6 ms·

I genuinely don't get it. YouTube, a private entity and not a government entity, is saying they don't want certain content on their platform. This is not the en

I genuinely don't get it. YouTube, a private entity and not a government entity, is saying they don't want certain content on their platform. This is not the end of your free speech. This isn't really even a movement away from free speech. It's YouTube exercising their right to freedom of speech by not allowing what they believe to be harmful or disagreeable on their platform. They already do this with other categories of thing. This is no different. You are more than able to start your own company and let whatever you want on that site. Or just go to your local city center with a megaphone and give people your thoughts - perfectly legal. If YouTube is THAT essential to getting your views heard, you need to take a lesson from business - don't rely on anyone else for critical infrastructure.

prohobo 5y ago
This fallacy of "private entity" when talking about a corporation that's more powerful than most governments is truly ridiculous. It's okay if the East India Company enslaves and exploits the savages and mongrels, murders opponents, rigs elections, installs corrupt politicians and destroys communities; it's a private company and it only hurts stupid people! Just stop buying their tea if you don't like it, amirite? Start your own company!
- zepto 5y ago
  Except not. Google isn’t more powerful than most governments. They can’t kill or imprison people, or seize land or property. This is simply a false analogy.
  - evv555 5y ago
    Google isn't a "private entity" in the sense of a small business either. More like a utility company. False analogy
  - prohobo 5y ago
    I recommend reading this article for a quick overview of the current political landscape: https://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-corporations-99616 https://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-c... The fact is that states and corporations collude and compete with each other for political control internationally, and corporate power outranks the vast majority of state powers. Weirdly though, I can't find Alphabet Inc. in the power rankings.
  - ostenning 5y ago
    What is your definition of "power"? Because I think your perspective is incredibly naive. Google has immense power, far more than most governments. Governments all around the world are often manipulated by corporations like Google, laws are written based off these influences of power, shaping democracy, all the time. If they really wanted to they could do almost anything to you. They could easily steal your identity, they could frame you, they could put you in prison, they could do basically anything. Is this legal? Obviously not, but power extends further than what is legal.
- valeness 5y ago
  I don't see this same energy when peope want to nationalize internet or electric companies. Why is it that only when media companies moderate the content available on their platform do we suddenly not care about property rights? If we're talking about regulating large corporations because they're monopolizing resources I'd much rather start in the energy sector to set some precedent before we just force youtube and facebook to allow nazis and anti-vaxxers to spout off whatever they want during a global crisis.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    Internet and electric companies don't have international political influence, nor major monopolies. I'd rather have an honest discussion about dealing with a global crisis instead of having some asshole decide he's right and shut everyone else out - surely you can imagine the damage caused by a dictator who's wrong?
  - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
    >moderate the content Censor. The word you're looking for is censor.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > electric companies You do know that those in many places are called "utilities" and they <<are>> nationalized, right?
    - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
      Even when they aren't nationalized they are more often than not subject to _very_ stringent regulations.
  - humanrebar 5y ago
    > Why is it that only when media companies moderate the content available on their platform do we suddenly not care about property rights? I can't speak for what you're paying attention to, but plenty of people are wary of big cats in corporations and big cats in government. You can be against both. The real false narrative is that choosing team red or team blue is the only interesting question and then you can turn your skepticism off.
Covzire 5y ago
Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring content that nearly exclusively goes against left wing opinion narratives. At the top of Twitter right now are the DNC's "expert" opinion on whether the vaccine mandates are legal. They're shoving their political speech down everyones throat and censoring as many opposing views as they can get away with. But let's say that's legal for now. If we take a equitable view of the situation, the vast majority of content that they're removing is simply being removed for wrong-think according to the DNC. This gives the Democratic party a leg up through overt censorship and information warfare of a sort they couldn't possibly have achieved through direct government action. Whether that's legal or not is immaterial to me, they are stifling legal free speech of the de-facto public square, and those who cheer it on now won't be so happy in the future when the alignment of special interests shifts against them, I promise you it will happen and sooner than anyone thinks. Google is a cancer on public discourse, how many fake media narratives have to collapse before people realize censorship of wrong-think is not a good idea for a healthy society? Edit: Looks like Twitter finally removed their ridiculous propaganda from the trending section.
- endgame 5y ago
  Not just their "expert" opinion, but whatever opinion is current this week. This is the same media machine that lied to us about masks, told us to be suspicious of a "Trump vaccine", and that covid was "just the flu". So logically the reasonable thing to do is censor everyone who disagrees, because then they'll be right.
the-dude 5y ago
> If YouTube is THAT essential to getting your views heard, you need to take a lesson from business - don't rely on anyone else for critical infrastructure. No other platform offers a competitive audience.
- zepto 5y ago
  Don’t rely on a competitive audience.
  - oblio 5y ago
    And do what, instead? Stay and home and start knitting? If your job or your desire is to be in media, what's your proposed alternative?
    - zepto 5y ago
      Do something else.
      - oblio 5y ago
        That's no advice.
        zepto 5y ago
        Why not? Don’t support a toxic ecosystem.
themacguffinman 5y ago
I completely agree that YouTube should absolutely be free to do this but they're obviously doing this because citizens and their own employees demand it. The movement away from free speech is caused by the growing number of people (including people in this very thread) who want YouTube to do this, YouTube acquiescing to their demands is just a symptom of this trend. YouTube is the profit-driven canary in the coalmine. YouTube's business model naturally incentivizes more speech of all kinds. This crackdown indicates there is mounting pressure - from democratically elected governments, from HN commentators, from our friends and neighbors that regulate & patronize YouTube - to stop being tolerant of certain kinds of speech like antivax.
hhhhhdsgs 5y ago
You don't get it because you agree with it. If it was your views being silenced you would suddenly remember how hard it is to create your own video platform that can compete with youtube (especially when the big tech monopolies will refuse services to you)
- sanderjd 5y ago
  I disagree strongly with the action being taken here, but like your parent commenter, I don't get the consternation about their ability to take that action. I think that the first amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and of association to private entities, and that this is no more or less than a private entity exercising those exact rights. If you want to nationalize all social media and force it to be a public square, that's fine, we can have that conversation. But that's not what people generally argue for, they instead expect private entities to be themselves subject to the requirements of the first amendment. But that isn't how it works. And I think that is a good thing, even when I disagree with the outcome.
MadeThisToReply 5y ago
"‘Skynet Is A Private Company, They Can Do What They Want,’ Says Man Getting Curb-Stomped By Terminator" https://babylonbee.com/news/skynet-is-a-private-company-they-can-do-what-they-want-says-man-getting-curb-stomped-by-terminator https://babylonbee.com/news/skynet-is-a-private-company-they...
JohnWhigham 5y ago
I find it hilarious that in recent years, people on the left have started using the "don't like it? make your own! ;)" reply after it exclusively being a right-wing thing (e.g. telling people "don't like the USA? then leave"). Especially since both sentiments come from the same root: being out of a legitimate argument.
- voganmother42 5y ago
  Except it isn’t… being a citizen isn’t the same as being a consumer, like you understand how much harder and more impactful it is to change the country you live in than the channel right? Yikes. the same things are said about twitter or facebook, its absurd.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bitcurious 5y ago
  It’s especially troubling when someone does “make their own” and then get banished at the infrastructure (payments/hosting/app store) layer.
- originalvichy 5y ago
  This is a lazy argument. You can do better.
eric_cc 5y ago
> I genuinely don't get it. At least you admit it. > You are more than able to start your own company and let whatever you want on that site. "If you don't like YouTube, build your own" is a really shitty take. It's very obvious the role that YouTube has right now and why massive censorship is a problem.

