4 ms·

I don’t understand the free speech arguments here. Youtube is an advertising platform. They can do what they want with their platform. If I own a billboard, and

by Gatsky 6y ago

I don’t understand the free speech arguments here. Youtube is an advertising platform. They can do what they want with their platform. If I own a billboard, and someone wants to advertise their bags for dead kittens, I can say no. There needs to be some sense of proportionality. If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech. But getting banned from Youtube?

floatingatoll 6y ago
The argument is that people’s individual freedom to speak anything should be held in higher regard than the welfare of society, regardless of what harmful outcomes may come from that speech. It’s a core tenet of American racists and fascists (and, I suspect, conspiracy theorists), because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to convert others to their cause without being silenced by their platforms.
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  You could have applied those arguments to all social progressive movements of the 20th century. Gay rights? Those were considered fundamentally abhorrent perversions, suitable for prison & physical elimination. The 'welfare of society'? We define that as much after the fact as anything else. At one point, that was down to censoring anti-slavery positions. How can you possibly consistently make that determination without censoring, at various points, everything good we've worked for? If you're pro abortion, are you 'converting to the cause' of nihilistic extremism, or are you making reasonable arguments? Who determines that, government censors? Private corporations with effective monopolies on communication channels? That only sounds good if they're run by the people you agree with. They will not always be run by people you agree with.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    It’s always possible to make an incorrect decision in service of the greater good, but that’s no excuse to give up concern for the greater good forever. Your argument also neatly contradicts personal gun ownership: “Someone was shot yesterday by their neighbor during an argument, so we should ban individual possession of weapons since guns have been used to enforce disagreeable opinions on others.”
    - legolas2412 6y ago
      Not the poster, but you can see why gun violence is different. Free speech is different from material harm to others. Also, you can keep pursuing greater good by education and protection of human rights. No need to sacrifice free speech.
      - floatingatoll 6y ago
        > Free speech is different from material harm to others. This is not a universally agreed-upon belief, and is specifically a belief I disagree with. Free speech is just as sharp a blade as any other weapon. We seem to think that weapons can be carried safely because human beings will use good judgement about when to use them. I hold the same belief about speech: it is dangerous when wielded incorrectly, and societies are uniquely vulnerable to it above all other weapons. It's no more appropriate to me to allow wholly unrestricted use of speech than it is to allow wholly unrestricted use of weapons. Most arguments for 'free speech' try to avoid the ethical debate about where the line between 'freedom to say anything' and 'harm to the greater good' is. I consider that line the most critical debate of all. Arguing that speech must never be restricted is just as extremist a view as arguing that speech must always be restricted. I much prefer the position "speech generally doesn't need to be restricted, but I'll make an exception in cases of significant risk/harm to societies".
    - giantDinosaur 6y ago
      The 'greater good' doesn't exist outside of what we say. If we're forbidden from expressing our views on what it should actually be, if you can't find others who express the same views, how is that not equally serving whoever is in power and simply disagrees with what you think is right? The 'greater good' seems far better served by designing platforms to encourage healthy debate rather than playing whack-a-mole with whatever the issue du jour happens to be. For the same reasons we tend to not ban political parties, and hopefully recognise that it's better simply to design superior systems - e.g. not using first past the post or having an independent electoral commission. Censoring to act in the 'greater good' is foolish hubris that can only end badly for those it purports to help the most. And, crucially, when it does start to harm you, how will you speak out about it?
- RavingGoat 6y ago
  You can't yell fire in a movie theater. David Icke is basically doing the same... risking peoples lives so free speech doesn't cover him.
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  Wouldn't we want the exact opposite? Slavery was once the norm, talking out against it was how we actually changed it. Trying to imply that we should censor all those who go against the group is no better than if everyone who was against slavery was killed. It makes no sense in any "free" America where censorship of differing ideas is something we should strive for. When did the public suddenly get too sheltered from reality?
  - Andrex 6y ago
    > Slavery was once the norm, talking out against it was how we actually changed it. Pretty sure you missed a war there.
