7 ms·
Private companies control what information they publish, not what information "people are allowed to see". To the general audience: the rhetoric of the parent
by uoaei 6y ago
Private companies control what information they publish, not what information "people are allowed to see".
To the general audience: the rhetoric of the parent comment is designed to blur the lines and invite accusations of "censorship" where none apply.
- teeray 6y agoIs there some information that people can see that a company chooses not to publish?
- uoaei 6y agoWhat even is this question? I mean, absent further context, the answer is "obviously, yes."
- teeray 6y agoSorry, “can” was misleading there since you can obviously get information elsewhere. What I’m wondering is: If a company chooses not to publish something, how is that different than deciding what people are allowed to see?
- uoaei 6y agoGoogle does not have operational control over humans' bodies.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lolc 6y agoIf we're looking at what things have control over our bodies, the Youtube Sidebar cannot be dismissed as inconsequential.
- openyoureyesman 6y agoThey certainly don't have any control over me any more, after I ripped out all of their malware from Chromium by the roots, blocked all of their web trackers, and last but not least, quit using their Big Brother email service. I'm guessing the same doesn't apply to you.
- SamBam 6y agoIf a publisher decides not to publish my book, they are not "deciding what people are allowed to see."
- teeray 6y agoYes, all publishers being equal, true. But what if the publisher controlled most of the book stores that only carried their books? Would they then decide what people see if they chose not to publish?
- spenczar5 6y agoIt’s different because they can get it elsewhere. Government censorship makes any source illegal. Extreme government censorship puts you in jail for reading about a dangerous idea. A company censoring information on their platform seems deeply different, no?
- dwheeler 6y ago> A company censoring information on their platform seems deeply different, no? Not necessarily; I think that is the crux of the discussion. From a legal point of view it is deeply different. From a practical point of view it's not so clear. If a video isn't on Youtube, for many it's the same as not existing at all. For example, my Roku can show YouTube videos, but cannot access arbitrary urls. In general, platforms are not supposed to discriminate, while Publishers do. This particular case makes that distinction far less obvious. I'd like to see some alternative, such as markings, instead of a simple include or not.
- uoaei 6y agoYour points are related to user behavior, not platform-provider behavior.
- jessedhillon 6y agoAnyone making this point needs to explain why I'm supposed to accept their de jure interpretation of the situation, when de facto, large platforms monopolize distribution. Simply saying "private company" is so lazy, it's not even wrestling with the issue.
- uoaei 6y agoTake it up with GP then, they're the one complaining about "private company".
- zuminator 6y agoBased upon my existing preferences, I already never see these conspiracy theories on YouTube, nor Twitter or Facebook, for that matter. Yet I'm quite familiar with them via a panoply of other sources. So I think you have to do more then just baldly assert that these platforms monopolize information distribution. The fact that there are a lot of platforms with different editorial rules is the exact opposite of a monopoly.
- jessedhillon 6y agoCertainly, a quick search can show you that the overwhelming majority of video views occur on a small number of platforms, and that you are an outlier. If I am someone who has a message to share, far and away the most effective place to share that as a video would be YT, hands down. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that all of these platforms are converging on the same definitions of safe speech anyhow, so the diversity is nominal.
- zests 6y agoIs youtube a platform or a publisher?
- uoaei 6y agoPointless distinction, only meant to muddy the waters.
- jelliclesfarm 6y agoIt is not pointless. A platform cannot be sued. A publisher needs to maintain journalistic integrity when it publishes. Can’t be both.
- dwheeler 6y agoYoutube, at least up to now, is a platform not a publisher. Part of the muddying is that it is very difficult for people to see information if it is not on one of these major publishers or platforms. Information that is legal to present, but no one will ever see, may as well not exist.
- moultano 6y agohttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- vkou 6y agoMy personal opinion: The answer to that question is "Yes." A platform is a particular kind of publisher, and a publisher is a particular kind of platform. 'Publisher' and 'Platform' are two overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.
- chipotle_coyote 6y agoThe now somewhat controversial Section 230 of the CDA would classify YouTube as an "interactive computer service," and the actual text of the law says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Videos pushing to delegitimize the entire democratic process could certainly be considered "otherwise objectionable". That would be subjective, to be sure, and perhaps challengeable, but I'm going to bet that Google had a lot of discussions with their legal team before taking this action. tl;dr: being a "platform" is neither a Get Out of Lawsuits Free card nor a requirement for content to be unmoderated.