5 ms·

It's not censorship by any means; YouTube isn't the government. David Icke and his ilk should feel free to take their lunatic fringe theories to the lunatic fri

by rajup 6y ago

It's not censorship by any means; YouTube isn't the government. David Icke and his ilk should feel free to take their lunatic fringe theories to the lunatic fringe corners of the Internet like Breitbart etc. They won't be "censored" there.

brenden2 6y ago
YouTube is a de facto public utility at this point. IMO if they want it to be a closed ecosystem, they should not allow public access the way they currently do. There's no good alternative to YouTube (yet) but I hope there is some day. Pushing people to the fringes just breeds more hatred, outrage, misinformation, and extremists. Imagine if there was just one phone company and they only let people who they agree with have phones.
- beart 6y ago
  Terrible analogy. YouTube is not the only video host. Video hosts are not the only way to share or consume content.
- montroser 6y ago
  Nope, it's not. The whole rest of the Internet is flush with video content -- it's no monopoly like the phone company used to be. YouTube is an offshoot of an ad company. A private, for-profit enterprise that uses video content from its users to sell adverts. Now, if you want to say the Internet is a public utility -- that's getting closer. And if the Internet writ large somehow managed to block certain content, that would be of great concern. That would require government intervention, like you see in China and some other places. But that is not what it's happening here.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  YouTube is not a de facto public utility. It is not currently used as the primary means of news by any segment of the population, by any government entity anywhere in the world. It is not a means of communication like Zoom or the telephone. It's just videos. Lots and lots of videos. It provides entertainment to billions of people, but that doesn't mean YouTube is a utility. It just means its very popular.
  - cameronbrown 6y ago
    > It is not currently used as the primary means of news by any segment of the population This is wrong. I'm ~19 in the UK. My entire demographic gets their news from either Google, YouTube, Facebook and word-of-mouth, younger people even more so.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      I agree, OP is just out of touch with current realities. Sorry but I will side with the the notion that Youtube IS a public utility. The free market allowed these monsters to grow (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc) and become extremely powerful. They cannot now to claim "they are just another private company" when people are totally marginalized from public discourse if they dont play along. The other thing is the partenalistic stuff, please remove the content so those brain dead morons(not me) dont get influenced.If the ideas are so wacky, you need more light and debate and shame, not censorship and secretism. Maybe I am one of those brain-dead morons, but for me the standard is very clear, if a video/tweet is illegal, remove it and block the account, otherwise, let it be.
      - cameronbrown 6y ago
        Unfortunately this is a very unpopular opinion nowadays.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      I don't doubt that people that are 19 hear things through the rumor mill. That is how the 5g rumor spread and why the UK has so many destroyed 5g towers right now. But there is a difference between the gossip spread through social networks, and news. Also, to note--Google doesn't generate its own news. It sources it to news organizations...Similarly, YouTube News coverage are just segments of news broadcasts by news organizations...
      - cameronbrown 6y ago
        Google News for sure, but non-mainstream YouTube sources (so called independent creators) are collectively more popular than BBC or newspapers. Again, at least in my age group.
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  MTV is a de facto public utility by the same measure, yet they stopped showing music videos decades ago. How DARE they??? That's censorship! I want my MTV, money for nothing, and chicks for free!!!
wnoise 6y ago
Wherever did people get the idea that the only form of censorship is governmental?
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It's quite literally in the definition of censorship, and has been since its origination in Ancient Rome. More importantly, the restriction on censorship has been tied to government action since it was first enshrined in the First Amendment. A private party can choose not to spread the content of a third party. That is not censorship. That is one party choosing not to spend their own resources to further the interests of a different party. If the third party has an issue with that, they can spend their own resources creating their own platform to spread their own ideas.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    Ah, the etymological fallacy. Certainly the office of censor started in ancient Rome. However there have been plenty of other censors throughout history, and many that currently exist. Consider: 1. The Catholic Church's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum 2. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority 3. The Hays code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Standards_and_Practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Standards_and_Practi... None of them are governmental. All exist to police speech. In general, merely declining to publish something should probably not be called censorship. It is indeed a fine line between maintaining editorial control and suppressing speech. However, when one publishes just about everything, but excepts certain viewpoints with the explicit goal of suppressing them, the term starts to fit a lot better. Is any of this against the First amendment? Of course not. But it's still clearly censorship.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      If you want to get technical about it, the Catholic Church was deeply embedded in most European governments when the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was issued, and was the official state religion for multiple kingdoms. The Hays Code was issued by the MPAA as a voluntary set of guidelines governing the then vertically-integrated studios and theaters. Importantly, they were not prohibitions on movie content. Many film productions did not adhere to the Hays Code and many independent theaters similarly ignored it. Indeed, the body established to enforce the code did not even how the power to order studious to cut material... The only instance of the Hays Code having an impact on films was during the short Breen era, which lasted only 6 years, and this only affected films shown in vertically-integrated theaters owned by the studios. Independent theaters continued to ignore the Hays Code, as they always did. And the Broadcast Standards was a decency code intended to mollify advertisers, i.e., other private parties, who generally did not want to be associated with certain types of content. As with the Hays Code, it was a series of guidelines, not a prohibition, and late-night shows generally flaunted the Broadcast Standards with impunity. In other words, not censorship... Just private acts of self-interest to protect their market position.

