43 ms·

https://www.engadget.com/youtube-election-misinformation-democrat-senators-letter-203619141.html https://www.engadget.com/youtube-election-misinformation-dem...

https://www.engadget.com/youtube-election-misinformation-democrat-senators-letter-203619141.html https://www.engadget.com/youtube-election-misinformation-dem... So, i'm kind of curious how it's reasonable a political party can ask for partisan censorship. >YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki received a letter on Tuesday from four Democratic senators expressing “deep concern” over the spread of election misinformation on Google’s video platform. In the letter, senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Gary Peters of Michigan and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota ask YouTube to commit to removing content with false or misleading information about the 2020 US presidential election and future political races, including the coming, pivotal Senate runoffs in Georgia. >“We urge you to immediately remove all election outcome misinformation and take aggressive steps to implement prohibitions, as other social media companies have done, regarding outcomes in future elections,” the letter reads. This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. I thought that kind of thing was illegal down there. Not saying anything either way about the politics of the election, but isn't this blatant government censorship?

StanislavPetrov 6y ago
Unfortunately this is far too common, whether its Youtube in this instance, or Facebook touting its cooperation with the FBI and the Atlantic Council. Once a company starts taking government funds and/or government directives the debate ceases to be about free speech and censorship and becomes an issue of illegality and violations of the 1st Amendment.
mountainboy 6y ago
yes, it is. Government pressured censorship at least. One can make a reasonable argument that YouTube is making the decision voluntarily. And the letter is just giving them some cover for what they wanted to do, based on their own biases, anyway. But private censorship is still censorship. And when a platform is so large that it has effectively become "the public square", well I do not go so far as to say that they cannot legally engage in censorship, but I do believe they are morally obliged not to, and should be publically called out when they do. I hope people will begin moving to other platforms in droves so that some real competition emerges.
jonbronson 6y ago
The facts aligning in the Senator's favor does not make the request partisan. Nor are they the only political figures to reference the widely acknowledged facts that there was no spread widespread voter fraud. Prominent Republican politicians in positions of oversight have agreed with this outcome.
- stickyricky 6y ago
  Its possible to censor incorrect information. Recognizing false information is not equivalent to calling for it to be suppressed.
  - briandear 6y ago
    Who determines “correct?”
    - GreenHeuristics 6y ago
      The US Democratic party.
  - 495636483 6y ago
    This. The world will end, if we treat every fucking word like an "opinion", which deserves to be heard. "Covid19 is a lie!1!!" isn't an opinion. It's ignorant non-sense at best, likely malicious, indirect interest-driven misinformation. It absolutely does not deserve the same, attention, platform and range as scientific, or reasonably political debate. Naive unconditional free speech, "attention communism", if you want lol, is an ignorant and anti-democratic idea. The only reason that hasn't hurt us like this before, was the cost of spreading information effectively, pre-www.
- samdlathsworth 6y ago
  Then it sounds handled. Why even bother? This nanny state nonsense is downright terrifying.
  - lukas099 6y ago
anigbrowl 6y ago
This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. I thought that kind of thing was illegal down there. Not saying anything either way about the politics of the election, but isn't this blatant government censorship? If you think it is, then why are you asking? If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)? Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments. Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN.
- hartator 6y ago
  > If you think it is, then why are you asking? OP made a rethoric question.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >If you think it is, then why are you asking? hartator answered this pretty well. >If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)? Yes, active senators are in fact part of the government. The partisanship system does affect even active member's of the US government and this does seem to be a partisan issue driven solely by politics. >Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments. Then the other party should counter those arguments and wait for things to resolve as they will. This will happen whatever the average person believes. The election will be decided by the electoral college, or possibly the courts if any of those lawsuits end up having substance. People posting videos about anything won't change this. >Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN. The section 230 issue seems like a separate issue being spun as a response to this issue in ways that make no logical sense. But are being pushed as a response to actions like these. I don't support the repeal of this, but I do think this kind of obvious, government urged censorship is good either. I didn't like when trump went on about fake news and I don't like when the other side of the government goes on about misinformation. I don't believe the government, either side, should be the arbiters of what is real news or real information. When this happens, all the average person is left with is state sponsored propaganda.
