6 ms·

Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Not making a comment on the validity

by xnyan 6y ago

Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
waterhouse 6y ago
No, they should not be forced. However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  I think YouTube should be applauded for protecting democracy. Why do you think they should be shamed for doing this?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people who question the integrity of elections. It sends the impression that there is something to hide. And people who suspect that the election was stolen will take this as confirmation of that suspicion. Since they won't be allowed to use that platform to raise their suspicions, no one will be able to respond to them to allay their suspicions. Then as time goes on confirmation bias will lead them to become entrenched in this belief. Eventually this belief (that the elections have been stolen) will lead to the perception of a loss of legitimacy for the government, and consequentially public servants will find it more difficult and dangerous to do their jobs.
    - supercanuck 6y ago
      >Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. The New York Times is not a danger to democracy because they refuse to publish my article on why the earth is flat.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. Its dangerous to democracy for oligarchs to have this much control over the discourse.
  - ywhjaknskkkw 6y ago
    They are expressly NOT protecting democracy. There are serious problems with the election, and lots of evidence of fraud - intentional or otherwise. This is stuff that should be investigated and openly discussed, not swept under the rug.
  - skrueger 6y ago
    How is YouTube protecting democracy? It seems to me its action silences a group of people in a democracy.
    - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
      > its action silences a group of people Yes, a group of people attacking democracy.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    "Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. It is a symptomatic fact that the decadence of capitalism coincides with the decadence of socialism. ... Corporative solutions can be applied anywhere"
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    Well, I could simply point to the entirety of Taibbi's article. Or even just the headline and sub-headline: "[It's] Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire. Silicon Valley couldn't have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters." Many of the points I might make, Taibbi did so in his article. For the sake of novelty, I'll make a different point: I see one way in which YouTube may have promoted democracy: by making their odiousness more clear (and in a public, "everyone knows that everyone knows" way), they may have encouraged quicker production or adoption of alternative platforms. This seems unlikely, because websites like them have done lots of crappy stuff before, without usually causing much effect; but it is possible that this may be seen as enough of a "They've declared war on the entire right wing" to motivate a significant migration. Two partisan platforms is better than one, for democracy and just for competition. (Better yet would be either a platform that has made some kind of enforceable and very-painful-to-break commitment to neutrality, or some kind of decentralized system that no single company or party can decide to censor. We may get there eventually.)
spacebear 6y ago
Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  > Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US. More specifically, YouTube has a practical monopoly on publishing and promoting user-generated video in the US. Anybody can generate video and a great many do. Promoting your video to millions of viewers is a bit more challenging, though can clearly be done wihtout YouTube: https://www.lifewire.com/videos-that-went-viral-before-youtube-3486130 https://www.lifewire.com/videos-that-went-viral-before-youtu... This doesn't even get into the really early viral videos like the charcoal briquettes lit with liquid oxygen, or the massive viewership of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact way back in the day.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Should I be forced to pay for roads if they will be used to support activities I disapprove of? What if I passionately and sincerely disagree with what people are using the roadway access to facilitate? Should I be forced to subsidize activities that I reasonably believe are harmful to the environment? What if I can produce peer-reviewed academic evidence supporting my point of view? Should I be forced to hire a qualified individual at my company if I have an opening if I don't like their religious beliefs? What if their religious beliefs involve arranged marriage or female genital mutilation? Hopefully the list of rhetorical questions serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that our society and our system of government already compels people to support things they oppose, including terrible lies, harm to people and the environment, and various forms of abuse. Yet we haven't chosen to abandon this form of government for anarchy. For this reason I am unmotivated by absolutist private property arguments when applied to this issue. Thank you for your excellent question as it draws attention to a central part of the issue. > Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms? I don't have the answers here, I'm participating in the conversation with the aim of moving it forward. How does it work in practical terms to require that companies hire and serve people even when the owner doesn't like their religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? In theory we write laws on the basis of balancing the values we hold dear. In practice lobbyists donate money to lawmakers for influence and lawmakers compromise with each other on things that they think are going to be practical to enforce and get them re-elected or some other form of benefit. Perhaps not in that order.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  > Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Yes you should. An informed populace is the basis of democracy. If you choose to continue living in a democracy, you have to help pay for its upkeep.
srcreigh 6y ago
This is a turning point for YouTube. YouTube was a medium of expression. In that sense your question is like "Why should the paper company allow ideas to be written on their paper that they disagree with?" Of course YouTube does also take a editorial role. As both a platform and a publisher, we should allow them to stop giving recommendations for things that don't align politically. By taking the more extreme step of taking down videos, they are balking on their self expressed purpose of being a platform for digital expression. There are several people in my life who I completely disagree with politically. At the same time, I'm grateful that I can hear their perspective. YouTube is no longer supporting this dynamic. I'm already seeing folks signing up for social networks that have less censorship, I think alternative video hosting platforms may increase too.
brandonmenc 6y ago
> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? No. > If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Because I am a person and YouTube is not.
zucker42 6y ago
He didn't say anything about YouTube being forced to do anything. "YouTube is wrong to do this" and "the government ought to force YouTube to act differently" are two distinct arguments.

