4 ms·

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. [

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.
        ksk 6y ago
        I hear net-neutrality is a common position around here. If you agree prima facia that Comcast should not be allowed to block simply or censor YouTube (they're a private company, its their own equipment, etc, etc), then why doesn't the same argument apply to Google? >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. That is your own personal definition. What happened to meeting people where they are?
- 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.

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.
      - ksk 6y ago
        I hear net-neutrality is a common position around here. If you agree prima facia that Comcast should not be allowed to block simply or censor YouTube (they're a private company, its their own equipment, etc, etc), then why doesn't the same argument apply to Google? >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. That is your own personal definition. What happened to meeting people where they are?
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.