quadrifoliate 6y ago
This is roughly the equivalent of the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater problem. A lot of these videos are saying things that cannot reasonably be classified as anything other than misinformation. For example, they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with. They also make up vague but scary claims about large numbers of illegal immigrants having voted, etc. All of this has a chilling effect on democracy and people exercising their lawful right to vote by post. More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >This is roughly the equivalent of the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater problem I don't see the equivalence. One of those has the potential of causing very immediate panic and potential injury or death as people rush to escape a non-existant fire. The other leads to people thinking dumb things about politics. >For example, they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with. Ok, so wouldn't it be the people who seek out and watch these kinds videos that would be the ones that would be too afraid to use mail in ballots? Seems like the people who think those videos are nonsense won't believe them anyway. >All of this has a chilling effect on democracy and people exercising their lawful right to vote by post How? From what I understand, there was a record number of mail in ballots this year, seems like it did nothing of the sort. >More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation. No, the government should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't real information, that's called propaganda.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Do you think the spread of misinformation causes harm? It doesn't sound like it, by how you diminish the impact of political misinfo ("The other leads to people thinking dumb things about politics.") Not to take too strong a stance until I understand your position better, but record number of mail-in ballots doesn't imply there wasn't significant voter suppression.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, that's an easy question. The answer is No. This isn't government censorship since the government isn't doing it. Same as if a politician asks you not to park on their lawn it's not "Government issues diktat against man for parking car".
- ssambros 6y ago
  Mafia coming to you for protection money since "bad things happen" is not extortion. They just ask nicely. The fact that your building burned down after you didn't pay is totally unrelated.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Ah, that explains why the government is going after Facebook then. They must have refused to pay the protection money. That's the best explanation.
- oceanplexian 6y ago
  Google has accepted over $600 million in government subsidies from Federal and State governments. Thus Google is effectively a public-private partnership and can be regulated no differently than public schools or any other public entity.
wpietri 6y ago
For it to be government censorship, they'd have to use government power to censor. No formal power was used. It's also not urged by the federal government, which is the organization that Trump runs, but instead by elected representatives. I also think it's misleading to call it partisan, as if truth and falsehood are just two different flavors of ice cream, or two different sports teams. An informed populace is a necessary precondition for democracy to survive. Google might have the right to profit from misinformation, but I don't think they have an obligation to do so. They are allowed to support free and fair elections, just like the rest of us.
WhompingWindows 6y ago
Is it actually the government's agents censoring it, or is it a Zuckerberg owned website removing incorrect information? Do information platforms have any duty or obligation to not knowingly allow false information to spread in a democracy?
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
Here is the full letter https://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/YouTube%20Letter%20on%20Misinformation%2011242020%20APM%20DA.pdf https://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/YouTube%20Lett... The use of the word "urge", instead of "request" or "demand", seems to imply that Google is within its rights to decide. The letter does not threaten any legal action if Google decides not to remove alleged misinformation. It does not allege that Google has broken any law. What the letter does request are answers to questions. It looks like a standard letter requesting information that we commonly see from US Senators to US tech companies.
29athrowaway 6y ago
It is not partisan. There is no proof of fraud. "Our observers could not see anything"... then they could not see any fraud taking place either. It is a dumb narrative.
freeflight 6y ago
> This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. Which is not new, the exactly same happened a couple of years ago to force Social Media companies to moderate more strongly on "extremist/jihadist", "foreign interference" and "child nudity" content. During Senate hearings Google, Facebook and Twitter were faced with the choice to either do it themselves, or be forced to do it trough regulation, those were bipartisan efforts [0]. But even back then it was pretty evident how that whole thing would end up as a slippery slope. [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/40489793/senators-grill-facebook-twitter-google-on-fake-news-your-power-scares-me https://www.fastcompany.com/40489793/senators-grill-facebook...
adamsea 6y ago
