4 ms·

YouTube has the freedom not to host your videos for free.

by root_axis 6y ago

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Oddly enough, the anarcho-libertarians that fill out the HN userbase don't want to talk about that at all.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Probably because there's too much of an inferential gap between anarchy-libertarians (who have discussed this extensively) and the rest of the hn userbase (who seem to have forgotten that section 230 of the CDA has been criticized for allowing companies to legally select which viewpoints to promote while shielding them from liability for promoting harmful messages). There's also the notion that in a free society, companies shouldn't have the freedom to discriminate on the basis of someone's politics. People who oppose discrimination on the basis of certain protected categories have the opportunity to explain why political views are not one of those categories. So yes there's a discussion to be had but its not easy to get off the ground floor on politically charged issues unless people have a well grounded and mutual understanding of the basics and demonstrate that understanding.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    When we talk about a "free" society, we are talking about government intervention. We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message. You would think that with such a right-wing userbase, the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation. But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > When we talk about a "free" society, we are talking about government intervention. I'm not sure how to respond to this without venturing into semantics. When we talk about a free society, we are talking about the freedom of the people who make up that society to pursue their own interests and livelihood without oppression or undue interference. It doesn't make it ok to aggress upon or oppress people if you somehow define the perpetrator of that aggression or oppression to be "not government." > We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message. However we do mean that everyone have access to the airwaves and that everyone have access to telecom infrastructure and other utilities. The reason section 230 of the CDA is at issue here is that companies like youtube are legally protected from liability for content that they display, but there are no legal consequences for their refusal to show any content. This creates the conditions for them to unaccountably promote one side of an issue to the exclusion of another. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be a bad thing. > You would think that with such a right-wing userbase, The userbase here is not right-wing. > the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation. Its been brought up numerous times. Almost every time section 230 reform is mentioned, in fact. Which is good because these issues need to be hashed out. > But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society. Poisoning the well doesn't advance the conversation, rather the opposite.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > allowing companies to legally select which viewpoints to promote while shielding them from liability for promoting harmful messages This is a spurious criticism. Websites are already liable for any illegal content they host if they don't make a good-faith effort to have it removed quickly. Fake news isn't illegal, this isn't something that would be improved by rescinding section 230. > There's also the notion that in a free society, companies shouldn't have the freedom to discriminate on the basis of someone's politics This has no practical meaning because literally anything can be framed as political issue. For example, the efficacy of masks and vaccines. > People who oppose discrimination on the basis of certain protected categories have the opportunity to explain why political views are not one of those categories. Protected classes are the few exceptions to the rule, the burden is on you to explain why politics should be added to the list.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > This is a spurious criticism. Websites are already liable for any illegal content they host if they don't make a good-faith effort to have it removed quickly. Fake news isn't illegal, this isn't something that would be improved by rescinding section 230. I'm not suggesting that all harmful content is illegal. I'm saying they can choose to spread baseless conspiracy theories when it benefits them with no legal consequence, but they can remove anything they like because they don't want to promote it while calling it a baseless conspiracy theory, also with no consequence. This is an extremely influential position that is created by law and gives them extraordinary latitude at shaping perceptions. > This has no practical meaning because literally anything can be framed as political issue. For example, the efficacy of masks and vaccines. Well those are political issues. I agree that "literally anything" can be framed as political, I don't agree that my criticism lacks practical meaning as a result. We don't like people discriminating on the basis of certain categories. I think political opinions are one of the categories. You may not, we can discuss this. > Protected classes are the few exceptions to the rule, the burden is on you to explain why politics should be added to the list. Gladly. Its unfair for people to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, religion. Because we think that all of those are aspects of being human that people shouldn't be punished for by refusal to hire or sell to. Political leanings are often matters of conscience, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or sex. Political freedom involves the freedom to hold unpopular opinions. Permitting someone to discriminate their provision of services on the basis of someone's gay marriage is just as offensive as permitting them to discriminate on the basis of someone's support for the legality of gay marriage.

