6 ms·
No censorship. You are still free to create your own YouTube clone and publish your extreme political views there. Maybe call it "GabTube"?
by okket 7y ago
No censorship. You are still free to create your own YouTube clone and publish your extreme political views there. Maybe call it "GabTube"?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." A free society has costs, including tolerating speech you find deplorable. To support censorship because it aligns with your current political leanings makes you no different than the politics you take issue with. Will you complain if Google mass fires left leaning employees? It's entirely within their right to do. You could even start a competitor to hire those people!
- empath75 7y agoThis isn’t censorship full stop. What you are advocating for is forcing YouTube to carry content that it doesn’t want to. I also think it’s grotesque to quote an anti nazi poem in defense of nazis.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoI fully and without compromise support the right to free speech of all citizens, including "nazis" or whatever the overloaded term people are using these days. Rights aren't removed from citizens because you don't like their politics or beliefs. If you cheer when someone is deplatformed, remember that it is a short walk for your own ideas and beliefs to be deplatformed when the winds change.
- kgraves 7y ago> I FULLY support the right to free speech of all citizens, including "nazis" Careful there, you yourself might be a nazi by the left's logic. /s
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- anoncake 7y agoLefty here. Most of us understand the difference between a nazi and a fool.
- stcredzero 7y agoThen how is Tim Pool labeled Alt Right? How is Ben Shapiro labeled Alt Right? I'll be satisfied that the Left doesn't want to use corporate power and force to silence people, when the Left starts calling out the left for doing it.
- anigbrowl 7y agoNazis don't support the free speech of other people, or even their freedom to exist in many cases. 'No smoking' signs in gas stations sorta restrict freedom too, don't they?
- fzeroracer 7y agoOkay, we've established you fully support the right to freedom of speech without compromise. As a question, do you own any property? If someone planted signs in your lawn or decided to yell at you on your property, would you accept this? Any compromise would be a violation of their right to freedom of speech and you would be censoring them. Would you let them into your home lest you censor them?
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y agoTolerance of intolerance may lead to the loss of tolerance. The NSDAP propaganda machine, for example specifically targeted this line of thinking.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThat's an argument for active participation in the political process and an engaged electorate, not censorship. To default to the support of censorship of what you disagree with is simply laziness (and antithetical to the fundamental principals of a democratic society). If your government and society can't withstand the free expression and discussion of unpleasant ideas, you have problems with the current implementation of government and society (and the unpleasantness isn't at fault). Masking the symptom doesn't solve the root cause. To your example, you put misplaced blame on a propaganda machine, not uneducated, unengaged, emotional citizen voters.
- anoncake 7y agoI prefer a democratic society that suppresses its enemies while trying to solve the root cause to one that gets destroyed and definitely won't solve the root cause.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoCan’t suppress enemies in a democratic society without violating the very rights enumerated and protected by said society. The populace itself must inoculate itself against such malicious actors with activism, intelligent discourse, critical thinking, and political engagement.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- okket 7y agoIt's totally ok to not tolerate the extreme intolerant in some places [1]. Again, no laws change, it is just a company telling to very extreme people: Not here. Please go outside. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance_and_freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance...
- warp_factor 7y agoThe issue here is that Youtube is already known to ban people that clearly didn't show any extreme views. This was used as an easy pretext for the ban though.
- anigbrowl 7y agoI don't have to tolerate speech from people who threaten my life or community. And I don't mean 'threaten' in the sense of holding an opinion I find disagreeable, I mean threaten as in making straightforward threats to life. That speech does not have to be tolerated.
- stcredzero 7y agoI don't have to tolerate speech from people who threaten my life or community. And I don't mean 'threaten' in the sense of holding an opinion I find disagreeable Then you should understand that when "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts, then this dilutes reasonable concerns about threatening speech. If one is really concerned about truly threatening speech, one should be actively calling out such abuses from one's own side. Also, what naturally goes with that, is the calling out of actual violence from one's own side. This is also why civility is useful for the public discourse. It acts as a sort of "DMZ" wherein actual hostility is more readily visible. (And certain people on all sides of the public discourse should be called out in this regard.)
- anigbrowl 7y agowhen the pretext of "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts Sounds circular but you do you.