It's a tricky area. The challenge is how to deal with bad actors who use the rules of the game to undermine the game itself. We also have to acknowledge the context in which this is occurring; the people claiming fraud are also threatening violence against civil servants and their children. "Georgia officials were similarly reticent until last week, when threats online targeted a young contract worker for Dominion Voting Systems, whose voting machines were used in the state. One post on Twitter included a swinging noose. That day, Gabriel Sterling, the Republican in charge of the voting machines, walked to a podium visibly angry and demanded that Trump “stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence.” In an interview with Reuters, Sterling said that he personally had received a message calling him a him “traitor” that included his home address. Someone else wished him a happy birthday in a tweet saying it would be his last." https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-threats/election-officials-face-threats-intimidation-as-trump-pushes-false-fraud-claims-idUSKBN28I1D9 https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-threats/electio... Just like it's difficult when and what content to censor when it comes to things like the ISIS recruiting pipeline, it's hard to know where the line is with what is basically a far-right ideology which bleeds into domestic terrorism.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
This has been done before: McCarythy-era government labeled people as Communists. Those people were then voluntarily blacklisted from working in Hollywood by the Hollywood studios. Not saying it’s right. Just saying it’s happened at least once before and I bet other times.
Ceezy 6y ago
How is that partisan censorship? People and parties have a right to ask a platform to remove content. Censorship imply you being FORCED not asked.
fizzbuzzah2 6y ago
i don't think free speech applies on managed internet apps. If people are promoting fake news, it should be deleted, if they don't like it they can create their own YouTube that doesn't censor fake news.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
It's not censorship because Facebook is a private business, they can delete what they want, and if a post, meme, etc are full of dis/misinformation (from either party!) then it's perfectly within their rights to remove it as it damages their reputation and the enjoyment of the platform by customers. I for one am all for it. If I don't like what's going on I will simply stop using facebook. I stopped using it once for 6 months and they never sent booted thugs to my home, so they're doing just fine by me.
nine_k 6y ago
I wonder where it's going to end. Once you have started taking sides, started to take down videos you fund spreading incorrect points of view, you can consider to extend it. Videos that doubt the efficaciousness of masks. Videos that say the quarantine is a plot by world government of reptiloid aliens. Videos that promote the idea of flat Earth. Well, this is a dead end. How about videos that Taiwan is in fact independent from China? Videos that allege that unelected bureaucrars have more power than elected officials? Videos that suggest that there is trouble with voting counting during US elections? You can easily end up doing way, way more censorship than strictly required to keep your resource legally clean (hate speech, copyright violations, etc). If I were Google (YouTube, Alphabet, whoever is responsible), I would stay as far away as possible from this kind of censorship, purely because of the cost of doing it, and the constant getting into hot water when not censoring enough, or censoring too much. Being a neutral pipe could be plainly better for the business. Edited: typos.
- wstuartcl 6y ago
  I would have agreed with you 5 or 10 years ago, full stop. Today, we live in a society where crackpot ideas are being shared by acquaintances, but unlike 10 years ago there is no common sense and logic being applied at the value and factual nature of the information. The systems are designed and layered in such a way that a person gets a bit of information, that information is highly compounded in their world view, other ideas are not in their funnel. Even if they go and try to validate it (which they may not because everything else in the funnel on their information streams supports/compounds the view) there are whole markets of pseudo news that are entertainment channels masquerading as news supporting the same insane ideas. These systems act as badly as a schizophrenic thought process slowly detaching the participants from reality as the information they see compounds their world view.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    I see the problem. But I don't think that filtering input is a solution. Fixing the processing, that is, critical thinking, looks more efficacious to me. I think Bertrand Russel, as quoted elsewhere in the comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362730, explained it well. That is, to me the solution is to help people become less religious / partisan / rooting for the in-group, and become more independent and critical. It's indeed pretty hard to do when most major information streams work in the opposite direction. Some of my hope is in the built-in protest of teenagers and youth; some in the idea that people with a developed taste would stay away from echo chambers and outrage machines for esthetic reasons, among others.
boh 6y ago
A letter from four people "urging" something isn't blatant censorship. Blatant censorship just happens--there's no asking in between (see China for more). Google is making a strategic decision. Despite what you may hope, free speech isn't YouTube's main priority--it's profit. Right now they're trying to minimize the possibility profits may be impacted by stakeholder action. They don't care if your particular political views aren't adequately represented. Free speech isn't a mandated requirement for corporations.

