4 ms·

I never said I agreed with any of the channels or their content if you read my comment closely. I only against censoring freedom of speech and creating ideolog

I never said I agreed with any of the channels or their content if you read my comment closely. I only against censoring freedom of speech and creating ideological echo Chambers.

uvatbc 8y ago
Unless you want to claim that Google is now a tool of the Government (A), then your point of censorship and free speech are moot. (A): This extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence.
joshuamorton 8y ago
Here's your post: >Here is just a small handful of YouTube channels censored based on their political views: (emphasis mine) I'm asking you to justify calling this censorship based on political views, like you claimed. I didn't say anything about your views.
yzmtf2008 8y ago
If "Sandy Hook is not fake" is an echo chamber to you, either your definition of echo chamber is wrong, or I'd rather not have you in my "chamber".
- CryoLogic 8y ago
  Even if they are wrong they should not be censored. Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis. Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past. I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.
  - yzmtf2008 8y ago
    Nah, I'd rather not have the bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the website that I use. Youtube is not all of web. Youtube has no obligation to give you a platform to express whatever you want. If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.
    - ac4tw 8y ago
      It seems like a good solution to CryoLogic and your discussion might be for services to allow you to choose what you would like censored. For instance 'yzmtf2008' could simply say, don't show me content like this. Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism. The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.
      - nl 8y ago
        I agreed with that until I found some people on HN who thought PizzaGate was a real thing. Even then I was open to the idea, but when someone turned up with a gun at Comet Pizza and started shooting I decided individual decisions about conspiracy theories are insufficient. The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.
        im3w1l 8y ago
        So it's not just you wanting high quality content? You also want to stop others from reading content you disagree with? Seems like a pretty drastic solution to a pretty small problem. You want to suspend democracy over an event where no one was even injured.
        nl 8y ago
        I don’t want to suspend democracy. I don’t want to stop others reading content I disagree with.
  - ofj28 8y ago
    Google is doing what the social contract allows. Not to get all John Stuart Mill, but the town idiot is not above social censure. The government isn’t doing it. And right-wing speech, IMO nonsense, is all over the web itself. Stop believing “Big Corp should be fair.” That’s a complete fabrication on your part.
  - nl 8y ago
    Even if they are wrong they should not be censored. I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam. Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.
nl 8y ago
Conspiracy isn’t an ideology.
cmonfeat 8y ago
I think YouTube would argue that their actions were not based on the content of these channel's views, but because they violated their community guidelines. Their response to why they banned Alex Jones, for instance, was that it wasn't because of the content of his views, but that he violated their cyberbullying guidelines multiple times (he received several strikes in the past). Maybe I'm being naive, but their motivation doesn't appear to be censorship, but to make YouTube a less toxic place than it already is.

I never said I agreed with any of the channels or their content if you read my comment closely. I only against censoring freedom of speech and creating ideological echo Chambers.

uvatbc 8y ago

Unless you want to claim that Google is now a tool of the Government (A), then your point of censorship and free speech are moot. (A): This extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence.

joshuamorton 8y ago

Here's your post: >Here is just a small handful of YouTube channels censored based on their political views: (emphasis mine) I'm asking you to justify calling this censorship based on political views, like you claimed. I didn't say anything about your views.

yzmtf2008 8y ago

If "Sandy Hook is not fake" is an echo chamber to you, either your definition of echo chamber is wrong, or I'd rather not have you in my "chamber".

CryoLogic 8y ago
Even if they are wrong they should not be censored. Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis. Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past. I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.
- yzmtf2008 8y ago
  Nah, I'd rather not have the bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the website that I use. Youtube is not all of web. Youtube has no obligation to give you a platform to express whatever you want. If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.
  - ac4tw 8y ago
    It seems like a good solution to CryoLogic and your discussion might be for services to allow you to choose what you would like censored. For instance 'yzmtf2008' could simply say, don't show me content like this. Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism. The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.
    - nl 8y ago
      I agreed with that until I found some people on HN who thought PizzaGate was a real thing. Even then I was open to the idea, but when someone turned up with a gun at Comet Pizza and started shooting I decided individual decisions about conspiracy theories are insufficient. The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.
      - im3w1l 8y ago
        So it's not just you wanting high quality content? You also want to stop others from reading content you disagree with? Seems like a pretty drastic solution to a pretty small problem. You want to suspend democracy over an event where no one was even injured.
        nl 8y ago
        I don’t want to suspend democracy. I don’t want to stop others reading content I disagree with.
- ofj28 8y ago
  Google is doing what the social contract allows. Not to get all John Stuart Mill, but the town idiot is not above social censure. The government isn’t doing it. And right-wing speech, IMO nonsense, is all over the web itself. Stop believing “Big Corp should be fair.” That’s a complete fabrication on your part.
- nl 8y ago
  Even if they are wrong they should not be censored. I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam. Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.

nl 8y ago

Conspiracy isn’t an ideology.

cmonfeat 8y ago

I think YouTube would argue that their actions were not based on the content of these channel's views, but because they violated their community guidelines. Their response to why they banned Alex Jones, for instance, was that it wasn't because of the content of his views, but that he violated their cyberbullying guidelines multiple times (he received several strikes in the past). Maybe I'm being naive, but their motivation doesn't appear to be censorship, but to make YouTube a less toxic place than it already is.