5 ms·

Though I too am surprised that YouTube is setting such a precedent for fine-grained moderation, we cannot pretend as if this is an "infringement of our rights."

Though I too am surprised that YouTube is setting such a precedent for fine-grained moderation, we cannot pretend as if this is an "infringement of our rights." YouTube is running a for-profit website, you don't have the "right" to a spot on their platform. YouTube has made the careful calculation that the people who are turned off by this ban are far outweighed by public support, and will reduce their contribution to toxic behavior and instability in the country.

daveidol 6y ago
You don't have a "right" to a spot on their platform but you sure as hell have a right to complain about it and speak up against it when appropriate - which is what this piece is attempting to do.
- phailhaus 6y ago
  Yes, but there seems to be a lot of "first amendment" talk in the comments.
  - wkjenjkwenf 6y ago
    There seems to be a lot of "there seems to be" talk in the comments. I have yet to see one comment actually calling this move a violation of the first amendment.
zionic 6y ago
For the record: please post “I support YouTube banning all BLM content because it is not profitable” I’m just asking you to be ideologically consistent
- phailhaus 6y ago
  I don't have to support it, I'm acknowledging that YouTube is allowed to do it. Framing it as being "against our rights" is fruitless. The article author claims that this will inflame tensions, but that's unlikely.
  - indecisive_user 6y ago
    Who is framing the argument that way? No one is saying it's against our rights. That doesn't mean we can't oppose it. People are allowed to oppose a company's actions, even if they're not illegal
wkjenjkwenf 6y ago
> "infringement of our rights." > you don't have the "right" to a spot on their platform Who are you quoting? Those words, or that sentiment, don't appear in the article. If you're quoting a comment then reply to that comment. And if you didn't read the article then consider reading it next time.
thu2111 6y ago
I really doubt there's any careful calculation involved with this. YouTube is run by Susan Wojcicki who's a woman at Google and thus untouchable. She's repeatedly imposed her own left wing views on it despite this obviously attracting severe and negative attention from the ruling parties at the time, despite there being no obvious business case for it and despite many of her mandates making no sense and being unenforceable. "Anything that disagrees with the WHO" was an especially idiotic one because the WHO routinely disagrees with itself. Basically, the reason this thread is about YouTube and not Google is because Google now has weak and basically absent CEO leadership, so it's split into fiefdoms where different moral standards apply. Chrome is content neutral, Gmail too, Android mostly but a bit less so and YouTube is flat out "if you aren't like Ms Wojcicki you're immoral and should be banned". A strong CEO would sort it out so things are at least consistent but Pichai is useless, he seems to spend his time doing whatever he thinks will get him shouted at the least.

daveidol 6y ago

You don't have a "right" to a spot on their platform but you sure as hell have a right to complain about it and speak up against it when appropriate - which is what this piece is attempting to do.

phailhaus 6y ago
Yes, but there seems to be a lot of "first amendment" talk in the comments.
- wkjenjkwenf 6y ago
  There seems to be a lot of "there seems to be" talk in the comments. I have yet to see one comment actually calling this move a violation of the first amendment.

zionic 6y ago

For the record: please post “I support YouTube banning all BLM content because it is not profitable” I’m just asking you to be ideologically consistent

phailhaus 6y ago
I don't have to support it, I'm acknowledging that YouTube is allowed to do it. Framing it as being "against our rights" is fruitless. The article author claims that this will inflame tensions, but that's unlikely.
- indecisive_user 6y ago
  Who is framing the argument that way? No one is saying it's against our rights. That doesn't mean we can't oppose it. People are allowed to oppose a company's actions, even if they're not illegal

wkjenjkwenf 6y ago

> "infringement of our rights." > you don't have the "right" to a spot on their platform Who are you quoting? Those words, or that sentiment, don't appear in the article. If you're quoting a comment then reply to that comment. And if you didn't read the article then consider reading it next time.

thu2111 6y ago

I really doubt there's any careful calculation involved with this. YouTube is run by Susan Wojcicki who's a woman at Google and thus untouchable. She's repeatedly imposed her own left wing views on it despite this obviously attracting severe and negative attention from the ruling parties at the time, despite there being no obvious business case for it and despite many of her mandates making no sense and being unenforceable. "Anything that disagrees with the WHO" was an especially idiotic one because the WHO routinely disagrees with itself. Basically, the reason this thread is about YouTube and not Google is because Google now has weak and basically absent CEO leadership, so it's split into fiefdoms where different moral standards apply. Chrome is content neutral, Gmail too, Android mostly but a bit less so and YouTube is flat out "if you aren't like Ms Wojcicki you're immoral and should be banned". A strong CEO would sort it out so things are at least consistent but Pichai is useless, he seems to spend his time doing whatever he thinks will get him shouted at the least.