prohobo 5y ago

This fallacy of "private entity" when talking about a corporation that's more powerful than most governments is truly ridiculous. It's okay if the East India Company enslaves and exploits the savages and mongrels, murders opponents, rigs elections, installs corrupt politicians and destroys communities; it's a private company and it only hurts stupid people! Just stop buying their tea if you don't like it, amirite? Start your own company!

zepto 5y ago
Except not. Google isn’t more powerful than most governments. They can’t kill or imprison people, or seize land or property. This is simply a false analogy.
- evv555 5y ago
  Google isn't a "private entity" in the sense of a small business either. More like a utility company. False analogy
- prohobo 5y ago
  I recommend reading this article for a quick overview of the current political landscape: https://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-corporations-99616 https://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-c... The fact is that states and corporations collude and compete with each other for political control internationally, and corporate power outranks the vast majority of state powers. Weirdly though, I can't find Alphabet Inc. in the power rankings.
- ostenning 5y ago
  What is your definition of "power"? Because I think your perspective is incredibly naive. Google has immense power, far more than most governments. Governments all around the world are often manipulated by corporations like Google, laws are written based off these influences of power, shaping democracy, all the time. If they really wanted to they could do almost anything to you. They could easily steal your identity, they could frame you, they could put you in prison, they could do basically anything. Is this legal? Obviously not, but power extends further than what is legal.
valeness 5y ago
I don't see this same energy when peope want to nationalize internet or electric companies. Why is it that only when media companies moderate the content available on their platform do we suddenly not care about property rights? If we're talking about regulating large corporations because they're monopolizing resources I'd much rather start in the energy sector to set some precedent before we just force youtube and facebook to allow nazis and anti-vaxxers to spout off whatever they want during a global crisis.
- prohobo 5y ago
  Internet and electric companies don't have international political influence, nor major monopolies. I'd rather have an honest discussion about dealing with a global crisis instead of having some asshole decide he's right and shut everyone else out - surely you can imagine the damage caused by a dictator who's wrong?
- NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  >moderate the content Censor. The word you're looking for is censor.
- oblio 5y ago
  > electric companies You do know that those in many places are called "utilities" and they <<are>> nationalized, right?
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    Even when they aren't nationalized they are more often than not subject to _very_ stringent regulations.
- humanrebar 5y ago
  > Why is it that only when media companies moderate the content available on their platform do we suddenly not care about property rights? I can't speak for what you're paying attention to, but plenty of people are wary of big cats in corporations and big cats in government. You can be against both. The real false narrative is that choosing team red or team blue is the only interesting question and then you can turn your skepticism off.

