5 ms·

To be fair, Google is in a no-win situation. Post-2016 election, there has been enormous pressure put on Google (and Facebook and Twitter) to ramp up their cens

To be fair, Google is in a no-win situation. Post-2016 election, there has been enormous pressure put on Google (and Facebook and Twitter) to ramp up their censorship from the anti-Trump center/center-left/left. The mainstream media is on it too and relishes taking shots at social media every chance they get (the YouTube 'adpocalypse' was spurned by a hit piece by Washington Post against some minor doofus thing that PewdiePie did, and explicitly targetted advertisers of YouTube). Even tech commentators are in on it. Kara Swisher, for example, has been railing at social media companies every chance she gets to get them to ramp up censorship against things she deems offensive.

newacct583 6y ago
Off topic, but this framing really struck me: > the anti-Trump center/center-left/left So... basically everyone who isn't a Trump supporter, then? Is that really how you see the world? The president of the united states vs. literally everyone else? And you've chosen the political side instead of the social consensus?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >So... basically everyone who isn't a Trump supporter, then? No. There are plenty of non-Trump supporters[1] who don't care for YouTube censorship. However, the calls for censorship and pressure on social media companies came as a result of the panic-induced from Trump's election and Russian election interference, which does correlate with anti-Trump voices, more specifically Democratic party establishment and their supporters. Those aren't the only voices to call for censorship. There is also a parallel cultural war that pressures social media companies to censor hate-speech (as defined by supporters). This tends to generate a lot of noise from both sides, but I think it's probably minor in the grand scheme of things. That Democrats in Congress are cracking down on social media is by far a much bigger deal - because they can actually punish these companies through laws and regulation - and they have been threatening to do so. [1] I supported Hillary in 2016 because, for all her faults and unlikability, she would have been a reasonable and competent leader. So no, I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I also don't pearl-clutch every time he says something dumb on Twitter or in a press conference. In a similar vein, though I think he should be a one-term president, I don't think it's an existential threat if he gets elected again.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > Democrats in Congress are cracking down on social media is by far a much bigger deal What legislation are you talking about? I mean... they only have one house of congress. I'm sure there's some rhetoric somewhere, but it's just rhetoric. I mean, the POTUS himself routinely calls for censorship of the news media, but it's likewise "just rhetoric" because he can't unilaterally pass laws (though he can come closer than the house can). Does that not trigger your same logic? If not, why not?
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >What legislation are you talking about? I mean... they only have one house of congress. They can investigate and haul social media CEOs in front of the House - which they have done routinely, blaming them for things like Russian interference and Hillary losing the election. And any bull the Democrats throw out there against tech companies is magnified by mainstream outlets - who really do act like the arm of the establishment Democratic party when echoing Democratic talking points. And elections are cyclical, today Democrats have the House, in 2021 they could have all three branches. Maybe none of that would matter if it wasn't the case that these tech companies are ACTUALLY listening to these calls for censorship, even if Democrats have no power today. >he POTUS himself routinely calls for censorship of the news media POTUS is a doofus that mouths of all the time on twitter and press conferences and nobody (not social media companies, not the public) takes him seriously, with the exception of mainstream media outlets. It's been 3 years, and still, every tweet is the end of the world. He does have a lot of power to do a lot of things but he doesn't all those things, but the pearl-clutching that happens by the mainstream outlets anytime Trump tweets is now a joke on the media. And the media is stronger than ever under Trump, even after years of fawning over the Obama administration.

newacct583 6y ago

Off topic, but this framing really struck me: > the anti-Trump center/center-left/left So... basically everyone who isn't a Trump supporter, then? Is that really how you see the world? The president of the united states vs. literally everyone else? And you've chosen the political side instead of the social consensus?

macspoofing 6y ago
>So... basically everyone who isn't a Trump supporter, then? No. There are plenty of non-Trump supporters[1] who don't care for YouTube censorship. However, the calls for censorship and pressure on social media companies came as a result of the panic-induced from Trump's election and Russian election interference, which does correlate with anti-Trump voices, more specifically Democratic party establishment and their supporters. Those aren't the only voices to call for censorship. There is also a parallel cultural war that pressures social media companies to censor hate-speech (as defined by supporters). This tends to generate a lot of noise from both sides, but I think it's probably minor in the grand scheme of things. That Democrats in Congress are cracking down on social media is by far a much bigger deal - because they can actually punish these companies through laws and regulation - and they have been threatening to do so. [1] I supported Hillary in 2016 because, for all her faults and unlikability, she would have been a reasonable and competent leader. So no, I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I also don't pearl-clutch every time he says something dumb on Twitter or in a press conference. In a similar vein, though I think he should be a one-term president, I don't think it's an existential threat if he gets elected again.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Democrats in Congress are cracking down on social media is by far a much bigger deal What legislation are you talking about? I mean... they only have one house of congress. I'm sure there's some rhetoric somewhere, but it's just rhetoric. I mean, the POTUS himself routinely calls for censorship of the news media, but it's likewise "just rhetoric" because he can't unilaterally pass laws (though he can come closer than the house can). Does that not trigger your same logic? If not, why not?
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >What legislation are you talking about? I mean... they only have one house of congress. They can investigate and haul social media CEOs in front of the House - which they have done routinely, blaming them for things like Russian interference and Hillary losing the election. And any bull the Democrats throw out there against tech companies is magnified by mainstream outlets - who really do act like the arm of the establishment Democratic party when echoing Democratic talking points. And elections are cyclical, today Democrats have the House, in 2021 they could have all three branches. Maybe none of that would matter if it wasn't the case that these tech companies are ACTUALLY listening to these calls for censorship, even if Democrats have no power today. >he POTUS himself routinely calls for censorship of the news media POTUS is a doofus that mouths of all the time on twitter and press conferences and nobody (not social media companies, not the public) takes him seriously, with the exception of mainstream media outlets. It's been 3 years, and still, every tweet is the end of the world. He does have a lot of power to do a lot of things but he doesn't all those things, but the pearl-clutching that happens by the mainstream outlets anytime Trump tweets is now a joke on the media. And the media is stronger than ever under Trump, even after years of fawning over the Obama administration.