    - sieabahlpark 6y ago
      Moot point, if the south won, would slavery still be ok? No.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 6y ago
At some point, organizations get so big and so ubiquitous, that they become quasi-governmental organizations. Google shares data with intelligence services, they have close contacts in the administration, they are a near-monopoly in multiple areas, they have a tremendous number of government contracts, they spend more on lobbying in DC than any other organization. If we abdicate our rights to these organizations, the government can simply use them as a mechanism of enforcement that obviates the entire Bill of Rights.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  YouTube is just a video advertising platform. Anyone can host a video virtually anywhere on the internet. You don’t have a right to use YouTube. If you want to upload some videos spreading some fake news propaganda there are quite literally thousands of different sites and services to do that. Google and YouTube have no legal or moral obligation to allow you to use their specific services. The only grey area here is when there is a true monopoly.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I think it's very curious how we see the same people say that Google Must Remove Disinformation, and moments later they say it doesn't matter anyway. Why ask them to remove it then? And besides didn't you (in the plural sense) argue it's up to them as a private company? It's such a mess of contradictions.
    - Gatsky 6y ago
      1. Youtube should remove disinformation, because it is harmful to society and it would be wrong for Youtube and the misinformers to profit from it, a special and unique scenario created by the Youtube platform. It is asking Youtube to exert control over their platform in a way that is likely but not guaranteed, to have net benefit, and not create peverse incentives. 2. Youtube should not remove disinformation because it violates the free speech of the misinformers. Youtube the entity has no rights over the content they deliver, in violation of their own Terms of Use. Any content anyone decides to upload should be allowed, including all the truly horrible stuff they content moderate which you never see. Where is the contradiction?
syrrim 6y ago
>I don’t understand the free speech arguments here. It's pretty simple. Many people rely on youtube's platform to reach viewers. This is the case for youtube recommendations, but also for subscriptions. When youtube bans someone, that person will reach a vastly smaller audience, in effect censoring them. Questions? >I can say no. That is a free speech issue as well. We might decide that you chose correctly, usually on the balance that the dead kittens advertiser has an equivalent platform available to them, but that doesn't rend it out of the arms of free speech >If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech. Free speech is not only a concept in law. Freedom refers to the ability to do something, not only the legal right to do something. Free speech refers to the ability to reach an (non-captive) audience, not a legal right to say things in an empty room.
- Gatsky 6y ago
  Thanks for the response, I do have some questions. How do you decide what constitutes 'many' people? Is vimeo deserving of similar scrutiny or doesn't it reach enough people? What about the video site someone started yesterday that has 2 people on it? What about when Youtube decides not to upload a video because it is in the wrong format? Should we force Youtube to host every video anyone decides to upload? Why does Pornhub not allow David Icke conspiracy videos? Hypothetically speaking, if David Icke uploaded his entire canon to Pornhub, and Pornhub took it down, is that a violation of free speech? What about letters to the editor in a newspaper, are they 'censoring' all the letters they don't publish, or should they start publishing issues that are 300 pages long and cost $10 to include all the letters? Is it really true that I can be obligated to accept an advertisement regardless of the content? How do the free speech Gods 'know' why I didn't accept the advertisement? Perhaps I just don't want to bother dealing with the complaining phone calls, or I am worried about jeopardising future business from pet shops. All these personal freedoms are obliterated in the service of free speech? As I said, I really don't understand the free speech arguments here.
paulnechifor 6y ago
Free speech is the principle that you should let people say whatever they want without censorship or legal consequences (excluding cases where the speech causes direct harm). > They can do what they want with their platform. Of course they can, but they can't then say they believe in free speech. Similarly to "you don't make peace with your friends" : you can't say you're free speech if you only allow information you agree with. What annoys me is when people think that free speech isn't a principle, but just a law in the US which applies to the government only. It's usually: "Hurr duur, it's a private company so it can practice full communism and we should be okay with that." (That said, personally I have mixed feelings about this because I feel like it might be causing harm... Same with the antivaxxer crap.)

