3 ms·

>Are you banned yet? Who, me? Never. >So you think the uninformed conversations occurring in a video entertainment cesspool are more impactful than the discou

>Are you banned yet? Who, me? Never. >So you think the uninformed conversations occurring in a video entertainment cesspool are more impactful than the discourse between the engineers, founders and investors that actually built, maintain, understand and operate these platforms on a day to day? That's totally absurd. You're so hung up on popularity that you seem to have lost sight of relevance. Each of those people engaging in uninformed conversations gets a vote that matters just as much as the vote of the people that built these platforms. I don't think many people are overwhelmingly concerned with making sure their message reaches the tiny number of people on this site. >So in summary, if the site isn't a top 10 alexa ranking you regard it as politically unimportant. I regard websites as being unimportant as far as this topic goes if they're not one of the most popular sites for people to participate in the public political debate. Banning an ideology from being espoused on HN isn't going to make people that subscribe to that ideology feel like they're being prevented from peacefully advocating for their interests. Banning that ideology from YouTube, or Facebook, or Twitter might. Banning it from all three almost certainly will. >No, I'm demonstrating that YouTube is primarily and overwhelmingly an entertainment platform What I'm trying to tell you is that I don't disagree with that statement, but that it doesn't matter. >and your attempts to suggest that it's so important to the fabric of political discourse that YouTube should not be allowed to ban people is not supported by the evidence of the activity on the platform. I've explained what I mean by substantial/important, and why I think YouTube qualifies. You keep saying it doesn't qualify because there are other videos on there and/or because the quality of discussion is low, but that doesn't address my argument.

root_axis 7y ago
> Each of those people engaging in uninformed conversations gets a vote that matters just as much as the vote of the people that built these platforms. I agree. Getting banned from YouTube doesn't prevent you from voting. YouTube is wholly irrelevant to the civic imperative, it's just a video sharing site, yes, the most popular video sharing site on the web where people also happen to discuss politics, but its popularity doesn't change its fundamental nature. > I don't think many people are overwhelmingly concerned with making sure their message reaches the tiny number of people on this site. Right. Exactly my point. That's a mistake. Despite being orders of magnitude less popular than YouTube, this site has catered to an audience that is wealthy and well-connected relative to the YouTube audience and the political discussions on this site have a ripple effect in the tech community and thus the tech industry and people's livelihoods. My only point here is to illustrate that "popular" doesn't necessarily mean "important". > it doesn't matter. It does matter. The primary function of the site is a business built around video entertainment, just because some fraction of the site's users decided to have political discussions on YouTube doesn't mean that the fundamental nature of YouTube has changed into something that should now be owned by the commons. The creators and owners of YouTube still have rights to, and creative control over the product they created, even if that control resulted in a blatantly partisan culling of political content. If YouTube's behavior displeases the people they should seek redress with the platform's owners or abandon it. The reasoning you describe is a strange kind of mob tyranny where a corporation becomes obligated to give up creative control over its products because a bunch of people decided to start squatting political banners on the front lawn. YouTube is not a political forum, it's a place where people shoot the shit about every topic under the sun, and there are plenty of places to do that on the internet.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >Getting banned from YouTube doesn't prevent you from voting. Right, it prevents you from taking part in the public political debate that tens of millions of voters are participating in. It's like telling someone "You can't talk about your political message on this popular street corner where there are actually people to hear you. You are welcome to go stand on the street corners way outside of town, though, where practically no one is listening. Those other people are fine to spread their message on this street corner, though, because I agree with them." There are very good reasons why we don't allow that sort of thing on street corners. The very same reasons apply to the major social media platforms. >this site has catered to an audience that is wealthy and well-connected relative to the YouTube audience and the political discussions on this site have a ripple effect in the tech community and thus the tech industry and people's livelihoods. Ah, so middle/low class people should grovel to the elites that gather here, even though those people don't share their interests, and hope that they somehow convince elites to act against their own interests, and do some ripple effect thing on behalf of people that have interests opposed to theirs. >My only point here is to illustrate that "popular" doesn't necessarily mean "important". And you've forgotten not everyone has the same interests. If some low skilled workers feel that some policy is driving down their wages, they're not going to go grovel to a bunch of engineers who probably want their wages to go down so they get cheaper vegetables. People want to be heard by people that have, or may have, similar interests to them. >The primary function of the site is a business built around video entertainment, So? The primary function of sidewalks is so people can walk on them. >just because some fraction of the site's users decided to have political discussions on YouTube doesn't mean that the fundamental nature of YouTube has changed into something that should now be owned by the commons. Right, it's the fact that said fraction represents a huge number of people. >The creators and owners of YouTube still have rights to, and creative control over the product they created, even if that control resulted in a blatantly partisan culling of political content. Subject to the limits that the government puts on that control. >If YouTube's behavior displeases the people they should seek redress with the platform's owners or abandon it. "Feel free to go talk on that street corner a mile outside of town. Only people who say things we like can talk on this one." You really think that's going to be satisfactory? >The reasoning you describe is a strange kind of mob tyranny where a corporation becomes obligated to give up creative control over its products because a bunch of people decided to start squatting political banners on the front lawn. When you become "the commons", you lose some of your "creative control". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

