4 ms·

It absolutely can be, and it's absolutely something to watch out for, but I'm not sure that it is government censorship in this case. YouTube is choosing who to

by zugi 5y ago

It absolutely can be, and it's absolutely something to watch out for, but I'm not sure that it is government censorship in this case. YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement. That said, a few years ago one of things that kicked off the change from being relatively hands-off to more active content censorship by all of these platforms was being dragged before Congress and lectured and threatened that, if they didn't start voluntarily censoring content, the government would force them to. Those government threats, though they lacked immediate legal force, really do constitute government censorship. So there's an argument to be made that this whole new world of "voluntary" censorship by platform providers really is at its core government censorship.

leereeves 5y ago
> YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement. It sounds like you've accepted the article's claim that YouTube is consulting government employees. If that's the case, aren't any gov employees who collaborate with YouTube here engaging in censorship? Imagine an analogous situation: a PI goes to the police and offers to break into a suspect's home and collect evidence, if the police will tell the PI what to look for. Accepting that offer and advising the PI on what to collect would be a violation of the suspect's rights, even if the police are merely consulting on the PIs voluntary actions.
- drivingmenuts 5y ago
  That comes down to nearly-unprovable hairsplitting. If government employees are demanding action, backed by force of law, then Yes. But if YT is merely free to follow or reject advice as it chooses, then No. I can hear advice all day long from experts, but whether I choose to follow or ignore, the consequence is on me.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    That’s not really a fair representation of reality. YT and others aren’t really “free to follow”. There are implications for their choice. For example they may face less anti trust scrutiny from the progressive left if they continue to perform censorship that aligns to that political ideology. They may face less scrutiny when it comes to taxes or privacy laws as well. It is precisely because we can’t prove or disprove these links that there should be no situation where state employees ask for censorship (either hard bans or actions like algorithmic changes), period.
    - drivingmenuts 5y ago
      > we can’t prove or disprove these links Then the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that these links exist. Until then, they functionally don’t exist from an outside perspective.
      - mistermann 5y ago
        A burden of proof exists for anyone who makes an assertion. In reality, they do exist or they do not, but obtaining accurate knowledge of the situation is another matter.
akomtu 5y ago
All those twitter-like companies have surprisingly uniform list of banned topics and list of topics that get promoted to the front page. If censorship wasn't a thing, there would be a variety of opinion, i.e. things you could say on Twitter but not on Facebook and vice versa.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  The conclusion doesn't follow from the facts you state. There's a surprisingly large number of people who like Coldplay and short-sleeve dress shirts, and no government mandate was needed to get to that state of affairs, nor has any government succeeded in curbing these atrocities.

by zugi 5y ago

leereeves 5y ago

> YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement. It sounds like you've accepted the article's claim that YouTube is consulting government employees. If that's the case, aren't any gov employees who collaborate with YouTube here engaging in censorship? Imagine an analogous situation: a PI goes to the police and offers to break into a suspect's home and collect evidence, if the police will tell the PI what to look for. Accepting that offer and advising the PI on what to collect would be a violation of the suspect's rights, even if the police are merely consulting on the PIs voluntary actions.

drivingmenuts 5y ago
That comes down to nearly-unprovable hairsplitting. If government employees are demanding action, backed by force of law, then Yes. But if YT is merely free to follow or reject advice as it chooses, then No. I can hear advice all day long from experts, but whether I choose to follow or ignore, the consequence is on me.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  That’s not really a fair representation of reality. YT and others aren’t really “free to follow”. There are implications for their choice. For example they may face less anti trust scrutiny from the progressive left if they continue to perform censorship that aligns to that political ideology. They may face less scrutiny when it comes to taxes or privacy laws as well. It is precisely because we can’t prove or disprove these links that there should be no situation where state employees ask for censorship (either hard bans or actions like algorithmic changes), period.
  - drivingmenuts 5y ago
    > we can’t prove or disprove these links Then the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that these links exist. Until then, they functionally don’t exist from an outside perspective.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      A burden of proof exists for anyone who makes an assertion. In reality, they do exist or they do not, but obtaining accurate knowledge of the situation is another matter.

akomtu 5y ago

All those twitter-like companies have surprisingly uniform list of banned topics and list of topics that get promoted to the front page. If censorship wasn't a thing, there would be a variety of opinion, i.e. things you could say on Twitter but not on Facebook and vice versa.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
The conclusion doesn't follow from the facts you state. There's a surprisingly large number of people who like Coldplay and short-sleeve dress shirts, and no government mandate was needed to get to that state of affairs, nor has any government succeeded in curbing these atrocities.