4 ms·

It's amazing how disconnected from reality Susan is... I don't think she even knows it. YouTube is probably the poster child for censorship in the context of ge

by martin1975 6y ago

It's amazing how disconnected from reality Susan is... I don't think she even knows it. YouTube is probably the poster child for censorship in the context of genuinely free (1A-protected) speech. I have no idea how this self-stroking "award" can be taken seriously by those who actually monitor freedom of speech (excluding porn, which I don't consider 'speech').

b0afc375b5 6y ago
Not surprising considering YouTube Rewind (2018) currently has a like / dislike of 3 million / 19 million. What's surprising is they haven't disabled comments for that video. Kudos to them I guess.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Honestly I wonder if they even noticed. Based on reading comments under op-eds in newspapers I don't believe the executive or media class actually ever look at prole-feed like comments and like counts. The only YouTubers who might have noticed this don't have the power to yank videos and comments, not are they going to point them out to Wojcicki.
kmeisthax 6y ago
First Amendment wouldn't apply here unless you were to somehow bring something like the state actors doctrine into it. It only regulates government behavior. Strictly speaking under the First Amendment YouTube is incapable of censorship. Under a more expansive concept of free speech, where we include things like monopoly market power or illegal use of force as government action; then you could argue that YouTube does censor things due to their large size. It's genuinely difficult to start your own video site and speak without being buried in hosting fees; so I think it's useful to talk about them censoring things in some contexts. However, we've also strayed far away from the First Amendment. Outside of those concepts; however, I don't think the word "censorship" is very useful. If Hacker News decides to ban me, I can go to many thousands of other private forae in order to speak. Perhaps we should use the term "para-censorship" to refer to these situations in which third parties decide to refuse to do business with you.
aryanoes 6y ago
Wait this isn't remotely true. Maybe from a specific American perspective that could be true but for the vast majority of people and countries Youtube has promoted free speech by allowing people to share their opinions and stories globally, especially in countries like China, Russia and the Philippines where dissent is punishable with jail time.
- mansion7 6y ago
  It is because those dissenters have no effect on US elections. The moment they do and it seems to be helping the opponents of Youtube's preferred candidates (which they have made clear that they have), those foreign dissenters will get flushed down the algorithmic memory hole too.

b0afc375b5 6y ago

Not surprising considering YouTube Rewind (2018) currently has a like / dislike of 3 million / 19 million. What's surprising is they haven't disabled comments for that video. Kudos to them I guess.

thu2111 6y ago
Honestly I wonder if they even noticed. Based on reading comments under op-eds in newspapers I don't believe the executive or media class actually ever look at prole-feed like comments and like counts. The only YouTubers who might have noticed this don't have the power to yank videos and comments, not are they going to point them out to Wojcicki.

kmeisthax 6y ago

First Amendment wouldn't apply here unless you were to somehow bring something like the state actors doctrine into it. It only regulates government behavior. Strictly speaking under the First Amendment YouTube is incapable of censorship. Under a more expansive concept of free speech, where we include things like monopoly market power or illegal use of force as government action; then you could argue that YouTube does censor things due to their large size. It's genuinely difficult to start your own video site and speak without being buried in hosting fees; so I think it's useful to talk about them censoring things in some contexts. However, we've also strayed far away from the First Amendment. Outside of those concepts; however, I don't think the word "censorship" is very useful. If Hacker News decides to ban me, I can go to many thousands of other private forae in order to speak. Perhaps we should use the term "para-censorship" to refer to these situations in which third parties decide to refuse to do business with you.

aryanoes 6y ago

Wait this isn't remotely true. Maybe from a specific American perspective that could be true but for the vast majority of people and countries Youtube has promoted free speech by allowing people to share their opinions and stories globally, especially in countries like China, Russia and the Philippines where dissent is punishable with jail time.

mansion7 6y ago
It is because those dissenters have no effect on US elections. The moment they do and it seems to be helping the opponents of Youtube's preferred candidates (which they have made clear that they have), those foreign dissenters will get flushed down the algorithmic memory hole too.