4 ms·

>2. Have nation-states nationalize it. I didn't downvote your comment but having governments own the media would increase censorship instead of decrease it. W

by jasode 5y ago

>2. Have nation-states nationalize it. I didn't downvote your comment but having governments own the media would increase censorship instead of decrease it. We're not just talking about China CCP censorship but also democratic nations such as UK. See examples of BBC censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... >3. Have the UN internationalize it. This idea is underspecified because it does not explain implementation of how the video website is funded. This is key because censorship happens by proxy via money. If the implementation is to get governments to collectively chip in to fund a global video website, you will get more censorship -- not less. Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"examples of BBC censorship" That's not a big list, more people are censored on youtube daily than BBC did in it's lifetime. This does not support your point. "Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor." And CEO's don't? Abusing political office for sensorship is a crime, abusing CEO position is ordinary business. Who is going to hold them accountable ? Are you free to show the world your company's dirty business? In contrast, I can submit a freedom of information request and get access to lots of information from mutiple government departments.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Who is going to hold them accountable? What instance can you think of where governments have been held accountable for their censorship? There aren't a lot of high profile cases there. > Option (1.) is the status quo and is the worst. The others each have pros and cons. Based on what evidence? Where have alternatives been tried? Why aren't those alternatives in general use if they are so good? Is this a comparison of messy reality with unattainable theory? Trading a thing we can choose not to use for a thing must use and that is integrated with military force. is always a bad trade. However bad Google is, government control of the media is worse. The only exception I make to that rule is foreign ownership of media, which is probably worse than government control. But both are pretty bad.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    >" Where have alternatives been tried? Why aren't those alternatives in general use if they are so good?" Did you live under a rock for the past hundred years? We have actual regulation of newspapers, radio and television. They dont need to be owned by the government, but we have media regulators thay set standards, and where you can complain
    - roenxi 5y ago
      I suppose my response to that is you're waving your hand and saying "there is hundreds of years of evidence" without actually pointing to any. Social media is still a far better platform for getting out an unpopular message than newspapers, radio and television. The past hundred years of those media have been marked by minority groups (political, but also in the common sense of the word) really struggling to get a voice.
einpoklum 5y ago
jasode: I didn't say I support option 2, I just laid out the options; and I did say there are pros and cons. I actually agree with you. Pro option 2: There will be an official mechanism for people to influence how such a platform is managed. Con for option 2: Governments are typically not very answerable to people, and definitely exploit the possibility of manipulating mass media or media platforms. Also, they have a natural symbiosis with large business interests, so it's possible they'll just be ok with the way things stand. As for option 3 - it's true that this is underspecified, and I'm not even sure there's a relevant precedent for anything like that. I mean, even something like ISO is independent of the UN. Although that suggests the possibility of a group of nation-states setting something like that up voluntarily, not necessarily going through the UN. Also, you'd need nation-states to want this bad enough, and I'm not at all sure enough of them do.

by jasode 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"examples of BBC censorship" That's not a big list, more people are censored on youtube daily than BBC did in it's lifetime. This does not support your point. "Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor." And CEO's don't? Abusing political office for sensorship is a crime, abusing CEO position is ordinary business. Who is going to hold them accountable ? Are you free to show the world your company's dirty business? In contrast, I can submit a freedom of information request and get access to lots of information from mutiple government departments.

roenxi 5y ago
> Who is going to hold them accountable? What instance can you think of where governments have been held accountable for their censorship? There aren't a lot of high profile cases there. > Option (1.) is the status quo and is the worst. The others each have pros and cons. Based on what evidence? Where have alternatives been tried? Why aren't those alternatives in general use if they are so good? Is this a comparison of messy reality with unattainable theory? Trading a thing we can choose not to use for a thing must use and that is integrated with military force. is always a bad trade. However bad Google is, government control of the media is worse. The only exception I make to that rule is foreign ownership of media, which is probably worse than government control. But both are pretty bad.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  >" Where have alternatives been tried? Why aren't those alternatives in general use if they are so good?" Did you live under a rock for the past hundred years? We have actual regulation of newspapers, radio and television. They dont need to be owned by the government, but we have media regulators thay set standards, and where you can complain
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I suppose my response to that is you're waving your hand and saying "there is hundreds of years of evidence" without actually pointing to any. Social media is still a far better platform for getting out an unpopular message than newspapers, radio and television. The past hundred years of those media have been marked by minority groups (political, but also in the common sense of the word) really struggling to get a voice.

einpoklum 5y ago

jasode: I didn't say I support option 2, I just laid out the options; and I did say there are pros and cons. I actually agree with you. Pro option 2: There will be an official mechanism for people to influence how such a platform is managed. Con for option 2: Governments are typically not very answerable to people, and definitely exploit the possibility of manipulating mass media or media platforms. Also, they have a natural symbiosis with large business interests, so it's possible they'll just be ok with the way things stand. As for option 3 - it's true that this is underspecified, and I'm not even sure there's a relevant precedent for anything like that. I mean, even something like ISO is independent of the UN. Although that suggests the possibility of a group of nation-states setting something like that up voluntarily, not necessarily going through the UN. Also, you'd need nation-states to want this bad enough, and I'm not at all sure enough of them do.