2 ms·
>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 r
by 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 agoThanks 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.