3 ms·

> 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 articl

> 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.

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.