YouTube has the freedom not to host your videos for free.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

Oddly enough, the anarcho-libertarians that fill out the HN userbase don't want to talk about that at all.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Probably because there's too much of an inferential gap between anarchy-libertarians (who have discussed this extensively) and the rest of the hn userbase (who seem to have forgotten that section 230 of the CDA has been criticized for allowing companies to legally select which viewpoints to promote while shielding them from liability for promoting harmful messages). There's also the notion that in a free society, companies shouldn't have the freedom to discriminate on the basis of someone's politics. People who oppose discrimination on the basis of certain protected categories have the opportunity to explain why political views are not one of those categories. So yes there's a discussion to be had but its not easy to get off the ground floor on politically charged issues unless people have a well grounded and mutual understanding of the basics and demonstrate that understanding.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  When we talk about a "free" society, we are talking about government intervention. We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message. You would think that with such a right-wing userbase, the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation. But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > When we talk about a "free" society, we are talking about government intervention. I'm not sure how to respond to this without venturing into semantics. When we talk about a free society, we are talking about the freedom of the people who make up that society to pursue their own interests and livelihood without oppression or undue interference. It doesn't make it ok to aggress upon or oppress people if you somehow define the perpetrator of that aggression or oppression to be "not government." > We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message. However we do mean that everyone have access to the airwaves and that everyone have access to telecom infrastructure and other utilities. The reason section 230 of the CDA is at issue here is that companies like youtube are legally protected from liability for content that they display, but there are no legal consequences for their refusal to show any content. This creates the conditions for them to unaccountably promote one side of an issue to the exclusion of another. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be a bad thing. > You would think that with such a right-wing userbase, The userbase here is not right-wing. > the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation. Its been brought up numerous times. Almost every time section 230 reform is mentioned, in fact. Which is good because these issues need to be hashed out. > But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society. Poisoning the well doesn't advance the conversation, rather the opposite.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > allowing companies to legally select which viewpoints to promote while shielding them from liability for promoting harmful messages This is a spurious criticism. Websites are already liable for any illegal content they host if they don't make a good-faith effort to have it removed quickly. Fake news isn't illegal, this isn't something that would be improved by rescinding section 230. > There's also the notion that in a free society, companies shouldn't have the freedom to discriminate on the basis of someone's politics This has no practical meaning because literally anything can be framed as political issue. For example, the efficacy of masks and vaccines. > People who oppose discrimination on the basis of certain protected categories have the opportunity to explain why political views are not one of those categories. Protected classes are the few exceptions to the rule, the burden is on you to explain why politics should be added to the list.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > This is a spurious criticism. Websites are already liable for any illegal content they host if they don't make a good-faith effort to have it removed quickly. Fake news isn't illegal, this isn't something that would be improved by rescinding section 230. I'm not suggesting that all harmful content is illegal. I'm saying they can choose to spread baseless conspiracy theories when it benefits them with no legal consequence, but they can remove anything they like because they don't want to promote it while calling it a baseless conspiracy theory, also with no consequence. This is an extremely influential position that is created by law and gives them extraordinary latitude at shaping perceptions. > This has no practical meaning because literally anything can be framed as political issue. For example, the efficacy of masks and vaccines. Well those are political issues. I agree that "literally anything" can be framed as political, I don't agree that my criticism lacks practical meaning as a result. We don't like people discriminating on the basis of certain categories. I think political opinions are one of the categories. You may not, we can discuss this. > Protected classes are the few exceptions to the rule, the burden is on you to explain why politics should be added to the list. Gladly. Its unfair for people to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, religion. Because we think that all of those are aspects of being human that people shouldn't be punished for by refusal to hire or sell to. Political leanings are often matters of conscience, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or sex. Political freedom involves the freedom to hold unpopular opinions. Permitting someone to discriminate their provision of services on the basis of someone's gay marriage is just as offensive as permitting them to discriminate on the basis of someone's support for the legality of gay marriage.