5 ms·

These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbit

These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbitrary way. I would argue that this is a good thing. We can't have it both ways, but we want it both ways. We want a non-government controlled way to communicate, but we want to mandate that they're liable to uphold the same First Amendment protections that the government has to provide. That's insane, that's not a good standard to pursue, and we should rather focus on the cost-benefit and pros and cons of either reinstating the Fairness Doctrine or creating a government-run social media website where information can be freely shared and subjected uniformly to First Amendment protections.

nprz 6y ago
Do you think payment processors and ISPs should be able to deny service to customers for any arbitrary reason as well?
- Spartan-S63 6y ago
  Isn't that part of what's critical to have a free market? Sure, there are market inefficiencies when you get to the level that trusts and monopolies exist, don't get me wrong. Rather than patch the symptoms of the problem, attack the root cause: If companies are acting anticompetitively, stimulate competition in the marketplace. If companies are allowed to make arbitrary decisions (which they should in a free-enough market), seek alternatives, such as government enterprises. If folks don't like payment processors denying payment or ISPs denying service, seek forming a government enterprise that _can't_ deny service to any citizen.
  - nprz 6y ago
    In a theoretical world, sure. In reality it is government actors that are twisting the arms' of tech companies to remove unapproved speech. So I'm not so sure a government controlled ISP/payment processor/video platform (something like China?) would really fix the situation.
    - jfrunyon 6y ago
      > In reality it is government actors that are twisting the arms' of tech companies to remove unapproved speech. Uhh... what? Trump and the Republicans are twisting the arms of tech companies to remove speech favoring... themselves?
      - umvi 6y ago
        USA is a union of states. Governors have quite a bit of power as well and plenty of governors endorsed this move by YouTube.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  Well... they are.
- mpoteat 6y ago
  As long as it isn't due to a protected class reason, I don't immediately see the problem. If you break your ISPs TOS, or you commit fraud, it makes sense that those private companies would not want you as a customer.
  - billy_beef 6y ago
    My ISP TOS, to my knowledge, do not contain language about preventing me from retrieving otherwise legal to obtain content, do yours?
  - insickness 6y ago
    If this is your argument then you should be against laws that prevent discrimination against a protected class. If the markets are efficient enough to account for free speech issues, i.e. someone can just start another facebook/youtube, the markets should be efficient enough to correct themselves for companies that decide to discriminate against protected classes, i.e. someone can just start another facebook/youtube.
- charonn0 6y ago
  That's not a reasonable analogy. a) Youtube's decision (wise or not) is not arbitrary. b) Neither video creators nor viewers are "customers" of Youtube.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    The fact that we see ads says otherwise...
    - charonn0 6y ago
      The fact that we see ads says we're the product.
leetcrew 6y ago
right, in principle there is nothing wrong (imo, at least) with a private company deciding what can/cannot be said on its online properties. we might, as individuals, pressure a company to change it's moderation policy, but we should not seek to outlaw moderation. of course, this doesn't work so well in practice when all the viable platforms are controlled by a few huge companies that are more or less ideologically aligned. in my view, this is more of an antitrust issue than a freedom of speech issue. moderation on social media would be a non-issue if there were a reasonable range of platforms to choose from. hateful and/or misleading content would also be far less impactful if uploading a single video to the youtube didn't have the potential of reaching an enormous audience.
- Spartan-S63 6y ago
  I don't disagree with this. It is a monopoly problem. However, what this article suggests and a lot of other solutions suggest is patching the symptom and not getting to the root of the problem. We've lost our stomach for stimulating competitive marketplaces and forgotten that a sufficiently competitive market will settle on an optimal outcome. That does mean regulation is required and it does mean that breakups are required. That's treating the root cause and not just the symptom.
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    So solutions should be focused on lowering the power of Youtube by making it easy to have competition to it but instead it seems to me the opposite is being proposed: with every new regulation that companies like Youtube have to follow, the harder the regulation is to enforce the harder it is for competitors to get into the market (so essentially these regulations are building a moat around YouTube). That doesn't seem to me like the right goal here.
bcheung 6y ago
I think there needs to be updated thought leadership on what qualifies as "common carrier" and what doesn't. Whether gov't or private, if a platform is primarily promoted as an open communication channel then I think that some, if not all, aspects of "common carrier" laws should apply. Social media platforms would not have the trust and would not have been adopted as quickly if they started off censoring as much as they do now. In that regard, they presented themselves as open and impartial, then shifted once they achieved sufficient critical mass.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- treeman79 6y ago
