4 ms·

Not sure why people would down vote you - these are private companies we are talking about and they can do what they want I suppose. However I think the real ru

by DiffEq 6y ago

Not sure why people would down vote you - these are private companies we are talking about and they can do what they want I suppose. However I think the real rub here, that people seem to to have a hard time expressing, is that these platforms are blatantly hypocritical in what they allow or don't allow.

luckylion 6y ago
I also don't believe that society generally shares the "private companies can do what they want" point. The Hollywood Blacklist isn't considered as "okay, well, private companies", it's considered wrong. Many people seem to agree that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as what private companies want to do is essentially what they want those companies to do. If the company actions change, so does their stance.
sintaxi 6y ago
Probably getting down-voted because no one appears to be claiming that it is the government doing the censoring.
syshum 6y ago
>Not sure why people would down vote you Because the entire argument is a strawman that censorship advocates often use "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" has the implication that people are calling for the government to step in to block YT actions No one has, people are critical of YT's policy, simply because they have a "right" to do it does not exclude them from public criticism Saying "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" is a pointless observation in the context of this discussion
- stillbourne 6y ago
  I didn't say that private platforms can do what they want. I said private platforms have a right to moderation of content on their platform. Does that not count as freedom of expression? The ability remove content contrary to the intended audience seems like something anyone should be granted. If I host a website for children can anyone post smut? Well I just have to keep it because the poster has a right to post smut, that's their freedom and I guess I can just never violate that ever because free speech is absolute and immutable. Likewise if I host a website for sharing videos can I not moderate what content I want shown? What if I don't want people suing me because someone posted pirated videos on my site. Guess there is nothing I can do, its there and it is immutable and I can never remove it because if I did I would be violating the freedom of expression of the user that posted the content. How is that any different from delisting users that post hate speech? Of course we should delist that content if we don't want it. It's my party and I can cry if I want to.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making Yes they have the legal ability to moderate content under current law. However that does not mean they are beyond criticism, just because they can do something does not mean the SHOULD do something, and if they do everyone has the equal right to voice their displeasure with said action >>Does that not count as freedom of expression? No I do not believe that moderation is "speech" that is dangerously close to the "silence is racist" mantra we are hearing in the wider society. Silence / lack of moderation is not speech, nor is it "endorsement" or anything else Simliarly defense of the concept of free expression is not an endorsement of the speech being defended. Society it seems have lost the axiom of "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" Today you and many others take the approach of "I disagree with what you say so I will pressure platforms to prevent you from saying it" That is the danger in society, because before too long either you (and people that think like you) or the platforms will push for government limit speech.. As I said in another comment, the Law is simply a reflection of the society, it just takes the law awhile to catch up. There are still enough of us that do respect free expression to hold off legal changes, but we diminish in numbers every year which to you I am sure is a good thing. The problem is we are playing chess looking 5 moves ahead and seeing the logical conclusion, where cancel culture people (like yourself) are playing checkers and only looking 1 move ahead I want to pressure the platforms to uphold free expression as an ideal. you want to destroy that.
    - stillbourne 6y ago
      > Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making. It absolutely is a legal argument. Furthermore it is an argument that has been ruled on by the courts. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. That means that as the operator of a platform I as the operator am entitled to my freedom of speech and that as the operator I am allowed to moderate what I want to publish as content. That is a legal fact. Any individual or organization that advocates a message contrary to my views is not entitled to use my platform to spread their message. It's funny how universal toleration advocates don't see that they are the ones that are quashing the free speech of the owner of a platform. Likewise it seems to me that most the universal toleration advocates also usually promote free market principals so why not the let the free market settle this? Don't like that you got deplatformed? Build your own platform. You are entitled to do that. Then on your platform you can advocate as much hate speech as you want.

by DiffEq 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

I also don't believe that society generally shares the "private companies can do what they want" point. The Hollywood Blacklist isn't considered as "okay, well, private companies", it's considered wrong. Many people seem to agree that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as what private companies want to do is essentially what they want those companies to do. If the company actions change, so does their stance.

sintaxi 6y ago

Probably getting down-voted because no one appears to be claiming that it is the government doing the censoring.

syshum 6y ago

>Not sure why people would down vote you Because the entire argument is a strawman that censorship advocates often use "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" has the implication that people are calling for the government to step in to block YT actions No one has, people are critical of YT's policy, simply because they have a "right" to do it does not exclude them from public criticism Saying "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" is a pointless observation in the context of this discussion

stillbourne 6y ago
I didn't say that private platforms can do what they want. I said private platforms have a right to moderation of content on their platform. Does that not count as freedom of expression? The ability remove content contrary to the intended audience seems like something anyone should be granted. If I host a website for children can anyone post smut? Well I just have to keep it because the poster has a right to post smut, that's their freedom and I guess I can just never violate that ever because free speech is absolute and immutable. Likewise if I host a website for sharing videos can I not moderate what content I want shown? What if I don't want people suing me because someone posted pirated videos on my site. Guess there is nothing I can do, its there and it is immutable and I can never remove it because if I did I would be violating the freedom of expression of the user that posted the content. How is that any different from delisting users that post hate speech? Of course we should delist that content if we don't want it. It's my party and I can cry if I want to.
- syshum 6y ago
  Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making Yes they have the legal ability to moderate content under current law. However that does not mean they are beyond criticism, just because they can do something does not mean the SHOULD do something, and if they do everyone has the equal right to voice their displeasure with said action >>Does that not count as freedom of expression? No I do not believe that moderation is "speech" that is dangerously close to the "silence is racist" mantra we are hearing in the wider society. Silence / lack of moderation is not speech, nor is it "endorsement" or anything else Simliarly defense of the concept of free expression is not an endorsement of the speech being defended. Society it seems have lost the axiom of "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" Today you and many others take the approach of "I disagree with what you say so I will pressure platforms to prevent you from saying it" That is the danger in society, because before too long either you (and people that think like you) or the platforms will push for government limit speech.. As I said in another comment, the Law is simply a reflection of the society, it just takes the law awhile to catch up. There are still enough of us that do respect free expression to hold off legal changes, but we diminish in numbers every year which to you I am sure is a good thing. The problem is we are playing chess looking 5 moves ahead and seeing the logical conclusion, where cancel culture people (like yourself) are playing checkers and only looking 1 move ahead I want to pressure the platforms to uphold free expression as an ideal. you want to destroy that.
  - stillbourne 6y ago
    > Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making. It absolutely is a legal argument. Furthermore it is an argument that has been ruled on by the courts. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. That means that as the operator of a platform I as the operator am entitled to my freedom of speech and that as the operator I am allowed to moderate what I want to publish as content. That is a legal fact. Any individual or organization that advocates a message contrary to my views is not entitled to use my platform to spread their message. It's funny how universal toleration advocates don't see that they are the ones that are quashing the free speech of the owner of a platform. Likewise it seems to me that most the universal toleration advocates also usually promote free market principals so why not the let the free market settle this? Don't like that you got deplatformed? Build your own platform. You are entitled to do that. Then on your platform you can advocate as much hate speech as you want.