5 ms·

Because some people view free speech as more than a legal requirement. Its a philosophy of individual rights.

by rukittenme 7y ago

wnevets 7y ago
Why do you think you're right to free speech has anything to do with what you can say on someone else's property?
- randyrand 7y ago
  He just answered that. It’s not only about it being our most important right. We also expect our communications platforms have morality, and criticize them when they do immoral things. Many think belief in free speech is an important moral - doubly important for communications companies like Youtube/Google.
  - makomk 7y ago
    The thing that gets me is, the folks who think Google should delete such content have no trouble with the idea that services have moral obligations which go beyond what's legally required of them when arguing they should remove stuff. It's only when someone argues the moral obligation goes the other way that it suddenly becomes about what's legally required and only that.
- Allvitende 7y ago
  Why do you think it's right for you to tell someone what to do with their property?
- chronial 7y ago
  As warp_factor said in sibling: > because it became the de facto place most of non tech-savy people go to to see videos online. They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention Society has a vested interest in either regulating or breaking up monopolies. Our rights don't magically stop at property borders. It needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis, whether the right to free speech or youtube's right to do what they please with their property is more important.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > Our rights don't magically stop at property borders. Actually that's almost exactly what "property" means. Famously, "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Or in less flowery language: Your rights end where others' property begins. If you think YouTube has a "monopoly", the right way to address it would be to start up a competing site. There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site. They're a dime a dozen these days. Google will even sell you the server capacity and bandwidth, or you can host it on one of their competitors' cloud platforms or rent space in a datacenter somewhere. Your main concern will be dealing with the inevitable DMCA complaints related to user-submitted content. Of course, you should be prepared to deal with the fact that your site will mainly be populated with all the videos YouTube doesn't want to host, often for very good reasons.
    - chronial 7y ago
      I don't know where you heard that, but that is not what property means. The concept of property represents a set of rights (and maybe obligations) that an owner of said property does possess. Your nose is not your property by the way, because the rights you have towards your own body are very different (and a lot stronger) than the ones you have towards your property. So your rights do not end where other's property begins. What they actually might do is be in conflict with the rights of the owner. But only in a country where capitalism is driven to cynical extremes would the rights of the owner win per default. I know of no such country. > There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site. Of course there are and you even state one of them three sentences later. Online platforms with user content are very similar to natural monopolies. While anyone can start a video streaming site, it is obviously extremely hard if not impossible to actually compete with Youtube. I mean even google tried and failed. But I'm sure you aware of that. What I don't know is why you bring up the straw-man of "starting a video streaming site", knowing full well that starting such a site will not change anything about youtube's monopoly. > If you think YouTube has a "monopoly", the right way to address it would be to start up a competing site. So, no – the right way to address it is to handle it as we handle all the other monopolies and regulate it or break it up.
- rukittenme 7y ago
  It doesn't. You can oppose YouTube's proposed censorship rules without subjecting them to legal repercussions. They are within their legal rights.
- bzbarsky 7y ago
  Is the "someone" positioning their property as "a place for people to say stuff, generally speaking" and promoting it that way? There is established case law and legislation in the US, though pretty variable by state in terms of details, that people can in fact have free speech rights on private property when the private property de-facto functions as a public square. The devil is, as usual, in the details, and the details are, as usual, not time-invariant here.
root_axis 7y ago
Getting banned from YouTube is not a violation of individual rights. Forcing a company to host videos for free sounds like a violation of individual rights though.
- nv-vn 7y ago
  No it's totally not a violation of anyone's rights, but that doesn't stop me from being able to oppose the idea. Like how I support drugs being legalized but I don't think everyone should start doing drugs.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > No it's totally not a violation of anyone's rights, but that doesn't stop me from being able to oppose the idea. Well, I think everyone in this thread can at least agree that nothing should stop anyone from being able to oppose the idea.
- lugg 7y ago
  Marginalizing a group of individuals for nothing but their culture is a violation of individual rights if you ask me.
- falcolas 7y ago
  They aren't hosting the videos for free - they're displaying them alongside advertisements to make revenue off those videos. Also, the rights given an individual are distinct from the rights given to a company, and IMO are distinct from the rights a company deserves (i.e. a company has no inherent right to exist).
  - root_axis 7y ago
    By "free" I mean "at no cost to the user". If I wanted to host my videos on AWS or bare metal I'd have to pay for the privilege.
redog 7y ago
Wait what? The first amendment protections are just a limit on GOVERNMENT power. The right is that THE GOVERNMENT won't prevent your speech. Youtube isn't the government, therefore they can limit the fuck out of your speech when you're on their property. I think most agree that Government needs to be prevented from preventing our speech not that our neighbors must allow us to grandstand upon their property even if their property is listed as a public place to grandstand. They have been given rights over the venue and we're supposed to be intelligent enough to recognize government activity vs private activity. Why can't the voice actor of mickey mouse say fuck more often? iTs hIs pHiloSoPhicAl rIGhT!!! Sure, he can say fuck and then get fucking fired.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Free speech is a natural right. The first amendment protects that right explicitly from the government, but if they didn't then that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. There's a reason why that same idea is encoded in human rights as well. Platforms like YouTube have basically become the public square. A lot of political engagement happens on platforms like YouTube. Perhaps we should expect them to offer free speech as well? They already have more rights than you and I, perhaps they should get some responsibility too?
  - redog 7y ago
    >Free speech is a natural right. .... that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. Yes but still they have theirs also. That's what people don't seem to connect between the two. You have no right to my property and all the right to say what the hell you like. Just because I offer my property as a place to speak doesn't mean I have to offer my property without restrictions, how about bearing arms? Why then could a church or school prevent my being armed? If an individual can change the terms of our property use agreement by saying anything he wants on my property when I object then cannot I change terms by kicking him and his "publication/broadcast" off of my property? Seems a pretty straight forward contract dispute to me. You may enjoy your rights on your property.
    - 7y ago

