4 ms·
I’m not seeing a parallel, here. Your example is mixing in a whole bunch of “invasion of privacy” which doesn’t exist in the real situation being discussed, an
by mewse 6y ago
I’m not seeing a parallel, here. Your example is mixing in a whole bunch of “invasion of privacy” which doesn’t exist in the real situation being discussed, and is going to vastly impact people’s emotional reaction.
Why not use the more natural example? “What if a television network decided the same thing? We will watch your publicly broadcast television show and if you say something we don’t like we will cancel your show.” It’s a lot closer to what’s actually happening in this case, right? And it doesn’t needlessly mix in the hot-button topic of privacy violations.
- danieltillett 6y agoSo what happens when you have a group phone call? Should the telephone company be able to listen in and censor those as it wishes? The parallel is phone companies in the past did listen in to people’s conversation, but this was recognised as an abuse of a monopoly power. Regulations were introduced to stop this sort of activity. What we should be discussing is how to regulate natural monopolies like YouTube, not if they should be able to just do whatever they like. Like all regulation there will need to be a balance, but society has a vested interest in ensuring natural monopolies are not abusing their power. Even if YouTube is not abusing its power, the fact it can is a concern.