3 ms·

? There is only the simple observation that there is a spectrum: free speech -> deplatforming [ban from youtube & co] -> deinfrastructuring [ban from paypal /

by pacala 6y ago

? There is only the simple observation that there is a spectrum: free speech -> deplatforming [ban from youtube & co] -> deinfrastructuring [ban from paypal / aws & co] -> depersoning [physical exile to periphery] -> lethal force. I seem to remember a time of nuanced conversations. But perhaps online discourse was always an adversarial contest between two strident extremes. Enjoy.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
No, you are just playing word games. "Free speech" does not and has never meant "the right to get any letter to the editor published in the New York Times" and therefore does not mean "the right to get any video I want on YouTube." So it is not a "simple observation" that deinfrastructring -> depersoning is a spectrum. There is no such spectrum. There is an enormous gap between "society thinks you're icky and big corporations won't host your content" and "the state sends you to Siberia," since one is clearly a human rights violation and one is clearly not. Likewise there is an enormous gap between "Simon and Schuster rejected my novel!" and "the FBI busted the printing shop I hired to print my novel." YouTube removing this guy's video is very clearly in the former category. I am aware that it is out-of-reach for many individuals to create their own website which can host videos. But a right to free speech does not mean a right to any content distribution platform you want. It also whitewashes the issue at hand: this professor is a notorious crank and has been a notorious crank long before COVID-19. This is not a free-thinker taking a bold stand against a sclerotic public health bureaucracy. This is a con artist spreading dangerous misinformation during the worst public health emergency in 100 years. YouTube removing his content is not just them suppressing views they politically disagree with, it's also individual employees at YouTube viewing this interview as a imminent threat to their family's health and safety. This is a very reasonable view for private individuals and private corporations running private infrastructure to take. Look: if he starts his own website self-hosting COVID quackery, and the government shuts it down, then that really is Soviet-level and I will take your argument more seriously (though given the vicious threat COVID-19 poses, I am open to the idea that this is an extreme but necessary use of the government's emergency powers). But it is simply ridiculous to say that YouTube can't moderate their own content, especially when 99% of the world's doctor's and public health officials would describe the video as dangerous misinformation. But your self-pitying shtick about how you're a lone voice of moderation in a sea of adversarial extremes is nice. It's not quite as nice as bringing back 90,000 Americans from the dead but it probably made you feel nice about yourself.
- jobsmusk 6y ago
  You don't give a shit about free speech or any of this, you just agree with the censorship and backwards rationalize it. Your "crank" labels expose this. Your hilarious "this interview as a imminent threat to their family's health and safety" expose this. You'd fit right in communist China, the only condition for you would be agreement without any sign of democratic values. Google has a massive monopoly, it's disingenuous to say they can do whatever they want and thats fair for the sake of free speech and spreading ideas. But even then, don't worry, Youtube's already taken a massive hit with Joe Rogan which is probably just a start and free market will take care of this problem anyway. Nobody likes control freaks, so yeah, I agree with you, let them moderate themselves into myspace. Secondly, do you think people are dumb sheep who need to be told what to think and do? If this "crank" is spreading life threatening information, like your genius mind thinks, wouldn't sensible people be able to decide that for themselves?

by pacala 6y ago

ojnabieoot 6y ago

No, you are just playing word games. "Free speech" does not and has never meant "the right to get any letter to the editor published in the New York Times" and therefore does not mean "the right to get any video I want on YouTube." So it is not a "simple observation" that deinfrastructring -> depersoning is a spectrum. There is no such spectrum. There is an enormous gap between "society thinks you're icky and big corporations won't host your content" and "the state sends you to Siberia," since one is clearly a human rights violation and one is clearly not. Likewise there is an enormous gap between "Simon and Schuster rejected my novel!" and "the FBI busted the printing shop I hired to print my novel." YouTube removing this guy's video is very clearly in the former category. I am aware that it is out-of-reach for many individuals to create their own website which can host videos. But a right to free speech does not mean a right to any content distribution platform you want. It also whitewashes the issue at hand: this professor is a notorious crank and has been a notorious crank long before COVID-19. This is not a free-thinker taking a bold stand against a sclerotic public health bureaucracy. This is a con artist spreading dangerous misinformation during the worst public health emergency in 100 years. YouTube removing his content is not just them suppressing views they politically disagree with, it's also individual employees at YouTube viewing this interview as a imminent threat to their family's health and safety. This is a very reasonable view for private individuals and private corporations running private infrastructure to take. Look: if he starts his own website self-hosting COVID quackery, and the government shuts it down, then that really is Soviet-level and I will take your argument more seriously (though given the vicious threat COVID-19 poses, I am open to the idea that this is an extreme but necessary use of the government's emergency powers). But it is simply ridiculous to say that YouTube can't moderate their own content, especially when 99% of the world's doctor's and public health officials would describe the video as dangerous misinformation. But your self-pitying shtick about how you're a lone voice of moderation in a sea of adversarial extremes is nice. It's not quite as nice as bringing back 90,000 Americans from the dead but it probably made you feel nice about yourself.

jobsmusk 6y ago
You don't give a shit about free speech or any of this, you just agree with the censorship and backwards rationalize it. Your "crank" labels expose this. Your hilarious "this interview as a imminent threat to their family's health and safety" expose this. You'd fit right in communist China, the only condition for you would be agreement without any sign of democratic values. Google has a massive monopoly, it's disingenuous to say they can do whatever they want and thats fair for the sake of free speech and spreading ideas. But even then, don't worry, Youtube's already taken a massive hit with Joe Rogan which is probably just a start and free market will take care of this problem anyway. Nobody likes control freaks, so yeah, I agree with you, let them moderate themselves into myspace. Secondly, do you think people are dumb sheep who need to be told what to think and do? If this "crank" is spreading life threatening information, like your genius mind thinks, wouldn't sensible people be able to decide that for themselves?