2 ms·

Constitutional protection of speech does not force non-governmental entities to grant a platform of speech to anyone. Nobody is saying they have a crystal ball

Constitutional protection of speech does not force non-governmental entities to grant a platform of speech to anyone. Nobody is saying they have a crystal ball, but everyone is making decisions to minimize damage to society, including private platforms.

walterbell 7y ago
Some people will now work to minimize damage to society by private platforms. Google can apply arbitrary rules, but they can't claim that their decisions represent "society". There was no consultative process where society elected Google or society was asked for their opinion on censoring this particular video. In fact, "society" has immediately republished the video elsewhere. In fact, the Streisand effect will guarantee more attention to the video (e.g. this thread). Google destroyed a huge number of comments debating the merits of the video. Previously, such destruction would have been done by book burning. Now the debate is scattered and it is harder to address any confused people, instead of going to the number one web property for video. Way to miss the point of both speech and censorship, Google.
- willis936 7y ago
  You’re likening the deletion of a video on a private free video hosting site to state-sponsored book burning? The Streisand effect is a blip in popularity here. The point is to not validate dangerous fantasies of people who are unwilling or incapable of behaving in a safe and logical manner. Google succeeded in this endeavor, despite what people paying close attention to things might argue about in side channels.
  - walterbell 7y ago
    > You’re likening the deletion of a video on a private free video hosting site to state-sponsored book burning? I'm likening the effect on the respective audiences. The book burning aspect is for the video's comments, a.k.a. debate by many members of society. As for Google being private, they employ a sizable number of lobbyists to influence public policy.
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    When a large private organization or a few of them control virtually all public discourse (the digital public square), their choices are in effect as dangerous and impactful as the government taking the same action. Additionally, these tech platforms currently enjoy Section 230 protection. If they’re now in the business of curating what they publish, they should no longer be granted that protection. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...
    - pw201 7y ago
      This is not what Section 230 says, although it is a suspiciously popular misunderstanding of it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

walterbell 7y ago

Some people will now work to minimize damage to society by private platforms. Google can apply arbitrary rules, but they can't claim that their decisions represent "society". There was no consultative process where society elected Google or society was asked for their opinion on censoring this particular video. In fact, "society" has immediately republished the video elsewhere. In fact, the Streisand effect will guarantee more attention to the video (e.g. this thread). Google destroyed a huge number of comments debating the merits of the video. Previously, such destruction would have been done by book burning. Now the debate is scattered and it is harder to address any confused people, instead of going to the number one web property for video. Way to miss the point of both speech and censorship, Google.

willis936 7y ago
You’re likening the deletion of a video on a private free video hosting site to state-sponsored book burning? The Streisand effect is a blip in popularity here. The point is to not validate dangerous fantasies of people who are unwilling or incapable of behaving in a safe and logical manner. Google succeeded in this endeavor, despite what people paying close attention to things might argue about in side channels.
- walterbell 7y ago
  > You’re likening the deletion of a video on a private free video hosting site to state-sponsored book burning? I'm likening the effect on the respective audiences. The book burning aspect is for the video's comments, a.k.a. debate by many members of society. As for Google being private, they employ a sizable number of lobbyists to influence public policy.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  When a large private organization or a few of them control virtually all public discourse (the digital public square), their choices are in effect as dangerous and impactful as the government taking the same action. Additionally, these tech platforms currently enjoy Section 230 protection. If they’re now in the business of curating what they publish, they should no longer be granted that protection. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...
  - pw201 7y ago
    This is not what Section 230 says, although it is a suspiciously popular misunderstanding of it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...