7 ms·

I definitely am in the "not public forum" camp. Let me explain. The second you allow a private company control over a public resource, you are creating an expec

I definitely am in the "not public forum" camp. Let me explain. The second you allow a private company control over a public resource, you are creating an expectation that a private company cannot meet. Public access tv and public streets are examples of public forums, and for example, I am very against free speech zones. But Youtube, Facebook, Reddit are ultimately private for-profit companies and - as indispensable as they feel in modern life - we shouldn't conflate them with public platforms. To your other point, they are responsible for content on their platform in many cases (violent threats, illegal adult content, allowing access to adult content to minors, copyright violations, dissemination of classified information, and so on) so I don't see a problem. edit: please don't downvote the parent poster? This is a perfectly fine response and good faith dialogue. We don't downvote something because we disagree with it.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I agree with you except the reality is that we have no alternative to YouTube, not a serious one anyhow. So until that changes, unfortunately and regrettably, I do consider it a public forum - held by a private company. It’s a brave new world! Should thinking there is correlation between 5G and viral sensitivity be illegal? Of course not. The examples you listed are illegal and no one has any issue with those being removed. Public forum or not, these companies should not ethically be engaging in the policing of things they consider “wrong think”. It does nothing but distort reality for both sides. Look at HN, this is an extremely strong bubble mechanic here. I’ve lost 50-some “points” on this site in the last two days and prevented from replying for saying true, first hand, or on-topic things people don’t want to see, certainly nothing that breaks rules or should be hidden because one disagrees... but that’s what it is - people trying to hide the thing that makes them upset. Same issue in micro scale. No one should celebrate this mechanism. You should defend lizard man’s wrong think as “allowed speech” - because at some point no matter how smart or “Correct” you think you are, you will eventually find yourself on the “wrong side” of a corporate opinion, and when that happens, you will want to have supported protections for everyone the whole time. No one ever thinks the pendulum will swing. What child-like naively would be needed so just always assume the monopolies will “just happen” to agree with one’s sensibilities on who should get a voice or not?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

I agree with you except the reality is that we have no alternative to YouTube, not a serious one anyhow. So until that changes, unfortunately and regrettably, I do consider it a public forum - held by a private company. It’s a brave new world! Should thinking there is correlation between 5G and viral sensitivity be illegal? Of course not. The examples you listed are illegal and no one has any issue with those being removed. Public forum or not, these companies should not ethically be engaging in the policing of things they consider “wrong think”. It does nothing but distort reality for both sides. Look at HN, this is an extremely strong bubble mechanic here. I’ve lost 50-some “points” on this site in the last two days and prevented from replying for saying true, first hand, or on-topic things people don’t want to see, certainly nothing that breaks rules or should be hidden because one disagrees... but that’s what it is - people trying to hide the thing that makes them upset. Same issue in micro scale. No one should celebrate this mechanism. You should defend lizard man’s wrong think as “allowed speech” - because at some point no matter how smart or “Correct” you think you are, you will eventually find yourself on the “wrong side” of a corporate opinion, and when that happens, you will want to have supported protections for everyone the whole time. No one ever thinks the pendulum will swing. What child-like naively would be needed so just always assume the monopolies will “just happen” to agree with one’s sensibilities on who should get a voice or not?