by Gatsky 6y ago

floatingatoll 6y ago

The argument is that people’s individual freedom to speak anything should be held in higher regard than the welfare of society, regardless of what harmful outcomes may come from that speech. It’s a core tenet of American racists and fascists (and, I suspect, conspiracy theorists), because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to convert others to their cause without being silenced by their platforms.

giantDinosaur 6y ago
You could have applied those arguments to all social progressive movements of the 20th century. Gay rights? Those were considered fundamentally abhorrent perversions, suitable for prison & physical elimination. The 'welfare of society'? We define that as much after the fact as anything else. At one point, that was down to censoring anti-slavery positions. How can you possibly consistently make that determination without censoring, at various points, everything good we've worked for? If you're pro abortion, are you 'converting to the cause' of nihilistic extremism, or are you making reasonable arguments? Who determines that, government censors? Private corporations with effective monopolies on communication channels? That only sounds good if they're run by the people you agree with. They will not always be run by people you agree with.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  It’s always possible to make an incorrect decision in service of the greater good, but that’s no excuse to give up concern for the greater good forever. Your argument also neatly contradicts personal gun ownership: “Someone was shot yesterday by their neighbor during an argument, so we should ban individual possession of weapons since guns have been used to enforce disagreeable opinions on others.”
  - legolas2412 6y ago
    Not the poster, but you can see why gun violence is different. Free speech is different from material harm to others. Also, you can keep pursuing greater good by education and protection of human rights. No need to sacrifice free speech.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      > Free speech is different from material harm to others. This is not a universally agreed-upon belief, and is specifically a belief I disagree with. Free speech is just as sharp a blade as any other weapon. We seem to think that weapons can be carried safely because human beings will use good judgement about when to use them. I hold the same belief about speech: it is dangerous when wielded incorrectly, and societies are uniquely vulnerable to it above all other weapons. It's no more appropriate to me to allow wholly unrestricted use of speech than it is to allow wholly unrestricted use of weapons. Most arguments for 'free speech' try to avoid the ethical debate about where the line between 'freedom to say anything' and 'harm to the greater good' is. I consider that line the most critical debate of all. Arguing that speech must never be restricted is just as extremist a view as arguing that speech must always be restricted. I much prefer the position "speech generally doesn't need to be restricted, but I'll make an exception in cases of significant risk/harm to societies".
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    The 'greater good' doesn't exist outside of what we say. If we're forbidden from expressing our views on what it should actually be, if you can't find others who express the same views, how is that not equally serving whoever is in power and simply disagrees with what you think is right? The 'greater good' seems far better served by designing platforms to encourage healthy debate rather than playing whack-a-mole with whatever the issue du jour happens to be. For the same reasons we tend to not ban political parties, and hopefully recognise that it's better simply to design superior systems - e.g. not using first past the post or having an independent electoral commission. Censoring to act in the 'greater good' is foolish hubris that can only end badly for those it purports to help the most. And, crucially, when it does start to harm you, how will you speak out about it?
RavingGoat 6y ago
You can't yell fire in a movie theater. David Icke is basically doing the same... risking peoples lives so free speech doesn't cover him.
sieabahlpark 6y ago
Wouldn't we want the exact opposite? Slavery was once the norm, talking out against it was how we actually changed it. Trying to imply that we should censor all those who go against the group is no better than if everyone who was against slavery was killed. It makes no sense in any "free" America where censorship of differing ideas is something we should strive for. When did the public suddenly get too sheltered from reality?
- Andrex 6y ago
  > Slavery was once the norm, talking out against it was how we actually changed it. Pretty sure you missed a war there.
  - sieabahlpark 6y ago
    Moot point, if the south won, would slavery still be ok? No.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

koheripbal 6y ago

At some point, organizations get so big and so ubiquitous, that they become quasi-governmental organizations. Google shares data with intelligence services, they have close contacts in the administration, they are a near-monopoly in multiple areas, they have a tremendous number of government contracts, they spend more on lobbying in DC than any other organization. If we abdicate our rights to these organizations, the government can simply use them as a mechanism of enforcement that obviates the entire Bill of Rights.

