truly my husband come back apologizing that he never knew what came over him my husband apologize to me and we are happy family now. all thanks to dr ogbefun you can contact Dr Ogbefun for any death spell, such as killing your superior in the office and take his or her place.spell for increase in salaries, spell for promotion at the office, spell to get your ex lover back, if things is not working well in your life then you need to contact add him on whatsapp +2348102574680
  - otakucode 9y ago
    Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindset that backed kings and queens for thousands of years and got a swift kicking in the late 1700s on the global stage. But it seems to be making a comeback, albeit a pretty small one so far. This is actual Conservative mindset, where the rights of the individual are a distant second to the rights of the 'greater' structure being served, whether that be a nation, religion, or whatever. Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.
    - rphlx 9y ago
      > Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand. That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.
- this_user 9y ago
  The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising. Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.
  - gnu8 9y ago
    I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - malnourish 9y ago
      Or the company might just die. If you want to "punish" them, use or create a different site.
    - pkaye 9y ago
      You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.
      - Scoundreller 9y ago
        If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I. I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit. Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.
  - slivym 9y ago
    It's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK. The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant. So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages. You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.
- dfxm12 9y ago
  The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. This doesn't follow. Not at all. This new rule is pretty clear that users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services. Pizzagate has nothing to do with soliciting or facilitating transactions or gifts. Even if I take your reading of this at face value, it doesn't follow. Having rules against one thing doesn't prove Reddit endorses everything else. That's quite a leap to make, and doesn't follow any sort of logic or precedent.
- xster 9y ago
  My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?
  - nezzle 9y ago
    voat has users?
    - xster 9y ago
      Apparently 1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co
    - xster 9y ago
      Apparently #1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co
- nezzle 9y ago
  > I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics. At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    You have a right to publish your own materials. You do not have a right to make a newspaper publish a classified that is against its policies. Similarly, you can put whatever you want on your website. You cannot force another website carry your content simply because that website has achieved some level of distribution.
  - tobylane 9y ago
    >I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech. That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?
    - nezzle 9y ago
      I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :) Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration. These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.
macspoofing 9y ago
These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of Re/code has been on a personal crusade to get YouTube and Facebook to get adhere to her standards of content). It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.
- moomin 9y ago
  You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints? What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Sounds like they want you censored for asking questions.
    - moomin 9y ago
      If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.
      - macspoofing 9y ago
        >on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions Where did I argue that? Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.
ataturk 9y ago
"I have no sympathy towards gun use." But you see you should because if the government in conjunction with private industry can ban the thing you don't like today, it can also ban the things you do like tomorrow. You'll probably finally understand when the books start burning because that's right around the corner now.
assblaster 9y ago
>I have no sympathy towards gun use Do you think it's wrong for a woman to shoot a man who is raping her? Is it wrong for her to practice gun use to prepare for that possible threat? Do you support police use of firearms to neutralize criminal use of firearms?
- namelost 9y ago
  This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that easy access to guns makes rape more difficult.
- joncampbelldev 9y ago
  I believe this is usually called the "Please think of the children" argument (or women in this case). I imagine the person you are replying to is not a closet rape supporter, but they likely think that allowing every adult member of a population to arm themselves is not the ideal solution. I imagine you disagree with that view, but the way you have expressed yourself is the start of an emotional flame-war, not a discussion.
  - Anon1096 9y ago
    Arguments against guns are almost universally a think of the children argument though.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      Not every argument about personal safety is a "think of the children" argument. Guns are dangerous. Yes they can be used for self defense, but they are also dangerous on their own. I believe that un-regulated guns are more dangerous (to everyone) than the danger of some subset of people being more vulnerable without them. I'm not advocating for a ban, but heavy regulation about who can buy them, how, what kind of training they need, and verification of safe storage. Just like I'd expect my government to do with other highly dangerous things like explosives, some drugs, and more.
      - 9y ago
simias 9y ago
This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from Youtube effectively means removing it from the internet for a large chunk of the population. If you don't want large monopolies to act as censors then don't put them in the position to do so. You're uploading your videos for free on their platforms, sometimes even expecting them to pay you for it. I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. Find an other platform or make your own, that's how the internet is supposed to work.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship. > I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    The problem is, being a corporate entity supported by other corporate entities' advertisements, there is not much you can do about it. The First Amendment does not apply here: with a few exceptions, you can't force a corporation (or any private entity) to promote something contrary to its interests. This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condoms, pro-#BlackLivesMatters posts, etc. Not my cup of tea, but they have a right to moderate how they want. We all can chose the social webs we want with the amount and style of moderation we look for. (Seeing the places on the web that are "moderation free", I don't think that is a great option unless you really enjoy a lot of spam and nastiness.) The real problem is really that, for the average person, the social web has become monopolized into a few uber-dominant platforms, most of which (due to their size) are going to pursue a middle-of-the-road-American moderation policy that (due to their size) is muddy, opaque, and arbitrary. If one sticks to a social vision of just the monopoly platforms, there is "no choice". Personally, I don't use the big social networks much. The more specialized, de-centralized social web of 10 years ago (eg: forums) is still around, and they are less subject to big-corporate moderation messes. A quick Google shows that, for instance on firearms trading, several firearms BST forums still are around and active. In forum world, if a lot of people didn't like the moderation of one place, they simply went to another forum. That's something that's not always possible even with the closest big-social equivalent, subreddits. The web in general originally was a lot more decentralized than today. The centralization of social in today's web feels like quite the mistake.

