4 ms·

I'm not really a fan of the idea that any person (or company) can be compelled to give a platform to someone (or something) they don't want to. Freedom of speec

I'm not really a fan of the idea that any person (or company) can be compelled to give a platform to someone (or something) they don't want to. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a soapbox, and it certainly doesn't guarantee you the right to someone else's soapbox. It sounds like a strictly emotional argument to suggest that YouTube doesn't have the right to decide what is or isn't allowed on their platform, and it breaks down under any sort of scrutiny. There are all sorts of other "legal" things that you, yourself, would likely draw the line on. To some extent I think using the word "censorship" is disingenuous here as well. No one is censoring this video, they can post the video on their own website wherever they please. Just because you can't post the video on someone else's website doesn't mean you are being censored.

javagram 6y ago
The (dictionary) definition of censorship does include private institutions censoring. For instance, if private libraries remove a book from their shelves because they dislike the contents, that’s absolutely censorship. It’s YouTube’s legal right to remove this, but I do recognize that the more YouTube exercises censorship and editorial judgment over the content, the more likely they are to remove content I like and agree with as well, so that is what concerns me. And I also wonder if removing this specific video might do more harm than good, because it lets the authors cry out that the establishment is censoring them and helps promote their conspiracy-theory-level thinking. In certain cases speech suppression can be very effective, but since powerful elements of US society (e.g. Fox News) are engaging in motivated reasoning to agree with the contents of this video, it could provide an additional plank to convince those who aren’t capable of evaluating the scientific arguments themselves.
drak0n1c 6y ago
You can criticize a company's behavior while recognizing it is their right to do what they are doing. We do it all the time with other industries. Critiques of hiring/firing decisions, environmental practices, poor customer service, bad products, etc. It is not unreasonable to dislike the trend of a company named "YouTube" increasingly favoring large state-sponsored and corporate organizations both in hard policy and soft algorithms.

javagram 6y ago

The (dictionary) definition of censorship does include private institutions censoring. For instance, if private libraries remove a book from their shelves because they dislike the contents, that’s absolutely censorship. It’s YouTube’s legal right to remove this, but I do recognize that the more YouTube exercises censorship and editorial judgment over the content, the more likely they are to remove content I like and agree with as well, so that is what concerns me. And I also wonder if removing this specific video might do more harm than good, because it lets the authors cry out that the establishment is censoring them and helps promote their conspiracy-theory-level thinking. In certain cases speech suppression can be very effective, but since powerful elements of US society (e.g. Fox News) are engaging in motivated reasoning to agree with the contents of this video, it could provide an additional plank to convince those who aren’t capable of evaluating the scientific arguments themselves.

drak0n1c 6y ago

You can criticize a company's behavior while recognizing it is their right to do what they are doing. We do it all the time with other industries. Critiques of hiring/firing decisions, environmental practices, poor customer service, bad products, etc. It is not unreasonable to dislike the trend of a company named "YouTube" increasingly favoring large state-sponsored and corporate organizations both in hard policy and soft algorithms.