5 ms·

> "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.

> "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.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        It has nothing to do with cheap. Anybody can register a domain name and buy a web server and buy a building to put it in and internet service to host it with and post all their videos and they'll get zero page views even after spending all of that money because nobody can find them. The thing YouTube has that isn't available to the average Joe isn't web servers, it's all the glue that comes from being a part of Google which causes YouTube videos to show up in search results and recommendations when the exact same video posted on Joe's Self-Hosted Blog does not. This makes YouTube and Facebook and similarly massive corporations in not the same position as the corner store who should be able to refuse to sell you things for any reason they want, because there you could always buy it from a thousand other places. In this case the thousand other places don't exist. Moreover, having people pay for something doesn't constrain speech when everybody who wants to speak pays the same amount. But when you start changing the amount based on what they want to say, you're imposing a penalty on expressing certain opinions.
        dependenttypes 7y ago
        > Anybody can register a domain name and buy a web server Until they kick you out. The only solution would be to use tor but then you would get even less views.
        whatisaquiche 7y ago
        Imagine if Martin Luther decided again making his post had he been discouraged by getting “even less views.” This generation is obsessed with prospect of “getting lots of views” to the point where it becomes the only metric of success.
        wvenable 7y ago
        > they'll get zero page views even after spending all of that money because nobody can find them. You might not be cheap anymore, now you're just lazy. It used to be that if you had something important to say you might actually have to climb out of the basement, walk to the church, and post your words to the door. The expectation that others should both host and promote your crazy ideas for free is the problem.
autoexec 7y ago
> Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If someone offers a platform for the public to use but censors people who say things they don't like, that is a clear violation of free speech principals. I don't have to listen to anything, but if someone chooses to speak and I choose to listen no one should try to prevent us from doing so. There are consequences for speech, but they shouldn't involve include gatekeepers silencing specific voices on the basis of what they have to say. In fact, if you want to take a punitive approach to speech then censoring people so we never get a chance to hear what they're saying actually denies us the ability to make a judgement and hold speakers accountable for those words. I'd sure like to know if my own doctor was spreading misinformation and making illogical errors when talking about a global pandemic that's impacting me. If she was, but I wasn't allowed to know about that I might easily think she was trustworthy when I shouldn't.
- skuthus 7y ago
  You are welcome to find the video on other platforms
dependenttypes 7y ago
> "Free speech" is not speech without consequences This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free speech-y. > but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear you.
- skuthus 7y ago
  It's more like 'I have the right to choose which voices get heard on my private platform'
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Yeah no. YouTube is arguably a very, very public platform. Open to the public; entirely populated and funded by the public (i.e. millions of content providers and viewers generate all the income). Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.
    - wvenable 7y ago
      > entirely populated and funded by the public You just described every single business in the whole world except those funded by taxpayer money (which is generally what is meant by "funded by the public"). Actually, YouTube isn't even funded by the public -- they're funded by advertisers. > Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist. All local newspapers are owned by large companies. As for monopolist, you can't just throw that around without argument. YouTube is far far from the only provider of online video.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        YouTube is almost the exclusive (by daily views) provider. How can that be in question?

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.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      It has nothing to do with cheap. Anybody can register a domain name and buy a web server and buy a building to put it in and internet service to host it with and post all their videos and they'll get zero page views even after spending all of that money because nobody can find them. The thing YouTube has that isn't available to the average Joe isn't web servers, it's all the glue that comes from being a part of Google which causes YouTube videos to show up in search results and recommendations when the exact same video posted on Joe's Self-Hosted Blog does not. This makes YouTube and Facebook and similarly massive corporations in not the same position as the corner store who should be able to refuse to sell you things for any reason they want, because there you could always buy it from a thousand other places. In this case the thousand other places don't exist. Moreover, having people pay for something doesn't constrain speech when everybody who wants to speak pays the same amount. But when you start changing the amount based on what they want to say, you're imposing a penalty on expressing certain opinions.
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        > Anybody can register a domain name and buy a web server Until they kick you out. The only solution would be to use tor but then you would get even less views.
        whatisaquiche 7y ago
        Imagine if Martin Luther decided again making his post had he been discouraged by getting “even less views.” This generation is obsessed with prospect of “getting lots of views” to the point where it becomes the only metric of success.
      - wvenable 7y ago
        > they'll get zero page views even after spending all of that money because nobody can find them. You might not be cheap anymore, now you're just lazy. It used to be that if you had something important to say you might actually have to climb out of the basement, walk to the church, and post your words to the door. The expectation that others should both host and promote your crazy ideas for free is the problem.

autoexec 7y ago

> Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If someone offers a platform for the public to use but censors people who say things they don't like, that is a clear violation of free speech principals. I don't have to listen to anything, but if someone chooses to speak and I choose to listen no one should try to prevent us from doing so. There are consequences for speech, but they shouldn't involve include gatekeepers silencing specific voices on the basis of what they have to say. In fact, if you want to take a punitive approach to speech then censoring people so we never get a chance to hear what they're saying actually denies us the ability to make a judgement and hold speakers accountable for those words. I'd sure like to know if my own doctor was spreading misinformation and making illogical errors when talking about a global pandemic that's impacting me. If she was, but I wasn't allowed to know about that I might easily think she was trustworthy when I shouldn't.

skuthus 7y ago
You are welcome to find the video on other platforms

dependenttypes 7y ago

> "Free speech" is not speech without consequences This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free speech-y. > but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear you.

skuthus 7y ago
It's more like 'I have the right to choose which voices get heard on my private platform'
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Yeah no. YouTube is arguably a very, very public platform. Open to the public; entirely populated and funded by the public (i.e. millions of content providers and viewers generate all the income). Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.
  - wvenable 7y ago
    > entirely populated and funded by the public You just described every single business in the whole world except those funded by taxpayer money (which is generally what is meant by "funded by the public"). Actually, YouTube isn't even funded by the public -- they're funded by advertisers. > Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist. All local newspapers are owned by large companies. As for monopolist, you can't just throw that around without argument. YouTube is far far from the only provider of online video.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      YouTube is almost the exclusive (by daily views) provider. How can that be in question?