4 ms·

This is so densely hard to respond to. The idea of rhetoric crystallizing is apt here. Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence on the platform

This is so densely hard to respond to. The idea of rhetoric crystallizing is apt here. Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence on the platform? You seem yo be making this grand slippery slope argument, that by banning this person “WHO NEXT”. It’s a nonsensical position. I don’t care who’s next because it’s fucking YouTube and all you have to do to exert your “free speech” is write a book, stage a protest, whatever. When YouTube shut this down, they did not silence this person. They didn’t prevent you from finding this information. Arguing that all speech is being silenced is genuinely idiotic in my view and speaks to a larger persecution complex. YouTube is not the government. If you want it to be, integrate it as a utility or something. But no, I don’t need Nazis or terrorists on YouTube. I’m not afraid of a chilling effect. And I’m genuinely thrilled they’ve been removed from a platform I frequent. Because they suck. On the other hand, I want to see the Tiannemen Square massacre. It is valuable information. Crucial information and information that I want disseminated, preserved, and a part of the platforms I frequent.

pessimizer 6y ago
> Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence on the platform? Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence over the telephone? Not rhetorical; we need to allow someone to advocate for violence over the telephone so we neither have to monitor all phone calls nor come up with and administrate a corporate definition of violence. > On the other hand, I want to see the Tiannemen Square massacre. A patriotic Chinese person asks: Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for terrorism on the platform?
- aspaceman 6y ago
  You’re acting like it’s a constantly sliding scale, that’s it’s impossible to make a decision about what’s good and what’s bad, so no one should make any decisions at all. I disagree emphatically with that position. Denying the Holocaust = bad Tiannemen square protests = good Making these decisions is not impossible and saying we just can’t decide does not track with me as a valid argument. People can tell the difference between Tiannemen and terrorism when you give them the info to do so. You don’t need to show someone nazis and Holocaust denial so they know it exists. I understand the position you take, so don’t be so condescending about “well what would a Chinese person think”. You’re entirely missing my point.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    As long as you happen to be a liberal American, I suppose you’ll never be concerned with letting Google be the one that makes the decisions. Or, you know, unless they happen to ban you for absolutely no reason.
    - shadowsfall 6y ago
      Yup. Only when it's the liberal viewpoint being protected is this whole "free speech doesn't matter" thing relevant. God forbid youtube removes a Don Lemon video, then it's censorship and against the 1st amendment.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I think it is a sliding scale. Should we be permitted to discuss whether the moon landing was faked? Whether 9/11 was an inside job? Whether Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop someplace other than overwhelmingly the most likely place? Whether Trump has ties to Russia? Whether the gender differences in computer programming are satisfactorily explained by choices or not? Are lockdowns still justified? Should we force people to be vaccinated? If so, can we force a first-revision COVID vaccine on everyone? Should capital gains be taxed like ordinary income? Should we have a pledge of allegiance? Should it include “under God”? There are hundreds of tough questions, even if you don’t find any of those difficult to adjudicate (whether they can be discussed and examined). I fall pretty strongly on the “the government shall let everyone discuss everything” side (yes, including Nazi rhetoric and being a racist sphincter), because it’s too easy for me to imagine the danger of leaving the government in the business of judging which thoughts and speech are categorically “acceptable for society”. Society can do that better than the government can, IMO. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - shadowsfall 6y ago
    But here you are advocating for things you agree with being allowed but things you don't being banned. What happens when someone conservative takes over youtube and then they ban what you think is good? I bet you'd change your mind about free speech pretty quickly.

pessimizer 6y ago

> Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence on the platform? Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence over the telephone? Not rhetorical; we need to allow someone to advocate for violence over the telephone so we neither have to monitor all phone calls nor come up with and administrate a corporate definition of violence. > On the other hand, I want to see the Tiannemen Square massacre. A patriotic Chinese person asks: Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for terrorism on the platform?

aspaceman 6y ago
You’re acting like it’s a constantly sliding scale, that’s it’s impossible to make a decision about what’s good and what’s bad, so no one should make any decisions at all. I disagree emphatically with that position. Denying the Holocaust = bad Tiannemen square protests = good Making these decisions is not impossible and saying we just can’t decide does not track with me as a valid argument. People can tell the difference between Tiannemen and terrorism when you give them the info to do so. You don’t need to show someone nazis and Holocaust denial so they know it exists. I understand the position you take, so don’t be so condescending about “well what would a Chinese person think”. You’re entirely missing my point.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  As long as you happen to be a liberal American, I suppose you’ll never be concerned with letting Google be the one that makes the decisions. Or, you know, unless they happen to ban you for absolutely no reason.
  - shadowsfall 6y ago
    Yup. Only when it's the liberal viewpoint being protected is this whole "free speech doesn't matter" thing relevant. God forbid youtube removes a Don Lemon video, then it's censorship and against the 1st amendment.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I think it is a sliding scale. Should we be permitted to discuss whether the moon landing was faked? Whether 9/11 was an inside job? Whether Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop someplace other than overwhelmingly the most likely place? Whether Trump has ties to Russia? Whether the gender differences in computer programming are satisfactorily explained by choices or not? Are lockdowns still justified? Should we force people to be vaccinated? If so, can we force a first-revision COVID vaccine on everyone? Should capital gains be taxed like ordinary income? Should we have a pledge of allegiance? Should it include “under God”? There are hundreds of tough questions, even if you don’t find any of those difficult to adjudicate (whether they can be discussed and examined). I fall pretty strongly on the “the government shall let everyone discuss everything” side (yes, including Nazi rhetoric and being a racist sphincter), because it’s too easy for me to imagine the danger of leaving the government in the business of judging which thoughts and speech are categorically “acceptable for society”. Society can do that better than the government can, IMO. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- shadowsfall 6y ago
  But here you are advocating for things you agree with being allowed but things you don't being banned. What happens when someone conservative takes over youtube and then they ban what you think is good? I bet you'd change your mind about free speech pretty quickly.