5 ms·

YouTube was a free speech platform only as long as it took to establish dominance. Now it's just another corporate megaphone with an inconvenient independent cr

YouTube was a free speech platform only as long as it took to establish dominance. Now it's just another corporate megaphone with an inconvenient independent creator problem they are slowly solving by making it an intolerable place to have dissenting opinions. Can't question the election, can't question coronavirus. Big Google decides what is acceptable and keeps the rules and process vague, inscrutable, and opaque so they can selectively enforce them.

munk-a 6y ago
If you want a free speech platform you should advocate for a government funded competitor. You might think that the NSA would instantly prune comments but you'd be failing to see the 800 lbs gorilla which is the US GAO and FOIA requests that'd hamstring anything the intelligence branches tried to do (outside of, y'know, legitimate threats).
- holler 6y ago
  That's an interesting idea. I'm working on an alternative discussion site and have wondered why the Gov doesn't do more to foster competition rather than hold pointless hearings with the same 3 people over and over again.
  - RugnirViking 6y ago
    Because that would interfere with their agenda of getting hired/getting their children hired by those same monopoly companies after leaving office
viraptor 6y ago
WH disabling comments on its videos is not against free speech. It's not about allowing you to shout about your issues wherever you want with everyone having to see it. Disabling comments on official communication is a good move whether it's gov or private company announcements. They won't have to deal with some top upvoted comment with: incorrect summary, incorrect restatement of something, abuse at the account or others, etc. For official announcement there's thousands of places to discuss them on the internet and literally no upside to allowing that in the same visible space as the announcement itself. (see for example https://youtu.be/lzTUQLbzYJA https://youtu.be/lzTUQLbzYJA and try to find any comment which provides any valuable information and isn't just heckling, totally off topic, or just abusive - I found just 1 out of ~140 - why would anyone want that on an official announcement?)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- water8 6y ago
  Let’s cut the BS. It’s about not looking bad. Its that simple
  - adventured 6y ago
    That's absolutely what it's about. There's nothing to debate about that. It's the same reason Trump wanted to be able to block people on Twitter. For the same reason he wasn't allowed to do that, the White House shouldn't be allowed to disable YouTube commenting. But hey, it's not like there's a double standard in favor of the Democrats and Biden.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - viraptor 6y ago
      Different case. From the Twitter ruling: "... utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech". That is completely different from not enabling comments on an announcement video where they're not enabled to anyone, but also not restricting anyone from seeing the content.
    - notriddle 6y ago
      I’m curious if Twitter would’ve allowed him to blanket disable comments. Not blocking specific individuals, but just not having any comments at all. They have an option for that (technically, “only people you @mention,” but as long as you never @mention anyone, it won’t let them reply), but I don’t remember hearing anything one way or the other about him trying to do that.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    I think it's more about make the commenters not look bad (in this case American people)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

munk-a 6y ago

If you want a free speech platform you should advocate for a government funded competitor. You might think that the NSA would instantly prune comments but you'd be failing to see the 800 lbs gorilla which is the US GAO and FOIA requests that'd hamstring anything the intelligence branches tried to do (outside of, y'know, legitimate threats).

holler 6y ago
That's an interesting idea. I'm working on an alternative discussion site and have wondered why the Gov doesn't do more to foster competition rather than hold pointless hearings with the same 3 people over and over again.
- RugnirViking 6y ago
  Because that would interfere with their agenda of getting hired/getting their children hired by those same monopoly companies after leaving office

viraptor 6y ago

WH disabling comments on its videos is not against free speech. It's not about allowing you to shout about your issues wherever you want with everyone having to see it. Disabling comments on official communication is a good move whether it's gov or private company announcements. They won't have to deal with some top upvoted comment with: incorrect summary, incorrect restatement of something, abuse at the account or others, etc. For official announcement there's thousands of places to discuss them on the internet and literally no upside to allowing that in the same visible space as the announcement itself. (see for example https://youtu.be/lzTUQLbzYJA https://youtu.be/lzTUQLbzYJA and try to find any comment which provides any valuable information and isn't just heckling, totally off topic, or just abusive - I found just 1 out of ~140 - why would anyone want that on an official announcement?)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
water8 6y ago
Let’s cut the BS. It’s about not looking bad. Its that simple
- adventured 6y ago
  That's absolutely what it's about. There's nothing to debate about that. It's the same reason Trump wanted to be able to block people on Twitter. For the same reason he wasn't allowed to do that, the White House shouldn't be allowed to disable YouTube commenting. But hey, it's not like there's a double standard in favor of the Democrats and Biden.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Different case. From the Twitter ruling: "... utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech". That is completely different from not enabling comments on an announcement video where they're not enabled to anyone, but also not restricting anyone from seeing the content.
  - notriddle 6y ago
    I’m curious if Twitter would’ve allowed him to blanket disable comments. Not blocking specific individuals, but just not having any comments at all. They have an option for that (technically, “only people you @mention,” but as long as you never @mention anyone, it won’t let them reply), but I don’t remember hearing anything one way or the other about him trying to do that.
- africanboy 6y ago
  I think it's more about make the commenters not look bad (in this case American people)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]