5 ms·

What does this comment even mean? In my comment, I was putting it bluntly what he/she was basically saying. I agree it sounds harsh, but that was my point. My p

by jb775 7y ago

What does this comment even mean? In my comment, I was putting it bluntly what he/she was basically saying. I agree it sounds harsh, but that was my point. My point is that it's not acceptable or productive for a society to suppress someone else's right to be heard just because they are disagreed with.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 7y ago
Then let me bluntly reply. That is wrong. We suppress all sorts of speech and have well before the internet. I don't need to enumerate it, but there are all sorts of content encouraging or causing harm or violence that is already illegal, policed, and most people will have no problems with agreeing should not have a platform. Now, let's look at Youtube specifically. It is a business unit in a US corporation. The company has an obligation to make money. That is completely at odds of the role of a public forum and we all shouldn't pretend it is one. If we want a public forum (which only makes sense in the universe of a federal government with robust protections for individual rights) then the it should be a publicly funded resource. The government should run a free video site or should bid out a contract to have a private company operate one. If that existed, then certainly, yes Icke's video should stay up there. But Youtube is a private business and it should operate under what makes best business sense for its social platform. Anything else is an harmful illusion.
- jb775 7y ago
  Your argument points don't align. You first said that anything the platform doesn't agree with should be "Flagged and hidden by default, at best. They should be marginalized and stigmatized.". (Why not tar and feather while you're at it?) You're now stating that YouTube censors things based on business decisions. If it's about "business", wouldn't they want to promote juicy conspiracy theories to get more views? Also, you have very strong opinions for someone cowardly hiding behind a throw-away account.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by jb775 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwaway5752 7y ago

Then let me bluntly reply. That is wrong. We suppress all sorts of speech and have well before the internet. I don't need to enumerate it, but there are all sorts of content encouraging or causing harm or violence that is already illegal, policed, and most people will have no problems with agreeing should not have a platform. Now, let's look at Youtube specifically. It is a business unit in a US corporation. The company has an obligation to make money. That is completely at odds of the role of a public forum and we all shouldn't pretend it is one. If we want a public forum (which only makes sense in the universe of a federal government with robust protections for individual rights) then the it should be a publicly funded resource. The government should run a free video site or should bid out a contract to have a private company operate one. If that existed, then certainly, yes Icke's video should stay up there. But Youtube is a private business and it should operate under what makes best business sense for its social platform. Anything else is an harmful illusion.

jb775 7y ago
Your argument points don't align. You first said that anything the platform doesn't agree with should be "Flagged and hidden by default, at best. They should be marginalized and stigmatized.". (Why not tar and feather while you're at it?) You're now stating that YouTube censors things based on business decisions. If it's about "business", wouldn't they want to promote juicy conspiracy theories to get more views? Also, you have very strong opinions for someone cowardly hiding behind a throw-away account.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]