by rajup 6y ago

brenden2 6y ago

YouTube is a de facto public utility at this point. IMO if they want it to be a closed ecosystem, they should not allow public access the way they currently do. There's no good alternative to YouTube (yet) but I hope there is some day. Pushing people to the fringes just breeds more hatred, outrage, misinformation, and extremists. Imagine if there was just one phone company and they only let people who they agree with have phones.

beart 6y ago
Terrible analogy. YouTube is not the only video host. Video hosts are not the only way to share or consume content.
montroser 6y ago
Nope, it's not. The whole rest of the Internet is flush with video content -- it's no monopoly like the phone company used to be. YouTube is an offshoot of an ad company. A private, for-profit enterprise that uses video content from its users to sell adverts. Now, if you want to say the Internet is a public utility -- that's getting closer. And if the Internet writ large somehow managed to block certain content, that would be of great concern. That would require government intervention, like you see in China and some other places. But that is not what it's happening here.
gamblor956 6y ago
YouTube is not a de facto public utility. It is not currently used as the primary means of news by any segment of the population, by any government entity anywhere in the world. It is not a means of communication like Zoom or the telephone. It's just videos. Lots and lots of videos. It provides entertainment to billions of people, but that doesn't mean YouTube is a utility. It just means its very popular.
- cameronbrown 6y ago
  > It is not currently used as the primary means of news by any segment of the population This is wrong. I'm ~19 in the UK. My entire demographic gets their news from either Google, YouTube, Facebook and word-of-mouth, younger people even more so.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    I agree, OP is just out of touch with current realities. Sorry but I will side with the the notion that Youtube IS a public utility. The free market allowed these monsters to grow (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc) and become extremely powerful. They cannot now to claim "they are just another private company" when people are totally marginalized from public discourse if they dont play along. The other thing is the partenalistic stuff, please remove the content so those brain dead morons(not me) dont get influenced.If the ideas are so wacky, you need more light and debate and shame, not censorship and secretism. Maybe I am one of those brain-dead morons, but for me the standard is very clear, if a video/tweet is illegal, remove it and block the account, otherwise, let it be.
    - cameronbrown 6y ago
      Unfortunately this is a very unpopular opinion nowadays.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    I don't doubt that people that are 19 hear things through the rumor mill. That is how the 5g rumor spread and why the UK has so many destroyed 5g towers right now. But there is a difference between the gossip spread through social networks, and news. Also, to note--Google doesn't generate its own news. It sources it to news organizations...Similarly, YouTube News coverage are just segments of news broadcasts by news organizations...
    - cameronbrown 6y ago
      Google News for sure, but non-mainstream YouTube sources (so called independent creators) are collectively more popular than BBC or newspapers. Again, at least in my age group.
DonHopkins 6y ago
MTV is a de facto public utility by the same measure, yet they stopped showing music videos decades ago. How DARE they??? That's censorship! I want my MTV, money for nothing, and chicks for free!!!

wnoise 6y ago

Wherever did people get the idea that the only form of censorship is governmental?

gamblor956 6y ago
It's quite literally in the definition of censorship, and has been since its origination in Ancient Rome. More importantly, the restriction on censorship has been tied to government action since it was first enshrined in the First Amendment. A private party can choose not to spread the content of a third party. That is not censorship. That is one party choosing not to spend their own resources to further the interests of a different party. If the third party has an issue with that, they can spend their own resources creating their own platform to spread their own ideas.
- wnoise 6y ago
  Ah, the etymological fallacy. Certainly the office of censor started in ancient Rome. However there have been plenty of other censors throughout history, and many that currently exist. Consider: 1. The Catholic Church's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum 2. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority 3. The Hays code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Standards_and_Practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Standards_and_Practi... None of them are governmental. All exist to police speech. In general, merely declining to publish something should probably not be called censorship. It is indeed a fine line between maintaining editorial control and suppressing speech. However, when one publishes just about everything, but excepts certain viewpoints with the explicit goal of suppressing them, the term starts to fit a lot better. Is any of this against the First amendment? Of course not. But it's still clearly censorship.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    If you want to get technical about it, the Catholic Church was deeply embedded in most European governments when the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was issued, and was the official state religion for multiple kingdoms. The Hays Code was issued by the MPAA as a voluntary set of guidelines governing the then vertically-integrated studios and theaters. Importantly, they were not prohibitions on movie content. Many film productions did not adhere to the Hays Code and many independent theaters similarly ignored it. Indeed, the body established to enforce the code did not even how the power to order studious to cut material... The only instance of the Hays Code having an impact on films was during the short Breen era, which lasted only 6 years, and this only affected films shown in vertically-integrated theaters owned by the studios. Independent theaters continued to ignore the Hays Code, as they always did. And the Broadcast Standards was a decency code intended to mollify advertisers, i.e., other private parties, who generally did not want to be associated with certain types of content. As with the Hays Code, it was a series of guidelines, not a prohibition, and late-night shows generally flaunted the Broadcast Standards with impunity. In other words, not censorship... Just private acts of self-interest to protect their market position.