3 ms·

I find it a little worrying that a US tech company has the power to censor a popular UK media company for being critical of UK government policy. While I didn'

by kypro 6y ago

I find it a little worrying that a US tech company has the power to censor a popular UK media company for being critical of UK government policy. While I didn't personally agree with them, I do acknowledge there was a legitimate argument to be made for removing hateful content and even harmful conspiratorial content from social platforms. However, this seems to be a significant step beyond the moderation / censorship we've seen in the past.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Pandora's Box is difficult to close once it has been opened. Too many shortsighted people cheered with delight as the tech companies punished those with wrong think, believing that they'd be able to keep the tech monster under their control. Thing is, the danger isn't just from the tech companies forever expanding their power to suppress, it's that they can be compromised and flipped. Suddenly those who were cheering for the suppression could find themselves under the boot they previously celebrated. That tech works hand-in-hand with repressive regimes around the world in exchange for expanded market access shows how quickly they can change their values when it serves their financial interests.
maxerickson 6y ago
Is Youtube infrastructure or publisher? The way ad placement works suggests publisher. Is the scale of that publishing transformative?
- nradov 6y ago
  Why would that matter? It's an arbitrary distinction with no basis in US law.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Yes, it's a philosophical argument. It's never really been the case that publishing something means you have to publish everything, whereas with things like electricity and water, we tend to say you get it if you keep up with the payments. So if YouTube is a publisher, it'd be a new thing to force them to publish everything anyone asked them to publish.
binaryblitz 6y ago
>a US tech company has the power to censor a popular UK media company for being critical of UK government policy As always, this comes down to the fact that Google owns the platform they are broadcasting on. No one is preventing them from using other platforms. If the UK doesn't like it, they need to pass a law preventing Google from operating YT in the country unless they follow said law. GDPR is a great example of this.
Crosseye_Jack 6y ago
I'm on the fence with this one (A postion I don't like). While I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the goverments stance on the lockdown (For my own reasons: Being in a tier 3 and 4 region for so long, I'm missing my friends, I'm missing being able to have a beer with them and its getting to a mental health issue with me now. But thats just my own personal reasons) TalkRadio would also tell its listeners to not bother with face masks and spend their money on beer instead on the basis that unless its a well fitting N95 or better mask it offers less than ideal protection to the wearer (ignoring the fact that face covering also help prevent those without symtoms spreading it to others). So where do you draw the line? Disagree with the goverment? Yeah I disagree with them on many things. But what about when they start pushing people to break the rules? But then again do I want a corperation dictation what can be said? Nope. I like the idea that shitty ideas/speech should be countered with more speech then to nuke the speech in the first place. So even though I heavly disagree with what they were putting out to the public, I think they shouldn't of just got nuked of YT for having shity (imo) ideas.
- kypro 6y ago
  I'd argue that it should be within our rights to have discussions about breaking laws we don't agree with. Last week a lot of people were disagreeing and openly discussing breaking the government rules about sending kids back to school which was tolerated by tech platforms. I strongly suspect it's only because this example of disobedience isn't seen as favourably by US tech leaders that they are targeting it. Selective censorship seems to be the norm on YouTube though. It's perfectly acceptable to push left-wing conspiracies or support violence and looting if it's for a cause like BLM, while right-wing conspiracies or support of violence is quickly removed (perhaps rightly so). I share your lockdown-related mental health struggles though. I've suffered with depression most my life and one of the few things that helps me is being out in nature, especially if I'm with friends and family. As someone with almost crippling anxiety it's been quite nice not having to go into the office, but in general I've also found it very difficult this year. I was in quite a rough spot a few years back and the only thing keeping me going back then was the support of my friends. Although even then things could have gone either way. I guess I'm grateful this has come at a time I'm more mentally prepared to cope with it all, but I know it's not been as easy for everyone.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
No one is being censored. The government is not stopping these TalkRadio folks from hosting and distributing their own videos. A more concerning scenario would be if YouTube were forced to host any and all crackpot videos under the oft misused banner of "FrEeDoM oF sPEeCh".
- oji0hub 6y ago
  > No one is being censored. Umm, TalkRatio were censored. > The government is not stopping these TalkRadio folks... Right, Google is. That's what OP said when he wrote "find it a little worrying that a US tech company has the power to censor..." It might be added, that they may well me acting on orders of the government, or a government organization.
  - yew 6y ago
    No one is being censored. Deplatforming isn't censorship. They've merely shown a disagreeable customer out the door.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    If you think YouTube not providing their hardware and software for a a non-paying customer to use is "CeNsOrShIp" then I don't know what to tell you.