by xnyan 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

waterhouse 6y ago

No, they should not be forced. However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
I think YouTube should be applauded for protecting democracy. Why do you think they should be shamed for doing this?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people who question the integrity of elections. It sends the impression that there is something to hide. And people who suspect that the election was stolen will take this as confirmation of that suspicion. Since they won't be allowed to use that platform to raise their suspicions, no one will be able to respond to them to allay their suspicions. Then as time goes on confirmation bias will lead them to become entrenched in this belief. Eventually this belief (that the elections have been stolen) will lead to the perception of a loss of legitimacy for the government, and consequentially public servants will find it more difficult and dangerous to do their jobs.
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    >Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. The New York Times is not a danger to democracy because they refuse to publish my article on why the earth is flat.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. Its dangerous to democracy for oligarchs to have this much control over the discourse.
- ywhjaknskkkw 6y ago
  They are expressly NOT protecting democracy. There are serious problems with the election, and lots of evidence of fraud - intentional or otherwise. This is stuff that should be investigated and openly discussed, not swept under the rug.
- skrueger 6y ago
  How is YouTube protecting democracy? It seems to me its action silences a group of people in a democracy.
  - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
    > its action silences a group of people Yes, a group of people attacking democracy.
- cambalache 6y ago
  "Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. It is a symptomatic fact that the decadence of capitalism coincides with the decadence of socialism. ... Corporative solutions can be applied anywhere"
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Well, I could simply point to the entirety of Taibbi's article. Or even just the headline and sub-headline: "[It's] Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire. Silicon Valley couldn't have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters." Many of the points I might make, Taibbi did so in his article. For the sake of novelty, I'll make a different point: I see one way in which YouTube may have promoted democracy: by making their odiousness more clear (and in a public, "everyone knows that everyone knows" way), they may have encouraged quicker production or adoption of alternative platforms. This seems unlikely, because websites like them have done lots of crappy stuff before, without usually causing much effect; but it is possible that this may be seen as enough of a "They've declared war on the entire right wing" to motivate a significant migration. Two partisan platforms is better than one, for democracy and just for competition. (Better yet would be either a platform that has made some kind of enforceable and very-painful-to-break commitment to neutrality, or some kind of decentralized system that no single company or party can decide to censor. We may get there eventually.)

spacebear 6y ago

Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
> Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US. More specifically, YouTube has a practical monopoly on publishing and promoting user-generated video in the US. Anybody can generate video and a great many do. Promoting your video to millions of viewers is a bit more challenging, though can clearly be done wihtout YouTube: https://www.lifewire.com/videos-that-went-viral-before-youtube-3486130 https://www.lifewire.com/videos-that-went-viral-before-youtu... This doesn't even get into the really early viral videos like the charcoal briquettes lit with liquid oxygen, or the massive viewership of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact way back in the day.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Should I be forced to pay for roads if they will be used to support activities I disapprove of? What if I passionately and sincerely disagree with what people are using the roadway access to facilitate? Should I be forced to subsidize activities that I reasonably believe are harmful to the environment? What if I can produce peer-reviewed academic evidence supporting my point of view? Should I be forced to hire a qualified individual at my company if I have an opening if I don't like their religious beliefs? What if their religious beliefs involve arranged marriage or female genital mutilation? Hopefully the list of rhetorical questions serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that our society and our system of government already compels people to support things they oppose, including terrible lies, harm to people and the environment, and various forms of abuse. Yet we haven't chosen to abandon this form of government for anarchy. For this reason I am unmotivated by absolutist private property arguments when applied to this issue. Thank you for your excellent question as it draws attention to a central part of the issue. > Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms? I don't have the answers here, I'm participating in the conversation with the aim of moving it forward. How does it work in practical terms to require that companies hire and serve people even when the owner doesn't like their religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? In theory we write laws on the basis of balancing the values we hold dear. In practice lobbyists donate money to lawmakers for influence and lawmakers compromise with each other on things that they think are going to be practical to enforce and get them re-elected or some other form of benefit. Perhaps not in that order.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
> Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Yes you should. An informed populace is the basis of democracy. If you choose to continue living in a democracy, you have to help pay for its upkeep.

srcreigh 6y ago

This is a turning point for YouTube. YouTube was a medium of expression. In that sense your question is like "Why should the paper company allow ideas to be written on their paper that they disagree with?" Of course YouTube does also take a editorial role. As both a platform and a publisher, we should allow them to stop giving recommendations for things that don't align politically. By taking the more extreme step of taking down videos, they are balking on their self expressed purpose of being a platform for digital expression. There are several people in my life who I completely disagree with politically. At the same time, I'm grateful that I can hear their perspective. YouTube is no longer supporting this dynamic. I'm already seeing folks signing up for social networks that have less censorship, I think alternative video hosting platforms may increase too.

brandonmenc 6y ago

> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? No. > If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Because I am a person and YouTube is not.

zucker42 6y ago

He didn't say anything about YouTube being forced to do anything. "YouTube is wrong to do this" and "the government ought to force YouTube to act differently" are two distinct arguments.