5 ms·
> "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 m
by dependenttypes 6y 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 6y agoIt's more like 'I have the right to choose which voices get heard on my private platform'
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoYeah 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 6y 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 6y agoYouTube is almost the exclusive (by daily views) provider. How can that be in question?
- wvenable 6y agoThat doesn't make it a monopoly! My local big box grocery store has more visitors than my local corner store. Any other video provider on the Internet is just as accessible. If YouTube went away tomorrow, videos would still exist on the Internet. Most videos posted to YouTube of any value would immediately show up elsewhere. Have you considered YouTube is popular because it's at least a little bit curated? Heck, YouTube wouldn't even exist without ContentID.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoOk, overwhelming market leader then. The rules for it should be carefully considered, since it is a unicorn.
- wvenable 6y agoYou're begging the question. Overwhelming market leader means nothing -- it doesn't automatically create any new obligations or responsibilities. You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech, marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc. Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted of abusing a monopoly position for anything to be required of them.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoSure it does. It's called a 'trust', and its well-covered in corporate law. And no, I don't have to prove anything. Just that a reasonable congress should have oversight over the single most watched communications channel on the planet. This is just dead obvious. I can't believe there's any good faith in this discussion any more. Signing off.
- whatisaquiche 6y agoA reasonable congress should have oversight? What do you mean by that?
- dependenttypes 6y agoThis is irrelevant to what I was talking about.
- wvenable 6y agoIf you post a sign on my front lawn, I have the right to remove it. It's my lawn. That's my freedom of expression to remove it. It seems like you just want it one way.
- dependenttypes 6y agoSeems like you did not bother reading what I wrote.