slivym 9y ago

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it. To me there are two models: - You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site. - You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site. Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes. The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.

prepend 9y ago
What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values. This could end up being a maximizing rule for revenue. So a pseudo morality may be as simple as “legal, pr coverage, max revenue).
- slivym 9y ago
  Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    I still see ads on reddit for alcohol and tobacco products (well, I did until yesterday when I turned uBlock back on for reddit). A subreddit that links to wine for sale is bad, but if those same links are purchased as ads it's allowed. I think that says a lot about the morals behind this change.
  - williamjennifer 9y ago
    Sincerely i was so crushed when my Husband of 8 years left me and moved to Texas to be with another woman. The pains was just too much for me to bear that I couldn't just bear it anymore. I traveled to greet my friend and her family during Christmas celebration then i explained to her, how my husband has abandon me and my children for a period of time and be with another woman, and my friend told me about Dr Ogbefun the great spell caster who had helped her in the past before, when i contacted him with his email via ogbefunhearlingtemple@gmail.com i explain to him, how my Husband has been with another woman for two year now and that's the problem am facing in my marriage now and i need to end it by killing her, and i don't want to make use of assassin because it will be risky so i needed to do it in a spiritual way that's why i decided to contact him, he assured me not to worry as i have contacted the right person at the right time, i co-operated with him and in less than a week she die, she slept and never woke up, and truly my husband come back apologizing that he never knew what came over him my husband apologize to me and we are happy family now. all thanks to dr ogbefun you can contact Dr Ogbefun for any death spell, such as killing your superior in the office and take his or her place.spell for increase in salaries, spell for promotion at the office, spell to get your ex lover back, if things is not working well in your life then you need to contact add him on whatsapp +2348102574680
- otakucode 9y ago
  Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindset that backed kings and queens for thousands of years and got a swift kicking in the late 1700s on the global stage. But it seems to be making a comeback, albeit a pretty small one so far. This is actual Conservative mindset, where the rights of the individual are a distant second to the rights of the 'greater' structure being served, whether that be a nation, religion, or whatever. Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.
  - rphlx 9y ago
    > Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand. That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.
this_user 9y ago
The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising. Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.
- gnu8 9y ago
  I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - malnourish 9y ago
    Or the company might just die. If you want to "punish" them, use or create a different site.
  - pkaye 9y ago
    You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.
    - Scoundreller 9y ago
      If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I. I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit. Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.
- slivym 9y ago
  It's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK. The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant. So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages. You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.
dfxm12 9y ago
The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. This doesn't follow. Not at all. This new rule is pretty clear that users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services. Pizzagate has nothing to do with soliciting or facilitating transactions or gifts. Even if I take your reading of this at face value, it doesn't follow. Having rules against one thing doesn't prove Reddit endorses everything else. That's quite a leap to make, and doesn't follow any sort of logic or precedent.
xster 9y ago
My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?
- nezzle 9y ago
  voat has users?
  - xster 9y ago
    Apparently 1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co
  - xster 9y ago
    Apparently #1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co
nezzle 9y ago
> I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics. At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  You have a right to publish your own materials. You do not have a right to make a newspaper publish a classified that is against its policies. Similarly, you can put whatever you want on your website. You cannot force another website carry your content simply because that website has achieved some level of distribution.
- tobylane 9y ago
  >I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech. That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?
  - nezzle 9y ago
    I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :) Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration. These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.