Because some people view free speech as more than a legal requirement. Its a philosophy of individual rights.

wnevets 7y ago

Why do you think you're right to free speech has anything to do with what you can say on someone else's property?

randyrand 7y ago
He just answered that. It’s not only about it being our most important right. We also expect our communications platforms have morality, and criticize them when they do immoral things. Many think belief in free speech is an important moral - doubly important for communications companies like Youtube/Google.
- makomk 7y ago
  The thing that gets me is, the folks who think Google should delete such content have no trouble with the idea that services have moral obligations which go beyond what's legally required of them when arguing they should remove stuff. It's only when someone argues the moral obligation goes the other way that it suddenly becomes about what's legally required and only that.
Allvitende 7y ago
Why do you think it's right for you to tell someone what to do with their property?
chronial 7y ago
As warp_factor said in sibling: > because it became the de facto place most of non tech-savy people go to to see videos online. They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention Society has a vested interest in either regulating or breaking up monopolies. Our rights don't magically stop at property borders. It needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis, whether the right to free speech or youtube's right to do what they please with their property is more important.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > Our rights don't magically stop at property borders. Actually that's almost exactly what "property" means. Famously, "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Or in less flowery language: Your rights end where others' property begins. If you think YouTube has a "monopoly", the right way to address it would be to start up a competing site. There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site. They're a dime a dozen these days. Google will even sell you the server capacity and bandwidth, or you can host it on one of their competitors' cloud platforms or rent space in a datacenter somewhere. Your main concern will be dealing with the inevitable DMCA complaints related to user-submitted content. Of course, you should be prepared to deal with the fact that your site will mainly be populated with all the videos YouTube doesn't want to host, often for very good reasons.
  - chronial 7y ago
    I don't know where you heard that, but that is not what property means. The concept of property represents a set of rights (and maybe obligations) that an owner of said property does possess. Your nose is not your property by the way, because the rights you have towards your own body are very different (and a lot stronger) than the ones you have towards your property. So your rights do not end where other's property begins. What they actually might do is be in conflict with the rights of the owner. But only in a country where capitalism is driven to cynical extremes would the rights of the owner win per default. I know of no such country. > There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site. Of course there are and you even state one of them three sentences later. Online platforms with user content are very similar to natural monopolies. While anyone can start a video streaming site, it is obviously extremely hard if not impossible to actually compete with Youtube. I mean even google tried and failed. But I'm sure you aware of that. What I don't know is why you bring up the straw-man of "starting a video streaming site", knowing full well that starting such a site will not change anything about youtube's monopoly. > If you think YouTube has a "monopoly", the right way to address it would be to start up a competing site. So, no – the right way to address it is to handle it as we handle all the other monopolies and regulate it or break it up.
rukittenme 7y ago
It doesn't. You can oppose YouTube's proposed censorship rules without subjecting them to legal repercussions. They are within their legal rights.
bzbarsky 7y ago
Is the "someone" positioning their property as "a place for people to say stuff, generally speaking" and promoting it that way? There is established case law and legislation in the US, though pretty variable by state in terms of details, that people can in fact have free speech rights on private property when the private property de-facto functions as a public square. The devil is, as usual, in the details, and the details are, as usual, not time-invariant here.