by kypro 6y ago

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

Pandora's Box is difficult to close once it has been opened. Too many shortsighted people cheered with delight as the tech companies punished those with wrong think, believing that they'd be able to keep the tech monster under their control. Thing is, the danger isn't just from the tech companies forever expanding their power to suppress, it's that they can be compromised and flipped. Suddenly those who were cheering for the suppression could find themselves under the boot they previously celebrated. That tech works hand-in-hand with repressive regimes around the world in exchange for expanded market access shows how quickly they can change their values when it serves their financial interests.

maxerickson 6y ago

Is Youtube infrastructure or publisher? The way ad placement works suggests publisher. Is the scale of that publishing transformative?

nradov 6y ago
Why would that matter? It's an arbitrary distinction with no basis in US law.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Yes, it's a philosophical argument. It's never really been the case that publishing something means you have to publish everything, whereas with things like electricity and water, we tend to say you get it if you keep up with the payments. So if YouTube is a publisher, it'd be a new thing to force them to publish everything anyone asked them to publish.

binaryblitz 6y ago

>a US tech company has the power to censor a popular UK media company for being critical of UK government policy As always, this comes down to the fact that Google owns the platform they are broadcasting on. No one is preventing them from using other platforms. If the UK doesn't like it, they need to pass a law preventing Google from operating YT in the country unless they follow said law. GDPR is a great example of this.

Crosseye_Jack 6y ago

I'm on the fence with this one (A postion I don't like). While I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the goverments stance on the lockdown (For my own reasons: Being in a tier 3 and 4 region for so long, I'm missing my friends, I'm missing being able to have a beer with them and its getting to a mental health issue with me now. But thats just my own personal reasons) TalkRadio would also tell its listeners to not bother with face masks and spend their money on beer instead on the basis that unless its a well fitting N95 or better mask it offers less than ideal protection to the wearer (ignoring the fact that face covering also help prevent those without symtoms spreading it to others). So where do you draw the line? Disagree with the goverment? Yeah I disagree with them on many things. But what about when they start pushing people to break the rules? But then again do I want a corperation dictation what can be said? Nope. I like the idea that shitty ideas/speech should be countered with more speech then to nuke the speech in the first place. So even though I heavly disagree with what they were putting out to the public, I think they shouldn't of just got nuked of YT for having shity (imo) ideas.

kypro 6y ago
I'd argue that it should be within our rights to have discussions about breaking laws we don't agree with. Last week a lot of people were disagreeing and openly discussing breaking the government rules about sending kids back to school which was tolerated by tech platforms. I strongly suspect it's only because this example of disobedience isn't seen as favourably by US tech leaders that they are targeting it. Selective censorship seems to be the norm on YouTube though. It's perfectly acceptable to push left-wing conspiracies or support violence and looting if it's for a cause like BLM, while right-wing conspiracies or support of violence is quickly removed (perhaps rightly so). I share your lockdown-related mental health struggles though. I've suffered with depression most my life and one of the few things that helps me is being out in nature, especially if I'm with friends and family. As someone with almost crippling anxiety it's been quite nice not having to go into the office, but in general I've also found it very difficult this year. I was in quite a rough spot a few years back and the only thing keeping me going back then was the support of my friends. Although even then things could have gone either way. I guess I'm grateful this has come at a time I'm more mentally prepared to cope with it all, but I know it's not been as easy for everyone.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

No one is being censored. The government is not stopping these TalkRadio folks from hosting and distributing their own videos. A more concerning scenario would be if YouTube were forced to host any and all crackpot videos under the oft misused banner of "FrEeDoM oF sPEeCh".

oji0hub 6y ago
> No one is being censored. Umm, TalkRatio were censored. > The government is not stopping these TalkRadio folks... Right, Google is. That's what OP said when he wrote "find it a little worrying that a US tech company has the power to censor..." It might be added, that they may well me acting on orders of the government, or a government organization.
- yew 6y ago
  No one is being censored. Deplatforming isn't censorship. They've merely shown a disagreeable customer out the door.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  If you think YouTube not providing their hardware and software for a a non-paying customer to use is "CeNsOrShIp" then I don't know what to tell you.