5 ms·

We may have the freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that Youtube has to give you a megaphone?

disgrunt 6y ago
Why should YouTube have a megaphone to give in the first place? Last I checked, there are still laws on the books to handle companies with >90% market shares. [0] [0]: https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/ https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/
- uoaei 6y ago
  Good, so we agree that this is not an anti-censorship issue but an anti-trust issue. Private entities can't censor anything, anyhow. Independently and freely choosing which sentiments to platform on a private service is not censorship, no matter how far anyone tries to stretch the definition of the term.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    Yes, but back then we had the party organ of the American Nazi Party and the party organ of the International Workers of the World, and a couple more in between. You could buy them, and you know what you would get. Now you just have Youtube. That is a problem.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    I just checked a couple of definitions in case my memory was failing me, but I don't see any definition of censorship that limits it to governmental action. YouTube can and does censor content on their platform, I don't understand why so many people seem have trouble with that word. All it means is (quoting Webster) "to examine in order to suppress ... or delete anything considered objectionable"
    - uoaei 6y ago
      The way it's being used in public discourse is not necessarily the dictionary definition of the term. You have to meet people where they are when it comes to rhetoric, not try to force them to follow your version of what means what.
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        To repeat, it's not my version of what censorship means, it's the normative definition of what it means. YouTube censors content.
        uoaei 6y ago
        YouTube chooses not to display media uploaded to their servers. That is not censorship, that is discretion. Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public.
        betwixthewires 6y ago
        I'm not who you've been talking to, but I can't help but laugh at this exchange. >Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public. No, actually, that isn't the definition. You guys just had a back and forth on this. You're artificially trying to limit the definition of "censorship" to fit your sentiment because your sentiment is not based in objective reality. While I would agree with you that YouTube should not be compelled by law to host any content and can censor whatever they want (and we can, and should, refuse to use YouTube to host our videos and inform ourselves), it is still censorship, plain and simple.
        uoaei 6y ago
        You are conflating discretion and censorship. If you send me a DM asking me to repeat your claims in a public-facing comment, and I refuse, that is not censorship. Ditto for any and every private entity which exists.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    We must have different dictionaries? 1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. 2. (in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor.
coldtea 6y ago
It very much should mean that. Modern capitalism has replaced the public square and a huge number of face-to-face communication opportunities with communication mediated by private corporations, and it uses those (and they take liberties themselves to for their own purposes) to outsource censorship and stiffle public discussion... The idea of restricting freedom of speech to the state is an antiquated idea, belonging to pre-internet times, when a huge part of social interaction didn't happen through social media...
iphorde 6y ago
It does if it uses public resources.

Why should YouTube have a megaphone to give in the first place? Last I checked, there are still laws on the books to handle companies with >90% market shares. [0] [0]: https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/ https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/

uoaei 6y ago
Good, so we agree that this is not an anti-censorship issue but an anti-trust issue. Private entities can't censor anything, anyhow. Independently and freely choosing which sentiments to platform on a private service is not censorship, no matter how far anyone tries to stretch the definition of the term.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Yes, but back then we had the party organ of the American Nazi Party and the party organ of the International Workers of the World, and a couple more in between. You could buy them, and you know what you would get. Now you just have Youtube. That is a problem.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I just checked a couple of definitions in case my memory was failing me, but I don't see any definition of censorship that limits it to governmental action. YouTube can and does censor content on their platform, I don't understand why so many people seem have trouble with that word. All it means is (quoting Webster) "to examine in order to suppress ... or delete anything considered objectionable"
  - uoaei 6y ago
    The way it's being used in public discourse is not necessarily the dictionary definition of the term. You have to meet people where they are when it comes to rhetoric, not try to force them to follow your version of what means what.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      To repeat, it's not my version of what censorship means, it's the normative definition of what it means. YouTube censors content.
      - uoaei 6y ago
        YouTube chooses not to display media uploaded to their servers. That is not censorship, that is discretion. Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public.
        betwixthewires 6y ago
        I'm not who you've been talking to, but I can't help but laugh at this exchange. >Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public. No, actually, that isn't the definition. You guys just had a back and forth on this. You're artificially trying to limit the definition of "censorship" to fit your sentiment because your sentiment is not based in objective reality. While I would agree with you that YouTube should not be compelled by law to host any content and can censor whatever they want (and we can, and should, refuse to use YouTube to host our videos and inform ourselves), it is still censorship, plain and simple.
        uoaei 6y ago
        You are conflating discretion and censorship. If you send me a DM asking me to repeat your claims in a public-facing comment, and I refuse, that is not censorship. Ditto for any and every private entity which exists.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  We must have different dictionaries? 1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. 2. (in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor.

coldtea 6y ago

It very much should mean that. Modern capitalism has replaced the public square and a huge number of face-to-face communication opportunities with communication mediated by private corporations, and it uses those (and they take liberties themselves to for their own purposes) to outsource censorship and stiffle public discussion... The idea of restricting freedom of speech to the state is an antiquated idea, belonging to pre-internet times, when a huge part of social interaction didn't happen through social media...

iphorde 6y ago

It does if it uses public resources.