root_axis 7y ago

> Each of those people engaging in uninformed conversations gets a vote that matters just as much as the vote of the people that built these platforms. I agree. Getting banned from YouTube doesn't prevent you from voting. YouTube is wholly irrelevant to the civic imperative, it's just a video sharing site, yes, the most popular video sharing site on the web where people also happen to discuss politics, but its popularity doesn't change its fundamental nature. > I don't think many people are overwhelmingly concerned with making sure their message reaches the tiny number of people on this site. Right. Exactly my point. That's a mistake. Despite being orders of magnitude less popular than YouTube, this site has catered to an audience that is wealthy and well-connected relative to the YouTube audience and the political discussions on this site have a ripple effect in the tech community and thus the tech industry and people's livelihoods. My only point here is to illustrate that "popular" doesn't necessarily mean "important". > it doesn't matter. It does matter. The primary function of the site is a business built around video entertainment, just because some fraction of the site's users decided to have political discussions on YouTube doesn't mean that the fundamental nature of YouTube has changed into something that should now be owned by the commons. The creators and owners of YouTube still have rights to, and creative control over the product they created, even if that control resulted in a blatantly partisan culling of political content. If YouTube's behavior displeases the people they should seek redress with the platform's owners or abandon it. The reasoning you describe is a strange kind of mob tyranny where a corporation becomes obligated to give up creative control over its products because a bunch of people decided to start squatting political banners on the front lawn. YouTube is not a political forum, it's a place where people shoot the shit about every topic under the sun, and there are plenty of places to do that on the internet.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Getting banned from YouTube doesn't prevent you from voting. Right, it prevents you from taking part in the public political debate that tens of millions of voters are participating in. It's like telling someone "You can't talk about your political message on this popular street corner where there are actually people to hear you. You are welcome to go stand on the street corners way outside of town, though, where practically no one is listening. Those other people are fine to spread their message on this street corner, though, because I agree with them." There are very good reasons why we don't allow that sort of thing on street corners. The very same reasons apply to the major social media platforms. >this site has catered to an audience that is wealthy and well-connected relative to the YouTube audience and the political discussions on this site have a ripple effect in the tech community and thus the tech industry and people's livelihoods. Ah, so middle/low class people should grovel to the elites that gather here, even though those people don't share their interests, and hope that they somehow convince elites to act against their own interests, and do some ripple effect thing on behalf of people that have interests opposed to theirs. >My only point here is to illustrate that "popular" doesn't necessarily mean "important". And you've forgotten not everyone has the same interests. If some low skilled workers feel that some policy is driving down their wages, they're not going to go grovel to a bunch of engineers who probably want their wages to go down so they get cheaper vegetables. People want to be heard by people that have, or may have, similar interests to them. >The primary function of the site is a business built around video entertainment, So? The primary function of sidewalks is so people can walk on them. >just because some fraction of the site's users decided to have political discussions on YouTube doesn't mean that the fundamental nature of YouTube has changed into something that should now be owned by the commons. Right, it's the fact that said fraction represents a huge number of people. >The creators and owners of YouTube still have rights to, and creative control over the product they created, even if that control resulted in a blatantly partisan culling of political content. Subject to the limits that the government puts on that control. >If YouTube's behavior displeases the people they should seek redress with the platform's owners or abandon it. "Feel free to go talk on that street corner a mile outside of town. Only people who say things we like can talk on this one." You really think that's going to be satisfactory? >The reasoning you describe is a strange kind of mob tyranny where a corporation becomes obligated to give up creative control over its products because a bunch of people decided to start squatting political banners on the front lawn. When you become "the commons", you lose some of your "creative control". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama