4 ms·

HN is a niche community focused on startups and tech. Youtube is the monopoly on user-uploaded video content and has 2 billion users.

chrononaut 6y ago
I am unsure of your argument. Are you saying that the size of the company factors into what policies it can enforce? i.e., smaller companies can have more freedom in policing content, but if an undefined critical mass is reached (perhaps market share), they should have less flexibility on curated content? Or is it a factor of what it's trying to build? e.g., if YouTube only focused on hosting political content, should they be allowed to censor that content or shape what is permitted?
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  Yes the size most certainly matters, obviously Facebook should be held to a different standard than some niche social network for pet owners with 100 users. Monopolies should be held to a different standard. I'd argue that the nature of the business should factor into it as well. Since Youtube advertises and presents itself as a platform where any user can upload any kind of content excluding pornography and dark stuff (eg. animal abuse), I don't think that censoring on the basis of political views alone is justified (I'm not familiar with David Icke, so I can't speak for this specific incident).
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    >Since Youtube advertises and presents itself as a platform where any user can upload any kind of content excluding pornography and dark stuff (eg. animal abuse), I don't think that censoring on the basis of political views alone is justified YouTube is pretty clear about their stance on what is and is not allowed. They have made it very clear, in particular, that coronavirus misinformation is not allowed. I see little difference between choosing to censor pornography and choosing to censor coronavirus misinformation. Both are protected speech in the USA but they are both also things that are allowed (and is reasonable to) censor if the platform wishes.
- occamrazor 6y ago
  GP argument is similar to the common carrier argument. Some communication channels (e.g. post, telephone, and maybe YouTube) are so pervasive, important, without comparable alternatives, that they should be considered as common goods and regulated as public services, rather than private companies. In particular freedom of speech applies to their users.
  - hysan 6y ago
    I would be for the common carrier argument if the logical extension that YouTube also gains the protections afforded to common carriers. No more having big companies get special treatment in abusing the Content ID system. As much as I dislike YouTube’s policies in general, I find it difficult to argue against their current actions simply because powerful entities are already abusing the system behind the scenes to moderate content themselves.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Why should the size of the community matter? Under what rationale are you going to decide that HN can moderate but YT cannot?
- rlt 6y ago
  Platforms that are monopolies or close to it are essentially the modern day town square, except instead of police and government enforcing rules, it's tech companies.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    The courts have made it quite clear that they’re unwilling to consider companies to be similar to the “town square” unless if they’re doing literally what governments have traditionally done. There is no clear way to argue that YT is doing something that governments traditionally did, so you’re out of luck there. If you believe YT is a monopoly, then it would be far less harmful to everyone if it was just broken up, rather than basically banning moderation on the internet.
    - rlt 6y ago
      You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?
        jshevek 6y ago
        In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' to set aside the decisions of the courts and the letter of the law.

chrononaut 6y ago

I am unsure of your argument. Are you saying that the size of the company factors into what policies it can enforce? i.e., smaller companies can have more freedom in policing content, but if an undefined critical mass is reached (perhaps market share), they should have less flexibility on curated content? Or is it a factor of what it's trying to build? e.g., if YouTube only focused on hosting political content, should they be allowed to censor that content or shape what is permitted?

JSavageOne 6y ago
Yes the size most certainly matters, obviously Facebook should be held to a different standard than some niche social network for pet owners with 100 users. Monopolies should be held to a different standard. I'd argue that the nature of the business should factor into it as well. Since Youtube advertises and presents itself as a platform where any user can upload any kind of content excluding pornography and dark stuff (eg. animal abuse), I don't think that censoring on the basis of political views alone is justified (I'm not familiar with David Icke, so I can't speak for this specific incident).
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >Since Youtube advertises and presents itself as a platform where any user can upload any kind of content excluding pornography and dark stuff (eg. animal abuse), I don't think that censoring on the basis of political views alone is justified YouTube is pretty clear about their stance on what is and is not allowed. They have made it very clear, in particular, that coronavirus misinformation is not allowed. I see little difference between choosing to censor pornography and choosing to censor coronavirus misinformation. Both are protected speech in the USA but they are both also things that are allowed (and is reasonable to) censor if the platform wishes.
occamrazor 6y ago
GP argument is similar to the common carrier argument. Some communication channels (e.g. post, telephone, and maybe YouTube) are so pervasive, important, without comparable alternatives, that they should be considered as common goods and regulated as public services, rather than private companies. In particular freedom of speech applies to their users.
- hysan 6y ago
  I would be for the common carrier argument if the logical extension that YouTube also gains the protections afforded to common carriers. No more having big companies get special treatment in abusing the Content ID system. As much as I dislike YouTube’s policies in general, I find it difficult to argue against their current actions simply because powerful entities are already abusing the system behind the scenes to moderate content themselves.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Why should the size of the community matter? Under what rationale are you going to decide that HN can moderate but YT cannot?

rlt 6y ago
Platforms that are monopolies or close to it are essentially the modern day town square, except instead of police and government enforcing rules, it's tech companies.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The courts have made it quite clear that they’re unwilling to consider companies to be similar to the “town square” unless if they’re doing literally what governments have traditionally done. There is no clear way to argue that YT is doing something that governments traditionally did, so you’re out of luck there. If you believe YT is a monopoly, then it would be far less harmful to everyone if it was just broken up, rather than basically banning moderation on the internet.
  - rlt 6y ago
    You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?
      - jshevek 6y ago
        In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' to set aside the decisions of the courts and the letter of the law.