7 ms·

As a CEO of youtube, she is free to express her views freely on youtube, by censoring opinions of other people that she does not agree with.

by throwaway1959 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
samstave 5y ago
Came to say the same thing!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
libeclipse 5y ago
Freedom of expression includes the right to supress the views of others! /s
- judge2020 5y ago
  The right to not be forced to spread the views of others :)
  - kobieyc 5y ago
    I think there is more nuance to this. The problem is that YouTube literally claim "Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world." not the selectively suppress the views of certain groups. So I think it's closer to false advertising.
- anm89 5y ago
  Right. This is actually how it works. Many of us support this.
- melff 5y ago
  only if the wiews of others are HaTEfuL!!1!11! we must censor hAteFUl11!1!!1 content because members of ProTEcTeD gROupS are not mentally fit to deal with other people's opinions cough I mean because this kind of content is violent and harmful.
throwaway122378 5y ago
Worse than her censorship is our (me included) refusal to collectively stand up to this behavior
fossuser 5y ago
You're being snarky, but this is essentially true (as I understand it). In the US, outside of a few legally protected characteristics, a company is free to exercise its speech to choose not to provide service to customers it does not wish to. The government forcing companies to provide service would be a violation of their speech rights. Some companies go out of their way to try to be better than that because they recognize the influence they have on public access to platforms. (Zuckerberg cares a lot about this: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-free-speech.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-f...), but ultimately all of that is above and beyond what the legal expectations are. In FB's case it wasn't so much a policy change that lead to them shutting down Trump's account, but that USG's position as a rule of law nation was in question after 1/6 and it no longer met their own policy requirements that give elected politicians in rule of law democracies a special pass to violate their moderation rules. The irony is this is a variant of the same argument made in the gay cake case, but with the political partisanship reversed. The notable difference in that case is that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.
- ardit33 5y ago
  "The government forcing companies to provide service would be a violation of their speech rights." -- True, but the government can institute a bill of rights for digital platforms, and make it mandatory for companies that want to have section 230 protection. Youtube will be free to choose between following the bill of rights, or becoming a regulated media like the TV, or being prone to defamation lawsuits and be responsible for its content. What that bill of rights would look like? That's a different story... but google, or any tech company, having the power to just delete your gmail/email account, and erase all your stored data at will it is kinda scary. There should be a happy medium. We do this for evictions already (i.e. there is a process for the eviction, we should do something lightweight for the digital space as well). Eg, if google has determined you have abused on your email, you will have 30 days to retrieve your data, and contacts and transfer them somewhere else. Losing access altogether is very disruptive.
  - Aunche 5y ago
    > the government can institute a bill of rights for digital platforms, and make it mandatory for companies that want to have section 230 protection. Social Media companies actually want this as well because then they can just deflect all unpopular decisions to this bill of rights. That's why Facebook spent $700 million to create their own content moderation "supreme court." Congress had every opportunity to explore this issue further during the Congressional hearings about section 230. Unfortunately, they were more interested in whining about why this specific issue should be censored or why this specific issue should not be censored.
jgalt212 5y ago
Almost as good as when Blythe Masters tried to be a regulator and a perpetrator (or manager thereof) at the same time. On Second Thought, JPMorgan Executive Won’t Advise Commodities Regulator https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-07/jpmorgans-blythe-masters-withdraws-from-cftc-advisory-committee https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-07/jpmorgans...
modeitsch 5y ago
This is how the entire world of big tech works
hintymad 5y ago
I always wonder what makes YouTube/Twitter, in particular its so-called reviewers or fact-checkers, think that they are on the right side of the history? They are not necessarily better informed, they are not necessarily better educated, and they are not necessarily better at research, they are not necessarily better at interpreting stats. In fact, I question if many of them understand scientific research at all. Yet they had no problem banning a person for citing a research from Stanford that questions the effectiveness of masks. Yet they had no problem declaring Florida's governor was spreading misinformation in a round-table discussion. Yet they had no problem shutting down anyone a year ago who supported wearing mask or staying at home, and shutting down anyone now who claims the opposite now. In fact, YouTube, according to BBC, bans any coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts World Health Organization (WHO) advice. Yet isn't it true that WHO gave really bad advice in the early days of Covid-19? Isn't true that Taiwan ignored WHO's advice and implemented strict containment policy to a great success? Isn't Thailand representative harshly criticized WHO for their dubious corroboration with Chinese government? What makes YouTube think that they possess moral superiority over other people?
- linuxftw 5y ago
  They know they're frauds pushing a political agenda, and they know if they and their conspirators repeat the same lies over and over, the masses will believe them.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    That's a rather cynical view. In my experience, people who make false statements with confidence often believe their own bullshit.
- zarkov99 5y ago
  I think the reviewers are mostly low on the tech totem pole young people, as ignorant of history or anything outside of their neighborhoods as they are certain about their virtue. You know, as young people have always been. That they get to police what everybody else can say is a serious problem.

