3 ms·
Do you think that such people should be banned from content distribution channels?
by ppod 6y ago
Do you think that such people should be banned from content distribution channels?
- scarface74 6y agoYes. You have the right to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to force someone else to publish it. If you want to publish what you want free of interference, pay for your own servers and bandwidth.
- ppod 6y agoOf course, but I'm not asking about what rights distributors should have, I'm asking normatively whether a distributor should ban people like this.
- scarface74 6y agoA distributor is a private business that has the right to ban anyone they want except for protected classes. He can be his own distributor that’s the power of the internet.
- ppod 6y agoOf course. As I said, I'm not asking what rights they have. I'm asking what you think. If you were youtube, would you ban this video?
- scarface74 6y agoI prefer the way that FB does it. If you share information that is false, they overlay it with a warning saying that the post is probably false and let you click on it and view it.
- filoleg 6y agoYou are missing the point. Yes, I fully agree with you that they have the right to remove whatever content they want. And I absolutely don't want that right to be taken away from them. However, I disagree with how they are currently utilizing that power, even though they have full rights to do so. It's kind of similar to how I support the 2nd amendment rights and don't want them to be taken away from people (including open carry). But I disagree with how certain people use it during protests by open-carrying at the airports or in front of the city council building.
- scarface74 6y agoI can see that. But the same reason that I am against the government regulating tech is similar to why my position on gun control has gone from being pro gun control to anti-gun control. The government would probably go out of it’s way to make sure “Focus on the Family” content would be allowed but not “Black Lives Matter” just like they shut down the government in Michigan but the same conservatives passed laws for stricter gun control when minorities started exercising their 2nd amendment rights (the Mulliford Act).
- filoleg 6y agoFully in agreement with you on the actual legal positions regarding both tech and gun control. I am also against government regulating either. But it doesn't mean that I cannot be upset at youtube for exercising their rights in ways that I disagree with. Mind you, I am not calling for a legal action against them or to change laws pertaining to those rights. I am just expressing that they shouldn't be exercising their rights in such a way, but they should still have the legal right to do so. Mostly because I believe that the unintended consequences of regulating that will be much worse (same with gun control).
- stale2002 6y ago> don’t have the right to force someone else to publish it That wasn't the question. The question was should they be banned? I'd say no.
- snowwrestler 6y agoI think that's a much broader question than whether one content distribution company has the right to ban a person from their own channel--which is actually what's happening here. Passive voice makes the situation seem more universal and nefarious than it actually is. "Do you think that such people should be banned from sleeping in houses"? No, but I think I should be allowed to decide who sleeps in my house.