4 ms·

> "Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an audience. "Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. When speech is being silenced (d

> "Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an audience. "Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. When speech is being silenced (de-platformed) or people (the audience) are forbidden from hearing it even when they want to, it violates those principles. > YouTube is not a public service. Youtube is a powerful and unique resource without meaningful competition which I think does give them a certain level of responsibility to uphold the ideals of free speech. Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. Rather than remove these videos, a better option would simply be to inform users that the video contains false information and where they can find the truth.

snowwrestler 7y ago
> When speech is being silenced (de-platformed) This is a ludicrous equivalency; by this standard YouTube is also “silencing (deplatforming)” people who don’t have computers because it’s not giving them resources to help them make and post videos. Deplatforming is not silencing. The default state of an individual in society is no platform. People who want platforms should build them. > Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. You do not need to give people bad information to educate them. You only need to give them good information. I can teach you that 2+2=4 without spending hours belaboring all the numbers that 2+2 does not equal.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  These doctors have good points and common sense. They aren't motivated by money and power like most media, the WHO, and youtube.
- autoexec 7y ago
  > by this standard YouTube is also “silencing (deplatforming)” people who don’t have computers because it’s not giving them resources to help them make and post videos. unlike directly removing videos from their platform youtube is not responsible for preventing people from having a computer. We should all however strive to make computers and internet access as accessible to people as possible. > Deplatforming is not silencing. I disagree. It is suppression and obstruction of information > The default state of an individual in society is no platform. The default state is a very limited platform (those immediately around you at any given time perhaps), but when you explicitly provide a platform for the public to use and then censor voices because you don't like what they have to say you're violating free speech principles. > People who want platforms should build them. All people or just the ones you want to silence? Should that also apply to people like the WHO or any of the doctors who are spreading truths on youtube? Should they all get off youtube and just use their own platforms? I actually agree that people should build their own platforms where it's possible because we shouldn't be entire reliant on any one place, but it's unreasonable to expect people to replicate anything on the scale of youtube. Youtube has no meaningful competition for a reason. > You do not need to give people bad information to educate them. It is often far more effective to show people something that is wrong, explain why\how\where it is wrong and how to spot similar wrong things than to give only explicit facts. In fact I'd argue that without that kind of instruction or understanding you're unlikely to fully understand whatever you're supposed to be learning in the first place. route memorization is inferior to actual understanding. In addition not even YouTube controls the narrative everywhere. The same misinformation they silently censor and fail to correct often being spread elsewhere unchecked. Youtube, being so popular, has a great opportunity to raise awareness of truth by addressing misinformation at the very place people hearing it (and vulnerable to believing it) will actually see it. That's something that isn't done in email chains or facebook group etc.
  - skuthus 7y ago
    >The default state is a very limited platform (those immediately around you at any given time perhaps), but when you explicitly provide a platform for the public to use and then censor voices because you don't like what they have to say you're violating free speech principles. If the You I highlighted was the state, you would be correct. But it isnt.
    - autoexec 7y ago
      There's nothing wrong with expecting public companies to uphold the ideal of free speech even though they aren't legally compelled to uphold the right of free speech. Companies can certainly violate free speech principles.
wvenable 7y ago
> "Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. The problem with the ideal is that most people have it wrong. "Free speech" is not speech without consequences. Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If nobody wants to associate with you because of your speech, that's their right. You are not entitled to a soapbox.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  You are entitled to a soapbox. You're not entitled to an audience. Each person chooses for themselves, not one party choosing for others.
  - wvenable 7y ago
    You aren't entitled to a soapbox unless you make your own soapbox or buy one. Nobody is required to give you one. If you have a soapbox, you might still not get an audience. YouTube took their soapbox away.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      They are buying one. The market rate happens to be free; they don't charge money for people to post videos on YouTube. But now Google is saying they won't sell you a soapbox, the same way they do everyone else, based on what you have to say. Building your own YouTube is not within the capacity of ordinary people. You can either have companies that make decisions for their platforms or you can have monopoly/oligopoly platforms, but not both.
      - wvenable 7y ago
        No, using a free service is not the same as purchasing something that happens to be zero dollars. If there is a contractual relationship you can be sure that the terms are that Google can remove your video for any reason of their choosing and by using their service you are agreeing to that. And you do agree with that because it's free. Nobody says you have to build your own YouTube as that is certainly not the only way you can get your message out. You're just being cheap. You want free stuff without consequences and that's not how the world works or how it should work.

