2 ms·
I don’t really understand the argument that taking away free speech will somehow prevent acts of violence. Violence is illegal regardless of if you saw it in a
by oceanplexian 6y ago
I don’t really understand the argument that taking away free speech will somehow prevent acts of violence. Violence is illegal regardless of if you saw it in a YouTube video or not.
As a matter of great irony to folks in the tech industry, this same argument was being used in the 1990s to ban violent video games. Of course it failed, because it was a terrible idea and was based on debunked science.
- quadrifoliate 6y ago> I don’t really understand the argument that taking away free speech will somehow prevent acts of violence. No one is taking away free speech in this case, that's where I think people are talking past each other. Isn't not allowing videos on your platform also a form of freedom of speech? The senators are simply urging YouTube to exercise their freedom of speech to run fact-checked, non-crackpot videos on their platform. Why do you want to force YouTube to carry videos of bizarre conspiracy theorists on their (private) platform? If the Senators ordered YouTube (or indeed, Fox News) to suppress specific videos, that would indeed be taking away free speech.
- tigershark 6y agoSo, tell me, you would be perfectly fine with someone putting videos on YouTube asserting that you are a pedophile and adding also your home address just for completeness’ sake? It’s the same freedom of speech that caused a commando of terrorists to plot to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor.