3 ms·

Yes exactly, they are pursuers of profit. When they host the videos it merely aligns with their profit motives. When they block something it is because it inter

Yes exactly, they are pursuers of profit. When they host the videos it merely aligns with their profit motives. When they block something it is because it interferes with their profit motives. I have no issue with this whatsoever, it's what I expect. I'm curious how this negates the criticism of them rather than enhances the case for it? We cannot trust Google to behave in the public interest (information about human rights abuses qualifies in my mind) when it conflicts with their own interests. Hence people's dismay over the amount of control they wield over the distribution of information. Do you think a news org that wiped coverage of Uighur repression from its site to protect its business in China wouldn't face similar outrage? And they wield significantly less power than Google does. Tech companies in particular like to present themselves as enlightened and socially conscious. Hardly surprising that when the mask slips people are outraged.

Aunche 5y ago
> We cannot trust Google to behave in the public interest (information about human rights abuses qualifies in my mind) when it conflicts with their own interests. Hence people's dismay over the amount of control they wield over the distribution of information. Assuming that people do want some level of censorship, profit motive actually ends up being the most fair. If enough people are angry about this, Google will change their policy. Social media treat the control they have on information as more of a burden than an asset, as it should be. They would love to have an authoritative doctrine or committee that they can point their fingers to when someone disagrees with their decision of whether or not to censor something. In fact, Facebook spent $130 million dollars establishing a content "supreme court" in an attempt to do that. However, people are naturally even more skeptical of anyone who wants the responsibility of moderating billions of hours of content. > Do you think a news org that wiped coverage of Uighur repression from its site to protect its business in China wouldn't face similar outrage? I don't think this is a fair comparison. This describes removing a dozen videos that showed IDs and asked them to blur out. News organizations also have very strict rules on what journalists can publish, which many would consider to be arbitrary. Pulling a pro-Uighur article for not following those rules does not deserve outrage either.

Aunche 5y ago

> We cannot trust Google to behave in the public interest (information about human rights abuses qualifies in my mind) when it conflicts with their own interests. Hence people's dismay over the amount of control they wield over the distribution of information. Assuming that people do want some level of censorship, profit motive actually ends up being the most fair. If enough people are angry about this, Google will change their policy. Social media treat the control they have on information as more of a burden than an asset, as it should be. They would love to have an authoritative doctrine or committee that they can point their fingers to when someone disagrees with their decision of whether or not to censor something. In fact, Facebook spent $130 million dollars establishing a content "supreme court" in an attempt to do that. However, people are naturally even more skeptical of anyone who wants the responsibility of moderating billions of hours of content. > Do you think a news org that wiped coverage of Uighur repression from its site to protect its business in China wouldn't face similar outrage? I don't think this is a fair comparison. This describes removing a dozen videos that showed IDs and asked them to blur out. News organizations also have very strict rules on what journalists can publish, which many would consider to be arbitrary. Pulling a pro-Uighur article for not following those rules does not deserve outrage either.