snowwrestler 7y ago

> When speech is being silenced (de-platformed) This is a ludicrous equivalency; by this standard YouTube is also “silencing (deplatforming)” people who don’t have computers because it’s not giving them resources to help them make and post videos. Deplatforming is not silencing. The default state of an individual in society is no platform. People who want platforms should build them. > Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. You do not need to give people bad information to educate them. You only need to give them good information. I can teach you that 2+2=4 without spending hours belaboring all the numbers that 2+2 does not equal.

stOneskull 7y ago
These doctors have good points and common sense. They aren't motivated by money and power like most media, the WHO, and youtube.
autoexec 7y ago
> by this standard YouTube is also “silencing (deplatforming)” people who don’t have computers because it’s not giving them resources to help them make and post videos. unlike directly removing videos from their platform youtube is not responsible for preventing people from having a computer. We should all however strive to make computers and internet access as accessible to people as possible. > Deplatforming is not silencing. I disagree. It is suppression and obstruction of information > The default state of an individual in society is no platform. The default state is a very limited platform (those immediately around you at any given time perhaps), but when you explicitly provide a platform for the public to use and then censor voices because you don't like what they have to say you're violating free speech principles. > People who want platforms should build them. All people or just the ones you want to silence? Should that also apply to people like the WHO or any of the doctors who are spreading truths on youtube? Should they all get off youtube and just use their own platforms? I actually agree that people should build their own platforms where it's possible because we shouldn't be entire reliant on any one place, but it's unreasonable to expect people to replicate anything on the scale of youtube. Youtube has no meaningful competition for a reason. > You do not need to give people bad information to educate them. It is often far more effective to show people something that is wrong, explain why\how\where it is wrong and how to spot similar wrong things than to give only explicit facts. In fact I'd argue that without that kind of instruction or understanding you're unlikely to fully understand whatever you're supposed to be learning in the first place. route memorization is inferior to actual understanding. In addition not even YouTube controls the narrative everywhere. The same misinformation they silently censor and fail to correct often being spread elsewhere unchecked. Youtube, being so popular, has a great opportunity to raise awareness of truth by addressing misinformation at the very place people hearing it (and vulnerable to believing it) will actually see it. That's something that isn't done in email chains or facebook group etc.
- skuthus 7y ago
  >The default state is a very limited platform (those immediately around you at any given time perhaps), but when you explicitly provide a platform for the public to use and then censor voices because you don't like what they have to say you're violating free speech principles. If the You I highlighted was the state, you would be correct. But it isnt.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    There's nothing wrong with expecting public companies to uphold the ideal of free speech even though they aren't legally compelled to uphold the right of free speech. Companies can certainly violate free speech principles.

wvenable 7y ago

> "Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. The problem with the ideal is that most people have it wrong. "Free speech" is not speech without consequences. Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If nobody wants to associate with you because of your speech, that's their right. You are not entitled to a soapbox.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
You are entitled to a soapbox. You're not entitled to an audience. Each person chooses for themselves, not one party choosing for others.
- wvenable 7y ago
  You aren't entitled to a soapbox unless you make your own soapbox or buy one. Nobody is required to give you one. If you have a soapbox, you might still not get an audience. YouTube took their soapbox away.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    They are buying one. The market rate happens to be free; they don't charge money for people to post videos on YouTube. But now Google is saying they won't sell you a soapbox, the same way they do everyone else, based on what you have to say. Building your own YouTube is not within the capacity of ordinary people. You can either have companies that make decisions for their platforms or you can have monopoly/oligopoly platforms, but not both.
    - wvenable 7y ago
      No, using a free service is not the same as purchasing something that happens to be zero dollars. If there is a contractual relationship you can be sure that the terms are that Google can remove your video for any reason of their choosing and by using their service you are agreeing to that. And you do agree with that because it's free. Nobody says you have to build your own YouTube as that is certainly not the only way you can get your message out. You're just being cheap. You want free stuff without consequences and that's not how the world works or how it should work.