5 ms·

The US does this kind of thing too but it's privatized. I'm not justifying the behavior. I abhor it regardless of who does it. here's an example: https://www

The US does this kind of thing too but it's privatized. I'm not justifying the behavior. I abhor it regardless of who does it. here's an example: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/24/senate-democrats-ask-youtube-ceo-to-remove-election-misinformation-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/24/senate-democrats-ask-youtube... we just use different descriptions. "it's for safety." "these people must be excluded for the sake of inclusivity and tolerance." "harmful ideas have a chilling effect."

meepmorp 5y ago
> Russia's communications watchdog on Monday gave Google (GOOGL.O) 24 hours to delete what it called prohibited content or be fined and said Moscow could eventually slow down the company's traffic in the country. Versus > Senate Democrats wrote a letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, citing concern over fueling election misinformation. The senators asked Wojcicki to commit to removing videos that contain false election information, which the company has faced increasing backlash over in recent weeks. You really see these as analogous situations?
- zapdrive 5y ago
  Yes, I read both as: "Country asks a private company to delete content." How can you even argue that both are different?
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    Do you really see no significant difference between a regulatory agency threatening fines and interference with network traffic on 24 hours notice, and group of legislators sending and open letter to request content be removed?
    - gnarbarian 5y ago
      You're right. The Senate Democrats request and Google's subsequent capitulation is a far more ominous and insidious display of soft power.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- networkid 5y ago
  Just different wording of the same kind of proces. How do you see them differently though?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - brian_cloutier 5y ago
    It is obvious these processes are worded differently. One is phrased as a demand combined with a clear and credible threat. The other is phrased as a request. The difference is so obvious that I have to assume you also see it. What point are you trying to make then? You believe that if YouTube did not comply congress would fine YouTube or slow down its traffic in the US?
    - gnarbarian 5y ago
      they don't even need to make a threat, it didn't even have to pass legislation. A partisan congressional group made a request because it suited them and Google buckled like a belt. in my opinion it's far worse, it's a flagrant display of extra governmental soft power the likes of which would not be symmetrical for the opposing party.
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    The former is coercive, and the other is not. Unless details are completely meaningless here, and we’re just making any equivalences we can come up with.
    - Enginerrrd 5y ago
      >and the other is not Sort of... The feds usually drop hints before cracking down with a heavier hand, and I don't think this is that far removed from it. So there's a bit of an implicit threat. Even if you disagree with that assessment, however, it's worth noting that the 1st amendment specifically bars congress from making law which would infringe on freedom of speech. So, IMO, it's a bit improper for them to write pseudo-official letters asking for censorship.
- pydry 5y ago
  As Roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a big stick. Russia is, in this case, not speaking softly.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  governmental power in the US is always exercised through these quasi side-channels and the threat is indirect. "You can do what you want Susan, but..." It's actually in many ways a more sinister exercise of power than Russia's "go and delete xy comrade" because it creates the illusion that private industry in the US is not subject to state supervision. Just observe how Twitter say, ignored Trump's rule-breaking while in office and found mysterious extra rules, and the minute the power in Washington changes he's fired. All without one executive order.
jollybean 5y ago
This isn't a fair comparison. A state controlling information as a means of propaganda, and another state's elected officials calling for the removal of non-factual information which deteriorates the effective quality of the electoral process are not the same thing. Obviously - it's all politicized on some level, no doubt. But if someone puts up a fake video saying 'Clear evidence of election fraud' with 50M views, when the video doesn't actually have any evidence of electoral fraud ... well it's a civic problem. One one had we have issues of state, which are probably the most complicated ... on the other, we have issues of basic civic principles particularly as it applies to the actual truth. All of this boils down to the giant Elephant in the Room that nobody seems to want to talk about, which is that the Media has never been 'just about money'. Like Doctors, Lawyers/Judiciary, there has always been at least some degree of culture of integrity at least with respect to the facts. Big Journos don't talk about 'profit maximization' they talk about 'breaking the story'. Journalists don't idolize the CEO, they idolize Bernstein and Woodward. Obviously, there's a spectrum here and every news organization does push for viewers in sneaky ways, they avoid upsetting major advertisers - but it's clear that the quality of 'truth' varies quite dramatically between organizations, and that it helps a lot to have those with 'better quality' near the top. Russia has been moving in the direction of China for a long time, I suspect that will continue.
- rnd0 5y ago
  "Russia has been moving in the direction of China for a long time, I suspect that will continue." I'm less worried (and less surprised) about that and more worried about the stifling of free speech and expression in the US, particularly the insidious way it's being carried out.
Aerroon 5y ago
Didn't Germany also put some kind of 24 hour limit on removing banned content?

