8 ms·
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
by xxpor 5y ago
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
- throwawayswede 5y agoThe company doesn't find anything objectionable. It's the Who (a political org that has nothing to do with science) that is dictating what YouTube should do. YouTube and other technocrats believe that can tell people how and what they should think. With that being said, forcing a private company with state violence is not good either, unfortunately there's no magic wand to wave and reset everything. We shouldn't be pragmatic, but we have to be practical.
- ModernMech 5y ago> It's the Who (a political org that has nothing to do with science) that is dictating what YouTube should do. How are they dictating this? What power does the WHO have over YouTube to force them to make this decision?
- jokethrowaway 5y agoI see where you're coming from but I disagree that the WHO is the source or the holder of power. They don't have enough money for that. The WHO is probably just another puppet in the hands of richer state actors, as the infamous Taiwan Skype Interview show us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE Besides, I don't even think the people involved in YouTube and on a similar level are directly influenced by anyone. They're just a liberal company parroting their party's political line and not noticing how totalitarian these measures are. It's people higher up setting the party line that are probably on the payroll of richer state actors. Most likely they also own the opposition to make sure nothing happens whoever is elected.
- mousepilot 5y ago>YouTube and other technocrats believe that can tell people how and what they should think. If you go to youtube to be told what to think then you're probably using the internet for things it wasn't designed for lol
- silicon2401 5y agoI wonder if you would agree to the following equivalent: > State violence is being used to force a christian bakery to bake (gay/muslim/etc) cakes it finds objectionable. Who's the villain here? The more you open service to the public, the more control over your output you lose because then it becomes a matter of discrimination.
- happytoexplain 5y agoWhy are they equivalent?
- vageli 5y agoBoth are instances of the state compelling a private enterprise to act in a way that is against the enterprise's interests.
- hvac 5y agoHaving a certain political opinion is not a protected class in the US
- throwawayswede 5y agoThat's not what this is about. In both cases, the state is forcing an company to do something they don't want. The only difference is that you agree with the one but not the other.
- hvac 5y agoYes, because the difference is that they are essentially immutable personal traits. The parent was presenting this scenario as an equivalent one and I don't think they are.
- silicon2401 5y agoHow is religion any more or less immutable from political beliefs? In my view both are fully equivalent.
- nextlevelwizard 5y agoYou can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Youtube needs to stop censoring videos or it needs to go through every single video it has and that gets uploaded
- scotty79 5y agoPlatform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
- tedunangst 5y agoShould movie theaters be allowed to select which movies they show?
- Const-me 5y agoThere're many movie theaters, but only one youtube in the whole world. Youtube and facebook are natural monopolies due to their network effect. All the older natural monopolies, water networks, electricity networks, landline phone networks, railroad networks, and the rest of them are either nationalized, or regulated heavily. It's long overdue to add social networks to the list.
- anigbrowl 5y agoThere's only one YouTube, but lots of video sharing sites. You can put your material on Bitchute, Vimeo, ....
- Const-me 5y agoYoutube's monopoly is not video hosting, there're many ways to do that. Their monopoly is their social network. People want to publish video where the audience is, the global audience happen to be on youtube, and going to stay there because that's where most videos are.
- bobthechef 5y agoNot absolutely. They shouldn't be able to show porn, for example, or some other destructive content. (And no, it's not a question of taste or opinion. That relativist claim is worthless and tired. We're not talking about vanilla or chocolate ice cream here.) I suppose in this particular case (and that matters: things like this can be particular) you would just criminalize those sorts of movies. The idea that we shouldn't do such things because government could be used to impose horrible things is a bad one. Driving a car could kill you, but you wouldn't ban cars for that reason because cars are not bad in principle nor are they so dangerous that they should be banned. They are regulated, however, and this is good.
- contravariant 5y agoPerhaps more importantly, what is 'technocrat' here? Because I'm fairly sure none of the accepted meanings make any sense.
- xdennis 5y agoGoogle hosts billions of hours of video. It doesn't mind a few videos. They never argued that the costs are an issue.
- CountDrewku 5y agoWhat are your thoughts on net neutrality?
- bobthechef 5y agoWhat about private industry violence? Don't make Google out to be some victim. Private industry is pushing social changes that the US government could never dream of doing, not at this scale. Fear of government overreach needs to be balanced with fear of oligarchic overreach and corporate power.