  How about that google is a monopoly on search and ad tech.
- stuart78 6y ago
  YouTube censors content all the time. Pornography and pirated content, being just the most obvious examples. Others that want censored content have only to look to other sites to find that content. In my opinion, YouTube should (and does) have content standards, and be extremely free in how they determine them. People certainly have a right to publish and consume conspiracy theories, but I don't understand why YouTube has anything close to an obligation to host or promote them.
smadge 6y ago
The only time Taibbi brought up government intervention in the article was to oppose it. Specifically he criticized a new bill that would "require that political ads or content produced by foreign governments be marked by disclaimers, and that companies should remove any such content appearing without disclaimers. It would also expand language in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requiring that any content intended to influence U.S. citizens politically be reported to the Department of Justice." Saying something is bad is not the same thing as saying something should be illegal.
souprock 6y ago
That is a fine argument for why the phone company should be free to disconnect anybody who speaks ill of the phone company.
- charonn0 6y ago
  That would involve eavesdropping on a private conversation, and as such the analogy falls flat (also since you pay them directly for a service.)
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Why can't the phone company listen to private conversations? What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?
    - charonn0 6y ago
      There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications. > What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract. > Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"? I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications. Likewise, people are discussing reform of the laws that govern the behavior of giant media properties. Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary? > Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract. People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information. > I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA. "By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Can you call something a private company when they are the defacto monopolistic standard? What other video social media sites are there that eve remotely come close to competing? When that happens, you're either basically a utility for the public, or a monopoly and need to be broken up. This whole concept that these "first amendment protects companies even though they control the market" reasonings are just absurd. It's exactly like defending the railroads for not wanting to ship black people because they don't have rails for "colored folk" and since they're a "private company" they can do what they want.
drak0n1c 6y ago
Why is it insane to criticize the decisions of a corporation? Activists of all stripes regularly criticize corporate behavior that is completely legal and within their rights as a private company. Is there some substantial difference between arguing a corporation should go out of its way to accommodate the spirit of environmental conservation, and going out of its way to accommodate the spirit of open discussion? You shouldn't presume such criticism is lobbying for a change to the law (the original article does not).
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  This reflexive “YouTube can ban whatever they want” is just a way for people to stop thinking about the issue to avoid cognitive dissonance. Aside from a few hard-headed libertarians, no one who says that believes it in any other context aside from censoring conservatives.
zionic 6y ago
> These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbitrary way. Now post “YouTube is a private company and I support their right to ban BLM” For the record.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
grecy 6y ago
Even more insane is the idea that YouTube are "blocking content" and therefore treading on people's "freedom" to publish whatever they want. Until platforms like YouTube even existed the only way to get anything seen or heard by people was to go through a big TV or radio network, who of course filtered what they would or would not air. Just because you filmed a video about a crackpot theory DOES NOT give you the right to air it to millions, and never in our history has a person been able to do so. If you want to stand in Times Square holding a sign about your theory, you're free to do so. If you want to buy your own TV channel and air it, you're free to do so. If you DEMAND some TV network run it, you're gunna have a bad time.
rhino369 6y ago
>These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbitrary way. I would argue that this is a good thing. They are allowed to, but they should be criticized for being hostile to the concept of free speech. Especially since nobody believes YouTube endorses what is posted on Youtube videos. Separately, their monopoly should be broken up. We can't let a company dictate all political discourse in the country.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RpFLCL 6y ago
There is a difference between "allowed to" and "ought to". It's a question of ethics, not law. In my opinion it feels immoral for someone who has this much control over human interaction to act in a way that undermines free discourse so blatantly. To see an American company ignore the value of free speech is disheartening to me. YouTube is so popular and I wish they took a different stance on these issues.

nprz 6y ago

Do you think payment processors and ISPs should be able to deny service to customers for any arbitrary reason as well?

