4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhen 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 agoThis 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...