6 ms·

Totally agree, YouTube is in the wrong here. They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts and allow 'real free speech' in online platforms

by suyash 5y ago

Totally agree, YouTube is in the wrong here. They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts and allow 'real free speech' in online platforms.

bcrosby95 5y ago
So 'real free speech' is about requiring private companies to carry the message of a politically powerful agent of the government?
- suyash 5y ago
  that's your definition, for me it is allowing anyone to speak their views without putting a "extreme left" sensor and calling it fake.
  - ta2987 5y ago
    Do you think that I should be able to compel you, personally, to say something?
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    lol. the idea that masks reduce infection rates is not leftist.
    - Rapzid 5y ago
      That's exactly what a leftist would say.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    view ≠ facts. "extreme left" ≠ untrue.
- lupire 5y ago
  s/politically powerful agent of the government/person/ , yes.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    That is nothing like how free speech generally works in the US. Compelled speech is the exact opposite of free speech.
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. Right-wing extremists have defined that real free speech is when all parties are forced to provide a platform for all right-wing speech. To them, freedom is when racist white men can do anything they want without any consequences. When other people also have rights and choices, that to them is tyranny.
robbrown451 5y ago
Is there any "real free speech" that you think YouTube should be allowed to block? People advocating for shooting the president? People describing how to make a nuclear bomb? People advocating for killing cops? People sharing people's social security numbers? People explaining the best suicide methods? People trying to organize terrorist attacks? People threatening violence on other people? Anything?
- godshatter 5y ago
  In my opinion, they should be allowing anything they are not required by law to remove.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Which will result in them getting regulated. After being dragged before Congress over and over and being asked "why aren't you doing something about this?" And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." The law isn't crystal clear and black and white, until you end up in front of a judge or jury. The legal system in the US isn't all statutory, it is left for courts to decide based on precedent and, when there is none to draw from, higher and higher courts. It all seems simple until you actually think about these things.
    - godshatter 5y ago
      > And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." I was thinking more along the lines of removing posts when ordered to by the government they are incorporated under or by one in whose country to they do business. And if someone finds child porn or something on their servers, point them at the user that posted it. Which might work if they didn't mess with user's posts unless they absolutely had to. They are only in this current mess because they voluntarily curate, often aggressively.
gwright 5y ago
> They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts Not sure this is a good approach either. Discerning truth and separating fact from fiction isn't a skill that some people have and other's don't. It is a process that requires one to embrace free speech rather than assigning the role of truthsayer to any particular person, group, or institution. Here is John Stuart Mills rationale for free speech: ..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.
- krapp 5y ago
  >if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. Except that doesn't happen. As the saying goes, a lie can travel around the world before the truth laces up its boots. Where is the "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth" being produced by all of the disinformation being spread? Surely, since disinformation is spreading so rapidly and colliding so furiously against truth in the marketplace of ideas, truth should be prevailing everywhere. No, of course it isn't. Why would it? Both you and John Stuart Mills skipped over the part where embracing free speech actually leads to discernment. It's like people just expect truth to win for reasons. What's happening is that people don't know what to think, or who to believe, and are being bombarded with far more claims and counterclaims than they have time or ability to thoroughly test. Absent trust in any institution, person or group in which to truest, people are left only with their own uninformed intuition and emotion, which disinformation and propaganda far more effectively feed upon.
  - gwright 5y ago
    And so what do you conclude? You seem to be saying that instead of unfettered speech you prefer that some authority step in and pick and choose what speech is to be allowed? And who gets to be in that privileged position of determining what discourse is permitted by everyone else?
omgitsabird 5y ago
If YouTube users were moderating YouTube and the reason that a video was flagged was because a non-paid member of the community initiated the action, would that still make YouTube in the wrong? Would the "mod" be to blame? What if it was a up/down-voting system, and the community just down-voted a video to the point where it was "dead" for normal people? Would YouTube be in the wrong? It seems strange that there is no expectation of these companies to moderate content that they are hosting, if they perceive it as being bad for their user base. When I was much younger, I used to get upset when I was banned or squelched from IRC channels for saying things, and I would berate the moderators for being overzealous. In reality, I was just saying things that were perceived as not being conducive to the discussion in these channels, and I was not aware enough to understand that what I was saying was not welcome in that setting.