Spartan-S63 6y ago
Isn't that part of what's critical to have a free market? Sure, there are market inefficiencies when you get to the level that trusts and monopolies exist, don't get me wrong. Rather than patch the symptoms of the problem, attack the root cause: If companies are acting anticompetitively, stimulate competition in the marketplace. If companies are allowed to make arbitrary decisions (which they should in a free-enough market), seek alternatives, such as government enterprises. If folks don't like payment processors denying payment or ISPs denying service, seek forming a government enterprise that _can't_ deny service to any citizen.
- nprz 6y ago
  In a theoretical world, sure. In reality it is government actors that are twisting the arms' of tech companies to remove unapproved speech. So I'm not so sure a government controlled ISP/payment processor/video platform (something like China?) would really fix the situation.
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    > In reality it is government actors that are twisting the arms' of tech companies to remove unapproved speech. Uhh... what? Trump and the Republicans are twisting the arms of tech companies to remove speech favoring... themselves?
    - umvi 6y ago
      USA is a union of states. Governors have quite a bit of power as well and plenty of governors endorsed this move by YouTube.
jfrunyon 6y ago
Well... they are.
mpoteat 6y ago
As long as it isn't due to a protected class reason, I don't immediately see the problem. If you break your ISPs TOS, or you commit fraud, it makes sense that those private companies would not want you as a customer.
- billy_beef 6y ago
  My ISP TOS, to my knowledge, do not contain language about preventing me from retrieving otherwise legal to obtain content, do yours?
- insickness 6y ago
  If this is your argument then you should be against laws that prevent discrimination against a protected class. If the markets are efficient enough to account for free speech issues, i.e. someone can just start another facebook/youtube, the markets should be efficient enough to correct themselves for companies that decide to discriminate against protected classes, i.e. someone can just start another facebook/youtube.
charonn0 6y ago
That's not a reasonable analogy. a) Youtube's decision (wise or not) is not arbitrary. b) Neither video creators nor viewers are "customers" of Youtube.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  The fact that we see ads says otherwise...
  - charonn0 6y ago
    The fact that we see ads says we're the product.

leetcrew 6y ago

right, in principle there is nothing wrong (imo, at least) with a private company deciding what can/cannot be said on its online properties. we might, as individuals, pressure a company to change it's moderation policy, but we should not seek to outlaw moderation. of course, this doesn't work so well in practice when all the viable platforms are controlled by a few huge companies that are more or less ideologically aligned. in my view, this is more of an antitrust issue than a freedom of speech issue. moderation on social media would be a non-issue if there were a reasonable range of platforms to choose from. hateful and/or misleading content would also be far less impactful if uploading a single video to the youtube didn't have the potential of reaching an enormous audience.

Spartan-S63 6y ago
I don't disagree with this. It is a monopoly problem. However, what this article suggests and a lot of other solutions suggest is patching the symptom and not getting to the root of the problem. We've lost our stomach for stimulating competitive marketplaces and forgotten that a sufficiently competitive market will settle on an optimal outcome. That does mean regulation is required and it does mean that breakups are required. That's treating the root cause and not just the symptom.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  So solutions should be focused on lowering the power of Youtube by making it easy to have competition to it but instead it seems to me the opposite is being proposed: with every new regulation that companies like Youtube have to follow, the harder the regulation is to enforce the harder it is for competitors to get into the market (so essentially these regulations are building a moat around YouTube). That doesn't seem to me like the right goal here.

