5 ms·

It's that youtube, reddit take on more of a public forum than TV, radio at least that was the feeling in the past. The idea that anyone can be a content creato

It's that youtube, reddit take on more of a public forum than TV, radio at least that was the feeling in the past. The idea that anyone can be a content creator is, it's supposed to be as neutral as possible. Let the world battle it out against itself. Once you start taking sides of opinions (as opposed to legal ones) then you become a content curator. For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. We'll fight to my death but it is my right to hold said stupid idea and voice it with youtube being my megaphone. That's a core tenant of free speech and youtube was supposed to be able to help that. Now they're taking sides and it's not comforting

paulcole 7y ago
> America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. Was it though? First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want.
- dpatru 7y ago
  > Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want. I think it's reasonable to assume that the American government contains the same kind of people that are in governments the world over and throughout history. And governments have always attempted to suppress speech: that's why the First Amendment was written. Given Snowden's revelations, can you be sure that Youtube's censoring is simply a business decision by executives and not a result of government influence? How would things be different if the government were pressuring the big platforms to squelch speech?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulcole 7y ago
    Honestly I don’t care why YouTube censors what they censor. The text of the amendment looks pretty clear to me. Pressuring big platforms is a world away from passing a law.
  - seppin 7y ago
    > Given Snowden's revelations What did Snowden reveal about government influence over private sector censorship? I must have missed it.
    - seppin 7y ago
      Nothing?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform. But just because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?". The bill of rights is a legal document, and it can only govern the actions of government. But I don't think that there's any debate that the first amendment came about because the founding fathers believed free speech was an inalienable human right. I don't think the founding fathers would say that inalienable rights are suddenly alienated because you put a corporation in charge of your communications platform. Do you believe free speech is a human right? If so, then why do you care when it's violated by a government, but not care when it's violated by corporations who are arguably more powerful in the field of communication?
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Is spam free speech? Are bookstores required to stock every book ever published? Are fraud and defamation free speech? Must newspapers post every classified ad submitted to them? Is medical advice free speech? Are government clerks required to serve verbally abusive clients? No, no, no... there are plenty of examples where the right to free speech is found to have limits. Especially when that speech violates other freedoms. You have the right to make videos and distribute them. You do not have the right to compel anybody to watch them, receive them or redistribute them. A platform such as youtube has the right to curate -- otherwise it would be a useless mass of SEO'd spam.
    - runawaybottle 7y ago
      Well, in that case, this is unacceptable going forward. We’re going to need a Youtube clone that has a better charter for content creators, and viewers alike.
      - klyrs 7y ago
        Nothing's stopping you from making ChanTube, GabTube, or whatever you find "acceptable". But, if it gets popular, be prepared to take down illegal content, filter spam, get sued by copyright holders, etc. until it looks a lot more like youtube than you intended. Or, y'know, break under the weight of the consequences of harmful speech without substantial ad income since most advertisers won't want to associate with your toxic platform.
jpdb 7y ago
> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. > That's a core tenant of free speech I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points. The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worrying about survival of the fittest. I believe it was Jefferson that was vehemently against government officials making false claims / lying...which is a limitation of free speech, but results in a net surplus of free speech. The idea that all speech should be free is a fairly ignorant one. > and voice it with youtube being my megaphone. And this is ABSOLUTELY against any sort of semblance of the ideas America was founded on. YouTube is a private platform. They can (and SHOULD) police their speech, because it is a private platform. YouTube is ultimately socially responsible for the outcomes of what people say on it's platform. If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic, YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.
- irjustin 7y ago
  > If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives. But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. > YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech. Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? Tomorrow, if Youtube said, "We'll remove all content that does not agree with the POTUS." That's only a few letters away from the WHO, right? POTUS is authority. But that's insane. That's absurd. That's what this debate is about. Censoring goes both ways.
  - jpdb 7y ago
    > Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it. > That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it. > If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? (I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me) I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence. > Censoring goes both ways. Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"
ypzhang2 7y ago
Conversely, America was also founded on the rights of private property, and the shareholders of Google has delegated the power to control their property to the management team at Google, who have then implemented this policy to remove this content from their property. Its arguable just as important for the concept of America to let owners of private property not be deprived of their freedom and liberties.

