3 ms·

YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces. The problem is they're right now one single public space and people can't disengage with speech they don't like

by Asooka 9y ago

YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces. The problem is they're right now one single public space and people can't disengage with speech they don't like, which is as much their right as I should have the right to publish it. You want centralised systems in order to reap benefits from economies of scale and so you can use the ad revenue from more acceptable publications to support publications on more controversial topics, which are, or might be, nonetheless important to society as a whole, even if certain citizen groups don't like them. And you want it centralised because no single person can bear the costs of publishing videos online. Ultimately service providers have to take a stand for free speech and allow both the publishing of controversial media, as well as let people easily filter out what they don't want to see. I would really like to see a youtube in the model of reddit or 4/7/8chan where you can manually segregate by "board" and just not engage with speech you don't like. This entire problem is because each new user content publishing site has to re-learn the lessons from UseNet, except the ones that are popular today want to take away the voice of people they don't like and put them in some underclass that doesn't have access to what everyone else has. Let people pick their spaces, move or delete content that doesn't fit the space it's posted in and warn&ban repeat offenders.

colechristensen 9y ago
>YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces Where does it stop? Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If I start a newspaper or open a book store do I have to publish or sell whatever anybody wants me to? If I start a grocery store can I choose what to sell do the local farmers all get the right to sell in my store regardless of my wishes? Where does it stop exactly? > no single person can bear the costs of publishing videos online I could. I am. I have a server running Plex in the closet. It "publishes" videos over the Internet. Right now there are only two people who have access to see what I publish. If I wanted to publish videos myself and let the public consume them, I could. It would take slightly different software, but the server is in the closet already. There might be some issues if something I published got to the front page of HN. There isn't much risk of that.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on the Internet? Yeah, maybe it should, There's so much distance between your hypothetical and what YouTube, Facebook, et al are doing that it's not even a "slippery slope" argument. Maybe a "slippery Marianas Trench" argument.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Does Congress pass a bill declaring Facebook public? The rules can't be gut feeling, how do I tell the difference between a comment section that is a public place and one that isn't? If there are two types of things: A which is a public place and B which isn't, how do I sort into those two bins? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? The government isn't allowed to tell me I can't say something or to punish me for doing so (with the exceptions decided by SCOTUS). The first amendment doesn't mean my neighbors have to be my friends if I use obscene language at dinner parties. People seem to confuse the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act reached into much less public places and prevented certain behaviors. If YouTube was deleting videos because they were made by black people or Muslims or women, this would be a very different conversation. Religion, race, sex.... those are protected classes. Freedom of expression doesn't mean your opinions are a protected class. The law doesn't and won't reach that far into the behaviors of private entities. The first amendment protects you from the government, nothing else.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      > I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Well, one starting point would be looking at past examples of antitrust action. The AT&T and Standard Oil cases might be instructive. > What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the First Amendment. I think they should either be declared a common carrier (and thus required to serve all without discrimination) or (conversely) they should have their DMCA safe harbor privileges revoked.

by Asooka 9y ago

colechristensen 9y ago

>YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces Where does it stop? Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If I start a newspaper or open a book store do I have to publish or sell whatever anybody wants me to? If I start a grocery store can I choose what to sell do the local farmers all get the right to sell in my store regardless of my wishes? Where does it stop exactly? > no single person can bear the costs of publishing videos online I could. I am. I have a server running Plex in the closet. It "publishes" videos over the Internet. Right now there are only two people who have access to see what I publish. If I wanted to publish videos myself and let the public consume them, I could. It would take slightly different software, but the server is in the closet already. There might be some issues if something I published got to the front page of HN. There isn't much risk of that.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
> Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on the Internet? Yeah, maybe it should, There's so much distance between your hypothetical and what YouTube, Facebook, et al are doing that it's not even a "slippery slope" argument. Maybe a "slippery Marianas Trench" argument.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Does Congress pass a bill declaring Facebook public? The rules can't be gut feeling, how do I tell the difference between a comment section that is a public place and one that isn't? If there are two types of things: A which is a public place and B which isn't, how do I sort into those two bins? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? The government isn't allowed to tell me I can't say something or to punish me for doing so (with the exceptions decided by SCOTUS). The first amendment doesn't mean my neighbors have to be my friends if I use obscene language at dinner parties. People seem to confuse the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act reached into much less public places and prevented certain behaviors. If YouTube was deleting videos because they were made by black people or Muslims or women, this would be a very different conversation. Religion, race, sex.... those are protected classes. Freedom of expression doesn't mean your opinions are a protected class. The law doesn't and won't reach that far into the behaviors of private entities. The first amendment protects you from the government, nothing else.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    > I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Well, one starting point would be looking at past examples of antitrust action. The AT&T and Standard Oil cases might be instructive. > What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the First Amendment. I think they should either be declared a common carrier (and thus required to serve all without discrimination) or (conversely) they should have their DMCA safe harbor privileges revoked.