As a CEO of youtube, she is free to express her views freely on youtube, by censoring opinions of other people that she does not agree with.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

samstave 5y ago

Came to say the same thing!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

libeclipse 5y ago

Freedom of expression includes the right to supress the views of others! /s

judge2020 5y ago
The right to not be forced to spread the views of others :)
- kobieyc 5y ago
  I think there is more nuance to this. The problem is that YouTube literally claim "Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world." not the selectively suppress the views of certain groups. So I think it's closer to false advertising.
anm89 5y ago
Right. This is actually how it works. Many of us support this.
melff 5y ago
only if the wiews of others are HaTEfuL!!1!11! we must censor hAteFUl11!1!!1 content because members of ProTEcTeD gROupS are not mentally fit to deal with other people's opinions cough I mean because this kind of content is violent and harmful.

throwaway122378 5y ago

Worse than her censorship is our (me included) refusal to collectively stand up to this behavior

fossuser 5y ago

You're being snarky, but this is essentially true (as I understand it). In the US, outside of a few legally protected characteristics, a company is free to exercise its speech to choose not to provide service to customers it does not wish to. The government forcing companies to provide service would be a violation of their speech rights. Some companies go out of their way to try to be better than that because they recognize the influence they have on public access to platforms. (Zuckerberg cares a lot about this: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-free-speech.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-f...), but ultimately all of that is above and beyond what the legal expectations are. In FB's case it wasn't so much a policy change that lead to them shutting down Trump's account, but that USG's position as a rule of law nation was in question after 1/6 and it no longer met their own policy requirements that give elected politicians in rule of law democracies a special pass to violate their moderation rules. The irony is this is a variant of the same argument made in the gay cake case, but with the political partisanship reversed. The notable difference in that case is that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.

ardit33 5y ago
"The government forcing companies to provide service would be a violation of their speech rights." -- True, but the government can institute a bill of rights for digital platforms, and make it mandatory for companies that want to have section 230 protection. Youtube will be free to choose between following the bill of rights, or becoming a regulated media like the TV, or being prone to defamation lawsuits and be responsible for its content. What that bill of rights would look like? That's a different story... but google, or any tech company, having the power to just delete your gmail/email account, and erase all your stored data at will it is kinda scary. There should be a happy medium. We do this for evictions already (i.e. there is a process for the eviction, we should do something lightweight for the digital space as well). Eg, if google has determined you have abused on your email, you will have 30 days to retrieve your data, and contacts and transfer them somewhere else. Losing access altogether is very disruptive.
- Aunche 5y ago
  > the government can institute a bill of rights for digital platforms, and make it mandatory for companies that want to have section 230 protection. Social Media companies actually want this as well because then they can just deflect all unpopular decisions to this bill of rights. That's why Facebook spent $700 million to create their own content moderation "supreme court." Congress had every opportunity to explore this issue further during the Congressional hearings about section 230. Unfortunately, they were more interested in whining about why this specific issue should be censored or why this specific issue should not be censored.

jgalt212 5y ago

Almost as good as when Blythe Masters tried to be a regulator and a perpetrator (or manager thereof) at the same time. On Second Thought, JPMorgan Executive Won’t Advise Commodities Regulator https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-07/jpmorgans-blythe-masters-withdraws-from-cftc-advisory-committee https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-07/jpmorgans...

modeitsch 5y ago

This is how the entire world of big tech works

hintymad 5y ago

I always wonder what makes YouTube/Twitter, in particular its so-called reviewers or fact-checkers, think that they are on the right side of the history? They are not necessarily better informed, they are not necessarily better educated, and they are not necessarily better at research, they are not necessarily better at interpreting stats. In fact, I question if many of them understand scientific research at all. Yet they had no problem banning a person for citing a research from Stanford that questions the effectiveness of masks. Yet they had no problem declaring Florida's governor was spreading misinformation in a round-table discussion. Yet they had no problem shutting down anyone a year ago who supported wearing mask or staying at home, and shutting down anyone now who claims the opposite now. In fact, YouTube, according to BBC, bans any coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts World Health Organization (WHO) advice. Yet isn't it true that WHO gave really bad advice in the early days of Covid-19? Isn't true that Taiwan ignored WHO's advice and implemented strict containment policy to a great success? Isn't Thailand representative harshly criticized WHO for their dubious corroboration with Chinese government? What makes YouTube think that they possess moral superiority over other people?

linuxftw 5y ago
They know they're frauds pushing a political agenda, and they know if they and their conspirators repeat the same lies over and over, the masses will believe them.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  That's a rather cynical view. In my experience, people who make false statements with confidence often believe their own bullshit.
zarkov99 5y ago
I think the reviewers are mostly low on the tech totem pole young people, as ignorant of history or anything outside of their neighborhoods as they are certain about their virtue. You know, as young people have always been. That they get to police what everybody else can say is a serious problem.