meepmorp 5y ago

> Russia's communications watchdog on Monday gave Google (GOOGL.O) 24 hours to delete what it called prohibited content or be fined and said Moscow could eventually slow down the company's traffic in the country. Versus > Senate Democrats wrote a letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, citing concern over fueling election misinformation. The senators asked Wojcicki to commit to removing videos that contain false election information, which the company has faced increasing backlash over in recent weeks. You really see these as analogous situations?

zapdrive 5y ago
Yes, I read both as: "Country asks a private company to delete content." How can you even argue that both are different?
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Do you really see no significant difference between a regulatory agency threatening fines and interference with network traffic on 24 hours notice, and group of legislators sending and open letter to request content be removed?
  - gnarbarian 5y ago
    You're right. The Senate Democrats request and Google's subsequent capitulation is a far more ominous and insidious display of soft power.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
networkid 5y ago
Just different wording of the same kind of proces. How do you see them differently though?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- brian_cloutier 5y ago
  It is obvious these processes are worded differently. One is phrased as a demand combined with a clear and credible threat. The other is phrased as a request. The difference is so obvious that I have to assume you also see it. What point are you trying to make then? You believe that if YouTube did not comply congress would fine YouTube or slow down its traffic in the US?
  - gnarbarian 5y ago
    they don't even need to make a threat, it didn't even have to pass legislation. A partisan congressional group made a request because it suited them and Google buckled like a belt. in my opinion it's far worse, it's a flagrant display of extra governmental soft power the likes of which would not be symmetrical for the opposing party.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  The former is coercive, and the other is not. Unless details are completely meaningless here, and we’re just making any equivalences we can come up with.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    >and the other is not Sort of... The feds usually drop hints before cracking down with a heavier hand, and I don't think this is that far removed from it. So there's a bit of an implicit threat. Even if you disagree with that assessment, however, it's worth noting that the 1st amendment specifically bars congress from making law which would infringe on freedom of speech. So, IMO, it's a bit improper for them to write pseudo-official letters asking for censorship.
pydry 5y ago
As Roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a big stick. Russia is, in this case, not speaking softly.
Barrin92 5y ago
governmental power in the US is always exercised through these quasi side-channels and the threat is indirect. "You can do what you want Susan, but..." It's actually in many ways a more sinister exercise of power than Russia's "go and delete xy comrade" because it creates the illusion that private industry in the US is not subject to state supervision. Just observe how Twitter say, ignored Trump's rule-breaking while in office and found mysterious extra rules, and the minute the power in Washington changes he's fired. All without one executive order.

jollybean 5y ago

This isn't a fair comparison. A state controlling information as a means of propaganda, and another state's elected officials calling for the removal of non-factual information which deteriorates the effective quality of the electoral process are not the same thing. Obviously - it's all politicized on some level, no doubt. But if someone puts up a fake video saying 'Clear evidence of election fraud' with 50M views, when the video doesn't actually have any evidence of electoral fraud ... well it's a civic problem. One one had we have issues of state, which are probably the most complicated ... on the other, we have issues of basic civic principles particularly as it applies to the actual truth. All of this boils down to the giant Elephant in the Room that nobody seems to want to talk about, which is that the Media has never been 'just about money'. Like Doctors, Lawyers/Judiciary, there has always been at least some degree of culture of integrity at least with respect to the facts. Big Journos don't talk about 'profit maximization' they talk about 'breaking the story'. Journalists don't idolize the CEO, they idolize Bernstein and Woodward. Obviously, there's a spectrum here and every news organization does push for viewers in sneaky ways, they avoid upsetting major advertisers - but it's clear that the quality of 'truth' varies quite dramatically between organizations, and that it helps a lot to have those with 'better quality' near the top. Russia has been moving in the direction of China for a long time, I suspect that will continue.

rnd0 5y ago
"Russia has been moving in the direction of China for a long time, I suspect that will continue." I'm less worried (and less surprised) about that and more worried about the stifling of free speech and expression in the US, particularly the insidious way it's being carried out.

Aerroon 5y ago

Didn't Germany also put some kind of 24 hour limit on removing banned content?