8 ms·

Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.

chroem- 6y ago
Windows 10 is a free subscription, and users don't necessarily own a license of their operating system. Under this precedent, what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? After all, it's a privately owned platform.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  It's not clear that the file itself was removed, only that sharing it was disabled. So no file was deleted. You own the storage space you use when using windows on your personal device.
- jrockway 6y ago
  Windows 10 routinely deletes problematic files from peoples computers; it's called "Windows Defender". Most users are happy to let Microsoft delete malware. The reason that propaganda videos aren't detected as malware because none of these companies give a damn about what you're using your computer or your private storage for. It is a ton of extra work for them to run some censorship side business to specifically annoy conspiracy theorists. The reason that YouTube deletes propaganda videos is because nobody will advertise on them. They cost money to store and serve to viewers, but will never generate revenue. Some are so bad that they drive advertisers away from other videos. All this "censorship" is at the behest of advertisers, or fear of backlash from advertisers. The thing with YouTube is that its greatest power is its greatest weakness. They let anyone in the world serve 4k or 8k videos to an infinite number of users. They find advertisers for your videos and automatically run their ads on your videos, so that you can get cash money from producing them. And, there is a recommendation engine so that viewers can discover your video and channel. With those advantages, come disadvantages -- the service as a whole is called YouTube, and so a bad video on your channel reflects poorly on other channels and the service as a whole. So they have guidelines to protect their success, at the cost of not making all the advantages available to you. That is why there are "guidelines". I am sure if you buy a Google Cloud account and pay for the transfer and storage of your content, and find your own advertisers to fund it, you can host as many conspiracy theory videos as you want and nobody will stop you. But I think you'll find that you make negative money on this proposition. (Also, I personally paid $200 for Windows 10, so I'm not sure how people are getting it for free.)
  - true_religion 6y ago
    If you had a previous version of Windows, the upgrading to Windows 10 was free. Additionally, you can download Windows 10 and never activate it and all it will do is show a watermark indicating it is not activated. You can always pay for Windows. I think Windows 10 Pro is pay only.
    - mlvljr 6y ago
      Still just watermarked, in fact.
      - fao_ 6y ago
        Hi there! It looks like you're shadowbanned, although I don't see the reason why. I vouched for this comment so people can see it, as it doesn't seem to be inherently harmful or against the guidelines. You should probably message Dang.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Defender only puts things into quarantine automatically. Which is annoying, but not as problematic. Deleting or restoring is manual.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? The cost benefit analysis of massively upsetting users. If memory serves, they used to use this method to target Windows piracy.
badlucklottery 6y ago
A lot of "free speech advocates" like to engage in redefinition when it comes to free speech. It becomes some ill-defined ideal that's basically "freedom from consequences of speech" instead of the strict legal definition.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > freedom from consequences of speech Obviously? Freedom of speech that doesn't protect you from consequences, ex. prison time, is an utterly worthless "freedom".
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    I think this is a (willful) misunderstanding of what "consequences" means in the context of the freedom of expression. "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Everybody wants those consequences to be personally beneficial, but that's not embedded within the right itself (and can't be, as that would result in a contradiction in terms between equally just and/or lawful expressions).
    - apostacy 6y ago
      > "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
apostacy 6y ago
The owners of the first telegraph networks banned journalists who reported on forced child labor and union busting. They manipulated elections and stock prices. And you would have defended those robber-barons. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right? Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers, but it's a "private" network, and they are a corporation, so not just do they get to be evil, but smug people will defend them from anyone even criticizing them. A corporation was supposed to provide a public good in exchange for the privileges they are granted. I know that there isn't really anything we can do about it anymore. In many ways they have materially benefited from the public. I don't think it is too much to ask that we get something back.
- pfisch 6y ago
  Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true.
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true. ...I was referring to the telegraph operators. Everything I said was true of them. Right down to the toadies that defend the rich and powerful. But regardless, I think a good case can be made that Google, and the other tech giants, have a near monopoly.
    - pfisch 6y ago
      Then it is a terrible comparison. Google does not control distribution of video content on the web. There are many platforms that could be used to share a movie on the web. That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.
      - apostacy 6y ago
        > That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators. I never said that YouTube was exactly like telegraph operators. I was making a much more general comparison between of communication magnates back then and now. It seems like a pretty direct mapping to me. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past both benefited greatly from the government, and yet they like to claim they are "private platforms", and are therefore entitled to be as evil as they like, as long as it happens on their network. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past did evil stuff. And the free market did not stop them. The people and the government had to restrain them. Facebook and Google are doing some really egregious things. And I think it is going to take direct government sanction to keep them in line. And yes, I do think that effectively Google and a few other companies have a de-facto monopoly on video platforms, due to their vertically integrated infrastructure. I don't think there is a realistic way to exert market pressure against their agenda. Just the tip of the iceberg, but independent journalists/podcasters that tried informing the public about horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses were systemically removed from YouTube. Only organizations deemed "legitimate" are even allowed to upload videos where people use the word "coronavirus" without having their videos demoted, or outright deleted. Independent journalists banned, but Fox and MSNBC are promoted to the front page. Do I seriously have to connect the dots about how companies like Google and Amazon are starting to act very much like 19th century industrialists?
apostacy 6y ago
Their legal immunity as a neutral platform isn't guaranteed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. These private platforms want to be free of the consequences of their actions. They want to pretend to be neutral platforms, like a telephone carrier, but pick who gets to say what on their networks like a publisher. Their censorship goes well beyond complying with the law, or even protecting users from harassment. So, if they want to pretend to be completely private, then they should be treated that way.