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

Unfortunately this is far too common, whether its Youtube in this instance, or Facebook touting its cooperation with the FBI and the Atlantic Council. Once a company starts taking government funds and/or government directives the debate ceases to be about free speech and censorship and becomes an issue of illegality and violations of the 1st Amendment.

mountainboy 6y ago

yes, it is. Government pressured censorship at least. One can make a reasonable argument that YouTube is making the decision voluntarily. And the letter is just giving them some cover for what they wanted to do, based on their own biases, anyway. But private censorship is still censorship. And when a platform is so large that it has effectively become "the public square", well I do not go so far as to say that they cannot legally engage in censorship, but I do believe they are morally obliged not to, and should be publically called out when they do. I hope people will begin moving to other platforms in droves so that some real competition emerges.

jonbronson 6y ago

The facts aligning in the Senator's favor does not make the request partisan. Nor are they the only political figures to reference the widely acknowledged facts that there was no spread widespread voter fraud. Prominent Republican politicians in positions of oversight have agreed with this outcome.

stickyricky 6y ago
Its possible to censor incorrect information. Recognizing false information is not equivalent to calling for it to be suppressed.
- briandear 6y ago
  Who determines “correct?”
  - GreenHeuristics 6y ago
    The US Democratic party.
- 495636483 6y ago
  This. The world will end, if we treat every fucking word like an "opinion", which deserves to be heard. "Covid19 is a lie!1!!" isn't an opinion. It's ignorant non-sense at best, likely malicious, indirect interest-driven misinformation. It absolutely does not deserve the same, attention, platform and range as scientific, or reasonably political debate. Naive unconditional free speech, "attention communism", if you want lol, is an ignorant and anti-democratic idea. The only reason that hasn't hurt us like this before, was the cost of spreading information effectively, pre-www.
samdlathsworth 6y ago
Then it sounds handled. Why even bother? This nanny state nonsense is downright terrifying.
- lukas099 6y ago

anigbrowl 6y ago

This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. I thought that kind of thing was illegal down there. Not saying anything either way about the politics of the election, but isn't this blatant government censorship? If you think it is, then why are you asking? If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)? Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments. Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN.

hartator 6y ago
> If you think it is, then why are you asking? OP made a rethoric question.
grawprog 6y ago
>If you think it is, then why are you asking? hartator answered this pretty well. >If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)? Yes, active senators are in fact part of the government. The partisanship system does affect even active member's of the US government and this does seem to be a partisan issue driven solely by politics. >Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments. Then the other party should counter those arguments and wait for things to resolve as they will. This will happen whatever the average person believes. The election will be decided by the electoral college, or possibly the courts if any of those lawsuits end up having substance. People posting videos about anything won't change this. >Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN. The section 230 issue seems like a separate issue being spun as a response to this issue in ways that make no logical sense. But are being pushed as a response to actions like these. I don't support the repeal of this, but I do think this kind of obvious, government urged censorship is good either. I didn't like when trump went on about fake news and I don't like when the other side of the government goes on about misinformation. I don't believe the government, either side, should be the arbiters of what is real news or real information. When this happens, all the average person is left with is state sponsored propaganda.

quadrifoliate 6y ago

This is roughly the equivalent of the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater problem. A lot of these videos are saying things that cannot reasonably be classified as anything other than misinformation. For example, they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with. They also make up vague but scary claims about large numbers of illegal immigrants having voted, etc. All of this has a chilling effect on democracy and people exercising their lawful right to vote by post. More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation.