- stcredzero 7y agoFalse pretexts are a subset of pretexts. It's only circular if you are not precise with the logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection,_injection_and_surjection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection,_injection_and_surje...
- anigbrowl 7y agoPerhaps you should have written your initial interjection with the same precision you now seek to apply. Since it was written in English, I invite you to reflect on how it might be received by the unwary reader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- ModernMech 7y agoIt's a pretty big stretch between a company taking down content on their own service that violates their terms, and the holocaust. Have a little perspective please.
- iamalexm 7y agoSure - but you are missing the point. Youtube can publish videos they want to and are not owned by the government. It's funny how right-wing people, who argue so hard for capitalism, fundamentally don't understand capitalism.
- stcredzero 7y agoYoutube can publish videos they want to and are not owned by the government. No. It's funny how people refuse to acknowledge the fact that Free Speech in the Public Square is held as more important than property rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- nilkn 7y agoSure. We might as well allow public speech in cities and towns to be controlled and limited as well, and if you don't like it you can always just go settle your own town somewhere. There's tons of open land in the US available for cheap after all.
- Krasnol 7y agoNo wonder people are throwing around "censorship" when they don't understand the difference between a public space and a private homepage....
- HBKXNCUO 7y agoWe didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real world violence. If people cannot peacefully advocate for their interests, they are going to do so violently. The fact of the matter is that places like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are where a substantial amount of the public political debate takes place. Users banned from there are significantly less able to participate in the political debate, and so significantly less able to peacefully advocate for what they see as their interests. If you find those people so deplorable that you don't want them to be able to advocate for their own interests, don't be surprised when they return the sentiment with fast moving lead.
- luckylion 7y ago> No censorship. You are still free to create your own YouTube clone and publish your extreme political views there. With that line of argument, there is no possibility for censorship anywhere, ever. You can always create your own country someplace else.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- daenz 7y agoGoDaddy banned the gab.com domain name from their registrar. What's next? "No censorship. You are still free to establish your own telecommunications infrastructure and publish your extreme political views there." ?
- dingoegret 7y agoYup don't like it, make your own internet. Can't? To bad
- dogecoinbase 7y agoUnless otherwise regulated, yes, of course. No one should be forced to conduct business with another party.
- stcredzero 7y agoIn the US, allowing Free Speech on your property is distinct from conducting business on your property. Going by that logic, you can demonetize them, but you can't necessarily deplatform them.
- HBKXNCUO 7y agoDo you have some good reason why we should not change the regulations so that they are "otherwise regulated"? No one is claiming they are currently breaking the law by refusing to conduct business with e.g. gab or the daily stormer or whoever else.
- anoncake 7y ago"This should not be illegal because it isn't." is a surprisingly common argument.
- anoncake 7y agoFollowed by "No censorship. You are still free to establish your extreme political views in another country."
- okket 7y ago
- warp_factor 7y agoby all means this is censorship. Let's not get confused here. It is a private company doing the censorship but this is 100% in the definition of censorship.
- happytoexplain 7y agoI disagree, and could reasonably take offense at the notion that the only possible reason I might disagree is that I'm confused. I don't think this is censorship by its common, colloquial definition. It is indeed censorship if you take a broader, more literal definition - in which case private forums deleting hateful, illegal, or simply forum-rule-breaking comments also counts as censorship, and such a broad definition is simply pedantic and not really useful for conversation.
- anoncake 7y agoThis is only a sensible argument if you define censorship as violating the letter of the law of the US constitution or of another constitution that does require individuals and companies to respect basic rights. But if you consider the purpose of freedom of opinion -- to enable the public discourse necessary for a democratic society -- this is absolutely censorship.
- anoncake 7y ago*does not. I really should proofread my posts when using noprocrast.
- infamia 7y agoCensorship isn't limited to government even though that's the first example that rushes to mind. Any organization or person (i.e. "self-censored") can censor themselves or others. So yes, YouTube is most definitely censoring others who advertisers might object to -- dangerous considering YouTube's position as the new town square. censor verb censored; censoring\ ˈsen(t)- sə- riŋ , ˈsen(t)s- riŋ \ Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2) transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable censor the news also : to suppress or delete as objectionable censor out indecent passages