4 ms·

The problem is who decides what's a "bad idea"? Every group has its own list, whether it's Scientology, the CCP, NAMBLA, PITA, etc. What group do you trust wi

The problem is who decides what's a "bad idea"? Every group has its own list, whether it's Scientology, the CCP, NAMBLA, PITA, etc. What group do you trust with defining your list of "bad ideas"? Historically the "bad idea" list has been generated by whoever rules/controls you. Why do you think it's different this time?

stevebmark 6y ago
Yes, this is a completely valid question. In this specific case: Do you think it's bad for YouTube to be active in reducing the spread of this information? Because to me it's almost self evident it shouldn't be entertained as a valid idea. I might also ask why you aren't protesting Hacker News having moderators? Content is deleted from this platform all the time.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Again, the issue is the abuse of power. Google is very nearly a quasi-government organization. They have endless government contracts, they spend more on DC lobbying than anyone else, and they actively share data with US intelligence agencies. At some point, the laws that protect us from government, must also apply to these massive quasi-government monopolies - or they quickly become worthless.
  - chrononaut 6y ago
    > At some point, the laws that protect us from government, must also apply to these massive quasi-government monopolies - or they quickly become worthless. Except that Google cannot arrest you, prosecute you, sentence you to prison or limit any other right you might have. The best that they can do is no longer letting your voice be heard on their service because you have violated one of their _stated_ guidelines. If corporations were doing this in secret, that's a little bit different, but Google is being very forthcoming on the guidelines they are setting.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    I would venture that the government should be protecting its people from misinformation like Icke's (after all, they enforce things like "truth in advertising", "medicines must state side effects", etc.) and not leaving it up to YouTube.
    - samiru 6y ago
      The problem is, the "protection" and "regulation" quickly become tools to eliminate your political enemies. In some ways this is already happening in the western world. We are becoming what we used to oppose against to.
      - DangitBobby 6y ago
        Is protection against fraudulent advertising, poisonous food, products, and "medicine" being used to eliminate political enemies? If so, is it not worth it to limit the ability to lie to prevent the massive ensuing harm?
- thebean11 6y ago
  > I might also ask why you aren't protesting Hacker News having moderators? Content is deleted from this platform all the time. You don't see the difference between debating whether there should be moderators and debating what those moderators should do? Nobody is questioning whether YouTube should moderate its platform. We are questioning how they moderate it.
- dang 6y ago
  Moderators don't delete content on HN in the sense of removing it altogether. The most we do is kill it, meaning remove it from the default view of the site—but anyone with 'showdead' set to 'yes' in their profile can still see it.

stevebmark 6y ago

Yes, this is a completely valid question. In this specific case: Do you think it's bad for YouTube to be active in reducing the spread of this information? Because to me it's almost self evident it shouldn't be entertained as a valid idea. I might also ask why you aren't protesting Hacker News having moderators? Content is deleted from this platform all the time.

koheripbal 6y ago
Again, the issue is the abuse of power. Google is very nearly a quasi-government organization. They have endless government contracts, they spend more on DC lobbying than anyone else, and they actively share data with US intelligence agencies. At some point, the laws that protect us from government, must also apply to these massive quasi-government monopolies - or they quickly become worthless.
- chrononaut 6y ago
  > At some point, the laws that protect us from government, must also apply to these massive quasi-government monopolies - or they quickly become worthless. Except that Google cannot arrest you, prosecute you, sentence you to prison or limit any other right you might have. The best that they can do is no longer letting your voice be heard on their service because you have violated one of their _stated_ guidelines. If corporations were doing this in secret, that's a little bit different, but Google is being very forthcoming on the guidelines they are setting.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  I would venture that the government should be protecting its people from misinformation like Icke's (after all, they enforce things like "truth in advertising", "medicines must state side effects", etc.) and not leaving it up to YouTube.
  - samiru 6y ago
    The problem is, the "protection" and "regulation" quickly become tools to eliminate your political enemies. In some ways this is already happening in the western world. We are becoming what we used to oppose against to.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      Is protection against fraudulent advertising, poisonous food, products, and "medicine" being used to eliminate political enemies? If so, is it not worth it to limit the ability to lie to prevent the massive ensuing harm?
thebean11 6y ago
> I might also ask why you aren't protesting Hacker News having moderators? Content is deleted from this platform all the time. You don't see the difference between debating whether there should be moderators and debating what those moderators should do? Nobody is questioning whether YouTube should moderate its platform. We are questioning how they moderate it.
dang 6y ago
Moderators don't delete content on HN in the sense of removing it altogether. The most we do is kill it, meaning remove it from the default view of the site—but anyone with 'showdead' set to 'yes' in their profile can still see it.