4 ms·

This push to censor wrong ideas instead of compete with them is misguided at best. And then there's the nerve to pretend like there isn't some kind of intention

This push to censor wrong ideas instead of compete with them is misguided at best. And then there's the nerve to pretend like there isn't some kind of intentional social engineering going on with internet platforms. If the kinds of policies I see journalists pushing for on YouTube were in place before the Snowden leaks, they would've been suppressing any videos talking about the NSA's spying on American citizens. But we can't risk letting people try different ideas. They might disagree with us. They're not smart enough to make their own decisions. Better step in.

tzs 7y ago
> This push to censor wrong ideas instead of compete with them is misguided at best I don't think countering wrong ideas by competing with them works well any more. It used to, but technology changes over the last few decades have given a big advantage to the wrong ideas. This comment, from a thread a few months ago, goes into more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772300
- loudtieblahblah 7y ago
  The ethical problems of having "truth arbiters" seems pretty simple when it comes to flat earth stuff. Or anti-vaxx stuff. Or maybe even climate change. But once established - the power to control society we're handing over to a handful of corporations is immense and it will bleed into subjects that are a lot murkier. It's worth it to compete. B/c centralizing and handing over authority to a handful of tech companies to determine what is and what isn't allowed to be said .. this is something that goes way beyond all the freedom of speech stuff where people are merely offended. This is dangerous territory. And it's more dangerous than allowing idiots to spin their wheels with their stupid ideas.
  - krapp 7y ago
    No one is handing the power to control society or authority over what is and isn't allowed to be said at that scale to Google or any "handful of corporations." What is said on Youtube or any other large social media platform is not the limitations of what is said in society, nor can Youtube control society beyond its own platform. It makes no more sense to argue that Youtube trying to enforce some standards, however arbitrary or biased, amounts to "the power to control society" than it would have to argue that having three television stations meant those networks "controlled society," or that the Encyclopedia Britannica controlled the English language.

tzs 7y ago

> This push to censor wrong ideas instead of compete with them is misguided at best I don't think countering wrong ideas by competing with them works well any more. It used to, but technology changes over the last few decades have given a big advantage to the wrong ideas. This comment, from a thread a few months ago, goes into more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772300

loudtieblahblah 7y ago
The ethical problems of having "truth arbiters" seems pretty simple when it comes to flat earth stuff. Or anti-vaxx stuff. Or maybe even climate change. But once established - the power to control society we're handing over to a handful of corporations is immense and it will bleed into subjects that are a lot murkier. It's worth it to compete. B/c centralizing and handing over authority to a handful of tech companies to determine what is and what isn't allowed to be said .. this is something that goes way beyond all the freedom of speech stuff where people are merely offended. This is dangerous territory. And it's more dangerous than allowing idiots to spin their wheels with their stupid ideas.
- krapp 7y ago
  No one is handing the power to control society or authority over what is and isn't allowed to be said at that scale to Google or any "handful of corporations." What is said on Youtube or any other large social media platform is not the limitations of what is said in society, nor can Youtube control society beyond its own platform. It makes no more sense to argue that Youtube trying to enforce some standards, however arbitrary or biased, amounts to "the power to control society" than it would have to argue that having three television stations meant those networks "controlled society," or that the Encyclopedia Britannica controlled the English language.