Windows 10 is a free subscription, and users don't necessarily own a license of their operating system. Under this precedent, what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? After all, it's a privately owned platform.

joshuamorton 6y ago
It's not clear that the file itself was removed, only that sharing it was disabled. So no file was deleted. You own the storage space you use when using windows on your personal device.
jrockway 6y ago
Windows 10 routinely deletes problematic files from peoples computers; it's called "Windows Defender". Most users are happy to let Microsoft delete malware. The reason that propaganda videos aren't detected as malware because none of these companies give a damn about what you're using your computer or your private storage for. It is a ton of extra work for them to run some censorship side business to specifically annoy conspiracy theorists. The reason that YouTube deletes propaganda videos is because nobody will advertise on them. They cost money to store and serve to viewers, but will never generate revenue. Some are so bad that they drive advertisers away from other videos. All this "censorship" is at the behest of advertisers, or fear of backlash from advertisers. The thing with YouTube is that its greatest power is its greatest weakness. They let anyone in the world serve 4k or 8k videos to an infinite number of users. They find advertisers for your videos and automatically run their ads on your videos, so that you can get cash money from producing them. And, there is a recommendation engine so that viewers can discover your video and channel. With those advantages, come disadvantages -- the service as a whole is called YouTube, and so a bad video on your channel reflects poorly on other channels and the service as a whole. So they have guidelines to protect their success, at the cost of not making all the advantages available to you. That is why there are "guidelines". I am sure if you buy a Google Cloud account and pay for the transfer and storage of your content, and find your own advertisers to fund it, you can host as many conspiracy theory videos as you want and nobody will stop you. But I think you'll find that you make negative money on this proposition. (Also, I personally paid $200 for Windows 10, so I'm not sure how people are getting it for free.)
- true_religion 6y ago
  If you had a previous version of Windows, the upgrading to Windows 10 was free. Additionally, you can download Windows 10 and never activate it and all it will do is show a watermark indicating it is not activated. You can always pay for Windows. I think Windows 10 Pro is pay only.
  - mlvljr 6y ago
    Still just watermarked, in fact.
    - fao_ 6y ago
      Hi there! It looks like you're shadowbanned, although I don't see the reason why. I vouched for this comment so people can see it, as it doesn't seem to be inherently harmful or against the guidelines. You should probably message Dang.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Defender only puts things into quarantine automatically. Which is annoying, but not as problematic. Deleting or restoring is manual.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? The cost benefit analysis of massively upsetting users. If memory serves, they used to use this method to target Windows piracy.

badlucklottery 6y ago

A lot of "free speech advocates" like to engage in redefinition when it comes to free speech. It becomes some ill-defined ideal that's basically "freedom from consequences of speech" instead of the strict legal definition.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> freedom from consequences of speech Obviously? Freedom of speech that doesn't protect you from consequences, ex. prison time, is an utterly worthless "freedom".
- woodruffw 6y ago
  I think this is a (willful) misunderstanding of what "consequences" means in the context of the freedom of expression. "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Everybody wants those consequences to be personally beneficial, but that's not embedded within the right itself (and can't be, as that would result in a contradiction in terms between equally just and/or lawful expressions).
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.
    - woodruffw 6y ago

apostacy 6y ago

The owners of the first telegraph networks banned journalists who reported on forced child labor and union busting. They manipulated elections and stock prices. And you would have defended those robber-barons. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right? Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers, but it's a "private" network, and they are a corporation, so not just do they get to be evil, but smug people will defend them from anyone even criticizing them. A corporation was supposed to provide a public good in exchange for the privileges they are granted. I know that there isn't really anything we can do about it anymore. In many ways they have materially benefited from the public. I don't think it is too much to ask that we get something back.

pfisch 6y ago
Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true.
- apostacy 6y ago
  > Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true. ...I was referring to the telegraph operators. Everything I said was true of them. Right down to the toadies that defend the rich and powerful. But regardless, I think a good case can be made that Google, and the other tech giants, have a near monopoly.
  - pfisch 6y ago
    Then it is a terrible comparison. Google does not control distribution of video content on the web. There are many platforms that could be used to share a movie on the web. That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.
    - apostacy 6y ago
      > That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators. I never said that YouTube was exactly like telegraph operators. I was making a much more general comparison between of communication magnates back then and now. It seems like a pretty direct mapping to me. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past both benefited greatly from the government, and yet they like to claim they are "private platforms", and are therefore entitled to be as evil as they like, as long as it happens on their network. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past did evil stuff. And the free market did not stop them. The people and the government had to restrain them. Facebook and Google are doing some really egregious things. And I think it is going to take direct government sanction to keep them in line. And yes, I do think that effectively Google and a few other companies have a de-facto monopoly on video platforms, due to their vertically integrated infrastructure. I don't think there is a realistic way to exert market pressure against their agenda. Just the tip of the iceberg, but independent journalists/podcasters that tried informing the public about horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses were systemically removed from YouTube. Only organizations deemed "legitimate" are even allowed to upload videos where people use the word "coronavirus" without having their videos demoted, or outright deleted. Independent journalists banned, but Fox and MSNBC are promoted to the front page. Do I seriously have to connect the dots about how companies like Google and Amazon are starting to act very much like 19th century industrialists?

apostacy 6y ago

Their legal immunity as a neutral platform isn't guaranteed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. These private platforms want to be free of the consequences of their actions. They want to pretend to be neutral platforms, like a telephone carrier, but pick who gets to say what on their networks like a publisher. Their censorship goes well beyond complying with the law, or even protecting users from harassment. So, if they want to pretend to be completely private, then they should be treated that way.