3 ms·

It’s an issue that’s difficult to distill in a way that could work as a law or as a winning argument against snarky commenters playing Devil’s Advocate. In theo

It’s an issue that’s difficult to distill in a way that could work as a law or as a winning argument against snarky commenters playing Devil’s Advocate. In theory the line between rules and censorship is vague and grey, but in practice it’s pretty easy to tell what is rule enforcement and what is political censorship. I guess a good place to start would be examining the rules of a website and determining if the takedowns follow the rules and the rules are not overly broad.

close04 6y ago
While banning or deleting accounts could go all the way from legitimate to oppression, it doesn't seem like banning the account of someone spreading false information that leads to dangerous situations to be an abuse in any way. Yes, we have to hold YouTube to higher standards than others simply because of the disproportionate power the platform has. But this doesn't change the fact that in such cases the measure was warranted. People constantly misunderstand "freedom of speech" as something that somehow entitles one to trample over someone else's freedom. For example every time there's a discussion about "hate speech" someone will say that the laws are routinely abused to punish people for their legitimate free opinions. Yet no such examples of routine abuse are ever given. There's room for common sense when judging a situation. Common sense can't be put in law but you also can't really judge these gray areas without it.
- SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
  >Yes, we have to hold YouTube to higher standards than others simply because of the disproportionate power the platform has. That's rather conclusory.
  - close04 6y ago
    Well there are 2 aspects for this. Laws in general consider magnitude and criticality when defining measures. So would a judge. YouTube's reach implicitly means the potential for abuse is orders of magnitude higher. And the effects of that abuse are far more dangerous than what a small platform can induce. The other part, the one I was mostly referring to, is moral. I know, it's a company, it doesn't need to have morals. But this shouldn't stop people from holding them to a higher standard. With a flip of the algorithmic switch platforms like YouTube or Facebook can influence results of elections, escalate social issues over the tipping point, etc. Can you honestly say that my conclusion needed too much explaining?

close04 6y ago

While banning or deleting accounts could go all the way from legitimate to oppression, it doesn't seem like banning the account of someone spreading false information that leads to dangerous situations to be an abuse in any way. Yes, we have to hold YouTube to higher standards than others simply because of the disproportionate power the platform has. But this doesn't change the fact that in such cases the measure was warranted. People constantly misunderstand "freedom of speech" as something that somehow entitles one to trample over someone else's freedom. For example every time there's a discussion about "hate speech" someone will say that the laws are routinely abused to punish people for their legitimate free opinions. Yet no such examples of routine abuse are ever given. There's room for common sense when judging a situation. Common sense can't be put in law but you also can't really judge these gray areas without it.

SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
>Yes, we have to hold YouTube to higher standards than others simply because of the disproportionate power the platform has. That's rather conclusory.
- close04 6y ago
  Well there are 2 aspects for this. Laws in general consider magnitude and criticality when defining measures. So would a judge. YouTube's reach implicitly means the potential for abuse is orders of magnitude higher. And the effects of that abuse are far more dangerous than what a small platform can induce. The other part, the one I was mostly referring to, is moral. I know, it's a company, it doesn't need to have morals. But this shouldn't stop people from holding them to a higher standard. With a flip of the algorithmic switch platforms like YouTube or Facebook can influence results of elections, escalate social issues over the tipping point, etc. Can you honestly say that my conclusion needed too much explaining?