grawprog 6y ago
>This is roughly the equivalent of the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater problem I don't see the equivalence. One of those has the potential of causing very immediate panic and potential injury or death as people rush to escape a non-existant fire. The other leads to people thinking dumb things about politics. >For example, they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with. Ok, so wouldn't it be the people who seek out and watch these kinds videos that would be the ones that would be too afraid to use mail in ballots? Seems like the people who think those videos are nonsense won't believe them anyway. >All of this has a chilling effect on democracy and people exercising their lawful right to vote by post How? From what I understand, there was a record number of mail in ballots this year, seems like it did nothing of the sort. >More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation. No, the government should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't real information, that's called propaganda.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Do you think the spread of misinformation causes harm? It doesn't sound like it, by how you diminish the impact of political misinfo ("The other leads to people thinking dumb things about politics.") Not to take too strong a stance until I understand your position better, but record number of mail-in ballots doesn't imply there wasn't significant voter suppression.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, that's an easy question. The answer is No. This isn't government censorship since the government isn't doing it. Same as if a politician asks you not to park on their lawn it's not "Government issues diktat against man for parking car".

ssambros 6y ago
Mafia coming to you for protection money since "bad things happen" is not extortion. They just ask nicely. The fact that your building burned down after you didn't pay is totally unrelated.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Ah, that explains why the government is going after Facebook then. They must have refused to pay the protection money. That's the best explanation.
oceanplexian 6y ago
Google has accepted over $600 million in government subsidies from Federal and State governments. Thus Google is effectively a public-private partnership and can be regulated no differently than public schools or any other public entity.

wpietri 6y ago

For it to be government censorship, they'd have to use government power to censor. No formal power was used. It's also not urged by the federal government, which is the organization that Trump runs, but instead by elected representatives. I also think it's misleading to call it partisan, as if truth and falsehood are just two different flavors of ice cream, or two different sports teams. An informed populace is a necessary precondition for democracy to survive. Google might have the right to profit from misinformation, but I don't think they have an obligation to do so. They are allowed to support free and fair elections, just like the rest of us.

WhompingWindows 6y ago

Is it actually the government's agents censoring it, or is it a Zuckerberg owned website removing incorrect information? Do information platforms have any duty or obligation to not knowingly allow false information to spread in a democracy?

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

Here is the full letter https://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/YouTube%20Letter%20on%20Misinformation%2011242020%20APM%20DA.pdf https://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/YouTube%20Lett... The use of the word "urge", instead of "request" or "demand", seems to imply that Google is within its rights to decide. The letter does not threaten any legal action if Google decides not to remove alleged misinformation. It does not allege that Google has broken any law. What the letter does request are answers to questions. It looks like a standard letter requesting information that we commonly see from US Senators to US tech companies.

29athrowaway 6y ago

It is not partisan. There is no proof of fraud. "Our observers could not see anything"... then they could not see any fraud taking place either. It is a dumb narrative.

freeflight 6y ago

> This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. Which is not new, the exactly same happened a couple of years ago to force Social Media companies to moderate more strongly on "extremist/jihadist", "foreign interference" and "child nudity" content. During Senate hearings Google, Facebook and Twitter were faced with the choice to either do it themselves, or be forced to do it trough regulation, those were bipartisan efforts [0]. But even back then it was pretty evident how that whole thing would end up as a slippery slope. [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/40489793/senators-grill-facebook-twitter-google-on-fake-news-your-power-scares-me https://www.fastcompany.com/40489793/senators-grill-facebook...