bcheung 6y ago

I think there needs to be updated thought leadership on what qualifies as "common carrier" and what doesn't. Whether gov't or private, if a platform is primarily promoted as an open communication channel then I think that some, if not all, aspects of "common carrier" laws should apply. Social media platforms would not have the trust and would not have been adopted as quickly if they started off censoring as much as they do now. In that regard, they presented themselves as open and impartial, then shifted once they achieved sufficient critical mass.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
treeman79 6y ago
How about that google is a monopoly on search and ad tech.
stuart78 6y ago
YouTube censors content all the time. Pornography and pirated content, being just the most obvious examples. Others that want censored content have only to look to other sites to find that content. In my opinion, YouTube should (and does) have content standards, and be extremely free in how they determine them. People certainly have a right to publish and consume conspiracy theories, but I don't understand why YouTube has anything close to an obligation to host or promote them.

smadge 6y ago

The only time Taibbi brought up government intervention in the article was to oppose it. Specifically he criticized a new bill that would "require that political ads or content produced by foreign governments be marked by disclaimers, and that companies should remove any such content appearing without disclaimers. It would also expand language in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requiring that any content intended to influence U.S. citizens politically be reported to the Department of Justice." Saying something is bad is not the same thing as saying something should be illegal.

souprock 6y ago

That is a fine argument for why the phone company should be free to disconnect anybody who speaks ill of the phone company.

charonn0 6y ago
That would involve eavesdropping on a private conversation, and as such the analogy falls flat (also since you pay them directly for a service.)
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Why can't the phone company listen to private conversations? What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?
  - charonn0 6y ago
    There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications. > What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract. > Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"? I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications. Likewise, people are discussing reform of the laws that govern the behavior of giant media properties. Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary? > Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract. People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information. > I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA. "By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Can you call something a private company when they are the defacto monopolistic standard? What other video social media sites are there that eve remotely come close to competing? When that happens, you're either basically a utility for the public, or a monopoly and need to be broken up. This whole concept that these "first amendment protects companies even though they control the market" reasonings are just absurd. It's exactly like defending the railroads for not wanting to ship black people because they don't have rails for "colored folk" and since they're a "private company" they can do what they want.

drak0n1c 6y ago

Why is it insane to criticize the decisions of a corporation? Activists of all stripes regularly criticize corporate behavior that is completely legal and within their rights as a private company. Is there some substantial difference between arguing a corporation should go out of its way to accommodate the spirit of environmental conservation, and going out of its way to accommodate the spirit of open discussion? You shouldn't presume such criticism is lobbying for a change to the law (the original article does not).

anonunivgrad 6y ago
This reflexive “YouTube can ban whatever they want” is just a way for people to stop thinking about the issue to avoid cognitive dissonance. Aside from a few hard-headed libertarians, no one who says that believes it in any other context aside from censoring conservatives.

zionic 6y ago

> These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbitrary way. Now post “YouTube is a private company and I support their right to ban BLM” For the record.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

grecy 6y ago

Even more insane is the idea that YouTube are "blocking content" and therefore treading on people's "freedom" to publish whatever they want. Until platforms like YouTube even existed the only way to get anything seen or heard by people was to go through a big TV or radio network, who of course filtered what they would or would not air. Just because you filmed a video about a crackpot theory DOES NOT give you the right to air it to millions, and never in our history has a person been able to do so. If you want to stand in Times Square holding a sign about your theory, you're free to do so. If you want to buy your own TV channel and air it, you're free to do so. If you DEMAND some TV network run it, you're gunna have a bad time.

rhino369 6y ago

>These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbitrary way. I would argue that this is a good thing. They are allowed to, but they should be criticized for being hostile to the concept of free speech. Especially since nobody believes YouTube endorses what is posted on Youtube videos. Separately, their monopoly should be broken up. We can't let a company dictate all political discourse in the country.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

RpFLCL 6y ago

There is a difference between "allowed to" and "ought to". It's a question of ethics, not law. In my opinion it feels immoral for someone who has this much control over human interaction to act in a way that undermines free discourse so blatantly. To see an American company ignore the value of free speech is disheartening to me. YouTube is so popular and I wish they took a different stance on these issues.