root_axis 7y ago

Getting banned from YouTube is not a violation of individual rights. Forcing a company to host videos for free sounds like a violation of individual rights though.

nv-vn 7y ago
No it's totally not a violation of anyone's rights, but that doesn't stop me from being able to oppose the idea. Like how I support drugs being legalized but I don't think everyone should start doing drugs.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > No it's totally not a violation of anyone's rights, but that doesn't stop me from being able to oppose the idea. Well, I think everyone in this thread can at least agree that nothing should stop anyone from being able to oppose the idea.
lugg 7y ago
Marginalizing a group of individuals for nothing but their culture is a violation of individual rights if you ask me.
falcolas 7y ago
They aren't hosting the videos for free - they're displaying them alongside advertisements to make revenue off those videos. Also, the rights given an individual are distinct from the rights given to a company, and IMO are distinct from the rights a company deserves (i.e. a company has no inherent right to exist).
- root_axis 7y ago
  By "free" I mean "at no cost to the user". If I wanted to host my videos on AWS or bare metal I'd have to pay for the privilege.

redog 7y ago

Wait what? The first amendment protections are just a limit on GOVERNMENT power. The right is that THE GOVERNMENT won't prevent your speech. Youtube isn't the government, therefore they can limit the fuck out of your speech when you're on their property. I think most agree that Government needs to be prevented from preventing our speech not that our neighbors must allow us to grandstand upon their property even if their property is listed as a public place to grandstand. They have been given rights over the venue and we're supposed to be intelligent enough to recognize government activity vs private activity. Why can't the voice actor of mickey mouse say fuck more often? iTs hIs pHiloSoPhicAl rIGhT!!! Sure, he can say fuck and then get fucking fired.

Mirioron 7y ago
Free speech is a natural right. The first amendment protects that right explicitly from the government, but if they didn't then that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. There's a reason why that same idea is encoded in human rights as well. Platforms like YouTube have basically become the public square. A lot of political engagement happens on platforms like YouTube. Perhaps we should expect them to offer free speech as well? They already have more rights than you and I, perhaps they should get some responsibility too?
- redog 7y ago
  >Free speech is a natural right. .... that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. Yes but still they have theirs also. That's what people don't seem to connect between the two. You have no right to my property and all the right to say what the hell you like. Just because I offer my property as a place to speak doesn't mean I have to offer my property without restrictions, how about bearing arms? Why then could a church or school prevent my being armed? If an individual can change the terms of our property use agreement by saying anything he wants on my property when I object then cannot I change terms by kicking him and his "publication/broadcast" off of my property? Seems a pretty straight forward contract dispute to me. You may enjoy your rights on your property.
  - 7y ago