by suyash 5y ago

Totally agree, YouTube is in the wrong here. They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts and allow 'real free speech' in online platforms.

bcrosby95 5y ago

So 'real free speech' is about requiring private companies to carry the message of a politically powerful agent of the government?

suyash 5y ago
that's your definition, for me it is allowing anyone to speak their views without putting a "extreme left" sensor and calling it fake.
- ta2987 5y ago
  Do you think that I should be able to compel you, personally, to say something?
- cwkoss 5y ago
  lol. the idea that masks reduce infection rates is not leftist.
  - Rapzid 5y ago
    That's exactly what a leftist would say.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  view ≠ facts. "extreme left" ≠ untrue.
lupire 5y ago
s/politically powerful agent of the government/person/ , yes.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  That is nothing like how free speech generally works in the US. Compelled speech is the exact opposite of free speech.
amznthrwaway 5y ago
Yes, exactly. Right-wing extremists have defined that real free speech is when all parties are forced to provide a platform for all right-wing speech. To them, freedom is when racist white men can do anything they want without any consequences. When other people also have rights and choices, that to them is tyranny.

robbrown451 5y ago

Is there any "real free speech" that you think YouTube should be allowed to block? People advocating for shooting the president? People describing how to make a nuclear bomb? People advocating for killing cops? People sharing people's social security numbers? People explaining the best suicide methods? People trying to organize terrorist attacks? People threatening violence on other people? Anything?

godshatter 5y ago
In my opinion, they should be allowing anything they are not required by law to remove.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Which will result in them getting regulated. After being dragged before Congress over and over and being asked "why aren't you doing something about this?" And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." The law isn't crystal clear and black and white, until you end up in front of a judge or jury. The legal system in the US isn't all statutory, it is left for courts to decide based on precedent and, when there is none to draw from, higher and higher courts. It all seems simple until you actually think about these things.
  - godshatter 5y ago
    > And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." I was thinking more along the lines of removing posts when ordered to by the government they are incorporated under or by one in whose country to they do business. And if someone finds child porn or something on their servers, point them at the user that posted it. Which might work if they didn't mess with user's posts unless they absolutely had to. They are only in this current mess because they voluntarily curate, often aggressively.

gwright 5y ago

> They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts Not sure this is a good approach either. Discerning truth and separating fact from fiction isn't a skill that some people have and other's don't. It is a process that requires one to embrace free speech rather than assigning the role of truthsayer to any particular person, group, or institution. Here is John Stuart Mills rationale for free speech: ..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.

krapp 5y ago
>if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. Except that doesn't happen. As the saying goes, a lie can travel around the world before the truth laces up its boots. Where is the "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth" being produced by all of the disinformation being spread? Surely, since disinformation is spreading so rapidly and colliding so furiously against truth in the marketplace of ideas, truth should be prevailing everywhere. No, of course it isn't. Why would it? Both you and John Stuart Mills skipped over the part where embracing free speech actually leads to discernment. It's like people just expect truth to win for reasons. What's happening is that people don't know what to think, or who to believe, and are being bombarded with far more claims and counterclaims than they have time or ability to thoroughly test. Absent trust in any institution, person or group in which to truest, people are left only with their own uninformed intuition and emotion, which disinformation and propaganda far more effectively feed upon.
- gwright 5y ago
  And so what do you conclude? You seem to be saying that instead of unfettered speech you prefer that some authority step in and pick and choose what speech is to be allowed? And who gets to be in that privileged position of determining what discourse is permitted by everyone else?

omgitsabird 5y ago

If YouTube users were moderating YouTube and the reason that a video was flagged was because a non-paid member of the community initiated the action, would that still make YouTube in the wrong? Would the "mod" be to blame? What if it was a up/down-voting system, and the community just down-voted a video to the point where it was "dead" for normal people? Would YouTube be in the wrong? It seems strange that there is no expectation of these companies to moderate content that they are hosting, if they perceive it as being bad for their user base. When I was much younger, I used to get upset when I was banned or squelched from IRC channels for saying things, and I would berate the moderators for being overzealous. In reality, I was just saying things that were perceived as not being conducive to the discussion in these channels, and I was not aware enough to understand that what I was saying was not welcome in that setting.