7 ms·
The way to preserve free speech (really "free promotion" or "free publishing" in this case, as there are other avenues for these videos) is exactly what you say
by bonaldi 6y ago
The way to preserve free speech (really "free promotion" or "free publishing" in this case, as there are other avenues for these videos) is exactly what you say — consequences. Newspapers have free speech, but are subject to libel laws, for instance.
There's no real mechanism to hold YouTube to account for promoting and spreading this stuff, and they are naturally incentivised for that mechanism never to come about. To try and ensure it never does, they're obviously settling for this.
Want "free speech" back? Give it meaningful consequences.
- leetcrew 6y agoyoutubers are also subject to libel (or slander?) laws. the ones with a large audience also make enough money to be worth pursuing in court. newspapers are no more liable than youtubers for merely being incorrect.
- bonaldi 6y agowell consider the laws mandating equality of coverage in broadcasting in some jurisdictions if you like — those apply directly to the publishers, not the content creators. The core point is the same: the platforms want to avoid enforced regulation, so they're self-regulating in ways that free-speech proponents don't like
- Nasrudith 6y agoFunny how consequences always means bad ones, "people who say something I don't like get the stick!" and then later "I never thought I would get the stick sobs person brutalized with stick!". Free speech is sancrosanct for a reason.
- bonaldi 6y agoWhere do you get the idea that free speech means "freedom from consequences"? You're allowed to say offensive things, but you're not immune from (eg) getting fired for it
- antepodius 6y agoYou're free to say what you want- but not from the secret police hauling you off to a gulag for it.
- dgb23 6y agoConsequences doesn’t just mean punishment.