adamsea 6y ago

It's a tricky area. The challenge is how to deal with bad actors who use the rules of the game to undermine the game itself. We also have to acknowledge the context in which this is occurring; the people claiming fraud are also threatening violence against civil servants and their children. "Georgia officials were similarly reticent until last week, when threats online targeted a young contract worker for Dominion Voting Systems, whose voting machines were used in the state. One post on Twitter included a swinging noose. That day, Gabriel Sterling, the Republican in charge of the voting machines, walked to a podium visibly angry and demanded that Trump “stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence.” In an interview with Reuters, Sterling said that he personally had received a message calling him a him “traitor” that included his home address. Someone else wished him a happy birthday in a tweet saying it would be his last." https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-threats/election-officials-face-threats-intimidation-as-trump-pushes-false-fraud-claims-idUSKBN28I1D9 https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-threats/electio... Just like it's difficult when and what content to censor when it comes to things like the ISIS recruiting pipeline, it's hard to know where the line is with what is basically a far-right ideology which bleeds into domestic terrorism.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

This has been done before: McCarythy-era government labeled people as Communists. Those people were then voluntarily blacklisted from working in Hollywood by the Hollywood studios. Not saying it’s right. Just saying it’s happened at least once before and I bet other times.

Ceezy 6y ago

How is that partisan censorship? People and parties have a right to ask a platform to remove content. Censorship imply you being FORCED not asked.

fizzbuzzah2 6y ago

i don't think free speech applies on managed internet apps. If people are promoting fake news, it should be deleted, if they don't like it they can create their own YouTube that doesn't censor fake news.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

It's not censorship because Facebook is a private business, they can delete what they want, and if a post, meme, etc are full of dis/misinformation (from either party!) then it's perfectly within their rights to remove it as it damages their reputation and the enjoyment of the platform by customers. I for one am all for it. If I don't like what's going on I will simply stop using facebook. I stopped using it once for 6 months and they never sent booted thugs to my home, so they're doing just fine by me.

nine_k 6y ago

I wonder where it's going to end. Once you have started taking sides, started to take down videos you fund spreading incorrect points of view, you can consider to extend it. Videos that doubt the efficaciousness of masks. Videos that say the quarantine is a plot by world government of reptiloid aliens. Videos that promote the idea of flat Earth. Well, this is a dead end. How about videos that Taiwan is in fact independent from China? Videos that allege that unelected bureaucrars have more power than elected officials? Videos that suggest that there is trouble with voting counting during US elections? You can easily end up doing way, way more censorship than strictly required to keep your resource legally clean (hate speech, copyright violations, etc). If I were Google (YouTube, Alphabet, whoever is responsible), I would stay as far away as possible from this kind of censorship, purely because of the cost of doing it, and the constant getting into hot water when not censoring enough, or censoring too much. Being a neutral pipe could be plainly better for the business. Edited: typos.

wstuartcl 6y ago
I would have agreed with you 5 or 10 years ago, full stop. Today, we live in a society where crackpot ideas are being shared by acquaintances, but unlike 10 years ago there is no common sense and logic being applied at the value and factual nature of the information. The systems are designed and layered in such a way that a person gets a bit of information, that information is highly compounded in their world view, other ideas are not in their funnel. Even if they go and try to validate it (which they may not because everything else in the funnel on their information streams supports/compounds the view) there are whole markets of pseudo news that are entertainment channels masquerading as news supporting the same insane ideas. These systems act as badly as a schizophrenic thought process slowly detaching the participants from reality as the information they see compounds their world view.
- nine_k 6y ago
  I see the problem. But I don't think that filtering input is a solution. Fixing the processing, that is, critical thinking, looks more efficacious to me. I think Bertrand Russel, as quoted elsewhere in the comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362730, explained it well. That is, to me the solution is to help people become less religious / partisan / rooting for the in-group, and become more independent and critical. It's indeed pretty hard to do when most major information streams work in the opposite direction. Some of my hope is in the built-in protest of teenagers and youth; some in the idea that people with a developed taste would stay away from echo chambers and outrage machines for esthetic reasons, among others.

boh 6y ago

A letter from four people "urging" something isn't blatant censorship. Blatant censorship just happens--there's no asking in between (see China for more). Google is making a strategic decision. Despite what you may hope, free speech isn't YouTube's main priority--it's profit. Right now they're trying to minimize the possibility profits may be impacted by stakeholder action. They don't care if your particular political views aren't adequately represented. Free speech isn't a mandated requirement for corporations.