paulcole 7y ago

> America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. Was it though? First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want.

dpatru 7y ago
> Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want. I think it's reasonable to assume that the American government contains the same kind of people that are in governments the world over and throughout history. And governments have always attempted to suppress speech: that's why the First Amendment was written. Given Snowden's revelations, can you be sure that Youtube's censoring is simply a business decision by executives and not a result of government influence? How would things be different if the government were pressuring the big platforms to squelch speech?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- paulcole 7y ago
  Honestly I don’t care why YouTube censors what they censor. The text of the amendment looks pretty clear to me. Pressuring big platforms is a world away from passing a law.
- seppin 7y ago
  > Given Snowden's revelations What did Snowden reveal about government influence over private sector censorship? I must have missed it.
  - seppin 7y ago
    Nothing?
kerkeslager 7y ago
It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform. But just because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?". The bill of rights is a legal document, and it can only govern the actions of government. But I don't think that there's any debate that the first amendment came about because the founding fathers believed free speech was an inalienable human right. I don't think the founding fathers would say that inalienable rights are suddenly alienated because you put a corporation in charge of your communications platform. Do you believe free speech is a human right? If so, then why do you care when it's violated by a government, but not care when it's violated by corporations who are arguably more powerful in the field of communication?
- klyrs 7y ago
  Is spam free speech? Are bookstores required to stock every book ever published? Are fraud and defamation free speech? Must newspapers post every classified ad submitted to them? Is medical advice free speech? Are government clerks required to serve verbally abusive clients? No, no, no... there are plenty of examples where the right to free speech is found to have limits. Especially when that speech violates other freedoms. You have the right to make videos and distribute them. You do not have the right to compel anybody to watch them, receive them or redistribute them. A platform such as youtube has the right to curate -- otherwise it would be a useless mass of SEO'd spam.
  - runawaybottle 7y ago
    Well, in that case, this is unacceptable going forward. We’re going to need a Youtube clone that has a better charter for content creators, and viewers alike.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      Nothing's stopping you from making ChanTube, GabTube, or whatever you find "acceptable". But, if it gets popular, be prepared to take down illegal content, filter spam, get sued by copyright holders, etc. until it looks a lot more like youtube than you intended. Or, y'know, break under the weight of the consequences of harmful speech without substantial ad income since most advertisers won't want to associate with your toxic platform.

jpdb 7y ago

> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. > That's a core tenant of free speech I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points. The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worrying about survival of the fittest. I believe it was Jefferson that was vehemently against government officials making false claims / lying...which is a limitation of free speech, but results in a net surplus of free speech. The idea that all speech should be free is a fairly ignorant one. > and voice it with youtube being my megaphone. And this is ABSOLUTELY against any sort of semblance of the ideas America was founded on. YouTube is a private platform. They can (and SHOULD) police their speech, because it is a private platform. YouTube is ultimately socially responsible for the outcomes of what people say on it's platform. If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic, YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.

irjustin 7y ago
> If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives. But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. > YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech. Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? Tomorrow, if Youtube said, "We'll remove all content that does not agree with the POTUS." That's only a few letters away from the WHO, right? POTUS is authority. But that's insane. That's absurd. That's what this debate is about. Censoring goes both ways.
- jpdb 7y ago
  > Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it. > That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it. > If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? (I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me) I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence. > Censoring goes both ways. Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"

ypzhang2 7y ago

Conversely, America was also founded on the rights of private property, and the shareholders of Google has delegated the power to control their property to the management team at Google, who have then implemented this policy to remove this content from their property. Its arguable just as important for the concept of America to let owners of private property not be deprived of their freedom and liberties.