macspoofing 9y ago

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of Re/code has been on a personal crusade to get YouTube and Facebook to get adhere to her standards of content). It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.

moomin 9y ago
You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints? What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Sounds like they want you censored for asking questions.
  - moomin 9y ago
    If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      >on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions Where did I argue that? Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.

ataturk 9y ago

"I have no sympathy towards gun use." But you see you should because if the government in conjunction with private industry can ban the thing you don't like today, it can also ban the things you do like tomorrow. You'll probably finally understand when the books start burning because that's right around the corner now.

assblaster 9y ago

>I have no sympathy towards gun use Do you think it's wrong for a woman to shoot a man who is raping her? Is it wrong for her to practice gun use to prepare for that possible threat? Do you support police use of firearms to neutralize criminal use of firearms?

namelost 9y ago
This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that easy access to guns makes rape more difficult.
joncampbelldev 9y ago
I believe this is usually called the "Please think of the children" argument (or women in this case). I imagine the person you are replying to is not a closet rape supporter, but they likely think that allowing every adult member of a population to arm themselves is not the ideal solution. I imagine you disagree with that view, but the way you have expressed yourself is the start of an emotional flame-war, not a discussion.
- Anon1096 9y ago
  Arguments against guns are almost universally a think of the children argument though.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    Not every argument about personal safety is a "think of the children" argument. Guns are dangerous. Yes they can be used for self defense, but they are also dangerous on their own. I believe that un-regulated guns are more dangerous (to everyone) than the danger of some subset of people being more vulnerable without them. I'm not advocating for a ban, but heavy regulation about who can buy them, how, what kind of training they need, and verification of safe storage. Just like I'd expect my government to do with other highly dangerous things like explosives, some drugs, and more.
    - 9y ago

simias 9y ago

This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from Youtube effectively means removing it from the internet for a large chunk of the population. If you don't want large monopolies to act as censors then don't put them in the position to do so. You're uploading your videos for free on their platforms, sometimes even expecting them to pay you for it. I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. Find an other platform or make your own, that's how the internet is supposed to work.

humanrebar 9y ago
> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship. > I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  The problem is, being a corporate entity supported by other corporate entities' advertisements, there is not much you can do about it. The First Amendment does not apply here: with a few exceptions, you can't force a corporation (or any private entity) to promote something contrary to its interests. This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condoms, pro-#BlackLivesMatters posts, etc. Not my cup of tea, but they have a right to moderate how they want. We all can chose the social webs we want with the amount and style of moderation we look for. (Seeing the places on the web that are "moderation free", I don't think that is a great option unless you really enjoy a lot of spam and nastiness.) The real problem is really that, for the average person, the social web has become monopolized into a few uber-dominant platforms, most of which (due to their size) are going to pursue a middle-of-the-road-American moderation policy that (due to their size) is muddy, opaque, and arbitrary. If one sticks to a social vision of just the monopoly platforms, there is "no choice". Personally, I don't use the big social networks much. The more specialized, de-centralized social web of 10 years ago (eg: forums) is still around, and they are less subject to big-corporate moderation messes. A quick Google shows that, for instance on firearms trading, several firearms BST forums still are around and active. In forum world, if a lot of people didn't like the moderation of one place, they simply went to another forum. That's something that's not always possible even with the closest big-social equivalent, subreddits. The web in general originally was a lot more decentralized than today. The centralization of social in today's web feels like quite the mistake.