cwhiz 6y ago
YouTube is just a video advertising platform. Anyone can host a video virtually anywhere on the internet. You don’t have a right to use YouTube. If you want to upload some videos spreading some fake news propaganda there are quite literally thousands of different sites and services to do that. Google and YouTube have no legal or moral obligation to allow you to use their specific services. The only grey area here is when there is a true monopoly.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I think it's very curious how we see the same people say that Google Must Remove Disinformation, and moments later they say it doesn't matter anyway. Why ask them to remove it then? And besides didn't you (in the plural sense) argue it's up to them as a private company? It's such a mess of contradictions.
  - Gatsky 6y ago
    1. Youtube should remove disinformation, because it is harmful to society and it would be wrong for Youtube and the misinformers to profit from it, a special and unique scenario created by the Youtube platform. It is asking Youtube to exert control over their platform in a way that is likely but not guaranteed, to have net benefit, and not create peverse incentives. 2. Youtube should not remove disinformation because it violates the free speech of the misinformers. Youtube the entity has no rights over the content they deliver, in violation of their own Terms of Use. Any content anyone decides to upload should be allowed, including all the truly horrible stuff they content moderate which you never see. Where is the contradiction?

syrrim 6y ago

>I don’t understand the free speech arguments here. It's pretty simple. Many people rely on youtube's platform to reach viewers. This is the case for youtube recommendations, but also for subscriptions. When youtube bans someone, that person will reach a vastly smaller audience, in effect censoring them. Questions? >I can say no. That is a free speech issue as well. We might decide that you chose correctly, usually on the balance that the dead kittens advertiser has an equivalent platform available to them, but that doesn't rend it out of the arms of free speech >If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech. Free speech is not only a concept in law. Freedom refers to the ability to do something, not only the legal right to do something. Free speech refers to the ability to reach an (non-captive) audience, not a legal right to say things in an empty room.

Gatsky 6y ago
Thanks for the response, I do have some questions. How do you decide what constitutes 'many' people? Is vimeo deserving of similar scrutiny or doesn't it reach enough people? What about the video site someone started yesterday that has 2 people on it? What about when Youtube decides not to upload a video because it is in the wrong format? Should we force Youtube to host every video anyone decides to upload? Why does Pornhub not allow David Icke conspiracy videos? Hypothetically speaking, if David Icke uploaded his entire canon to Pornhub, and Pornhub took it down, is that a violation of free speech? What about letters to the editor in a newspaper, are they 'censoring' all the letters they don't publish, or should they start publishing issues that are 300 pages long and cost $10 to include all the letters? Is it really true that I can be obligated to accept an advertisement regardless of the content? How do the free speech Gods 'know' why I didn't accept the advertisement? Perhaps I just don't want to bother dealing with the complaining phone calls, or I am worried about jeopardising future business from pet shops. All these personal freedoms are obliterated in the service of free speech? As I said, I really don't understand the free speech arguments here.

paulnechifor 6y ago

Free speech is the principle that you should let people say whatever they want without censorship or legal consequences (excluding cases where the speech causes direct harm). > They can do what they want with their platform. Of course they can, but they can't then say they believe in free speech. Similarly to "you don't make peace with your friends" : you can't say you're free speech if you only allow information you agree with. What annoys me is when people think that free speech isn't a principle, but just a law in the US which applies to the government only. It's usually: "Hurr duur, it's a private company so it can practice full communism and we should be okay with that." (That said, personally I have mixed feelings about this because I feel like it might be causing harm... Same with the antivaxxer crap.)