Covzire 5y ago

Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring content that nearly exclusively goes against left wing opinion narratives. At the top of Twitter right now are the DNC's "expert" opinion on whether the vaccine mandates are legal. They're shoving their political speech down everyones throat and censoring as many opposing views as they can get away with. But let's say that's legal for now. If we take a equitable view of the situation, the vast majority of content that they're removing is simply being removed for wrong-think according to the DNC. This gives the Democratic party a leg up through overt censorship and information warfare of a sort they couldn't possibly have achieved through direct government action. Whether that's legal or not is immaterial to me, they are stifling legal free speech of the de-facto public square, and those who cheer it on now won't be so happy in the future when the alignment of special interests shifts against them, I promise you it will happen and sooner than anyone thinks. Google is a cancer on public discourse, how many fake media narratives have to collapse before people realize censorship of wrong-think is not a good idea for a healthy society? Edit: Looks like Twitter finally removed their ridiculous propaganda from the trending section.

endgame 5y ago
Not just their "expert" opinion, but whatever opinion is current this week. This is the same media machine that lied to us about masks, told us to be suspicious of a "Trump vaccine", and that covid was "just the flu". So logically the reasonable thing to do is censor everyone who disagrees, because then they'll be right.

the-dude 5y ago

> If YouTube is THAT essential to getting your views heard, you need to take a lesson from business - don't rely on anyone else for critical infrastructure. No other platform offers a competitive audience.

zepto 5y ago
Don’t rely on a competitive audience.
- oblio 5y ago
  And do what, instead? Stay and home and start knitting? If your job or your desire is to be in media, what's your proposed alternative?
  - zepto 5y ago
    Do something else.
    - oblio 5y ago
      That's no advice.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Why not? Don’t support a toxic ecosystem.

themacguffinman 5y ago

I completely agree that YouTube should absolutely be free to do this but they're obviously doing this because citizens and their own employees demand it. The movement away from free speech is caused by the growing number of people (including people in this very thread) who want YouTube to do this, YouTube acquiescing to their demands is just a symptom of this trend. YouTube is the profit-driven canary in the coalmine. YouTube's business model naturally incentivizes more speech of all kinds. This crackdown indicates there is mounting pressure - from democratically elected governments, from HN commentators, from our friends and neighbors that regulate & patronize YouTube - to stop being tolerant of certain kinds of speech like antivax.

hhhhhdsgs 5y ago

You don't get it because you agree with it. If it was your views being silenced you would suddenly remember how hard it is to create your own video platform that can compete with youtube (especially when the big tech monopolies will refuse services to you)

sanderjd 5y ago
I disagree strongly with the action being taken here, but like your parent commenter, I don't get the consternation about their ability to take that action. I think that the first amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and of association to private entities, and that this is no more or less than a private entity exercising those exact rights. If you want to nationalize all social media and force it to be a public square, that's fine, we can have that conversation. But that's not what people generally argue for, they instead expect private entities to be themselves subject to the requirements of the first amendment. But that isn't how it works. And I think that is a good thing, even when I disagree with the outcome.

MadeThisToReply 5y ago

"‘Skynet Is A Private Company, They Can Do What They Want,’ Says Man Getting Curb-Stomped By Terminator" https://babylonbee.com/news/skynet-is-a-private-company-they-can-do-what-they-want-says-man-getting-curb-stomped-by-terminator https://babylonbee.com/news/skynet-is-a-private-company-they...

JohnWhigham 5y ago

I find it hilarious that in recent years, people on the left have started using the "don't like it? make your own! ;)" reply after it exclusively being a right-wing thing (e.g. telling people "don't like the USA? then leave"). Especially since both sentiments come from the same root: being out of a legitimate argument.

voganmother42 5y ago
Except it isn’t… being a citizen isn’t the same as being a consumer, like you understand how much harder and more impactful it is to change the country you live in than the channel right? Yikes. the same things are said about twitter or facebook, its absurd.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bitcurious 5y ago
It’s especially troubling when someone does “make their own” and then get banished at the infrastructure (payments/hosting/app store) layer.
originalvichy 5y ago
This is a lazy argument. You can do better.

eric_cc 5y ago

> I genuinely don't get it. At least you admit it. > You are more than able to start your own company and let whatever you want on that site. "If you don't like YouTube, build your own" is a really shitty take. It's very obvious the role that YouTube has right now and why massive censorship is a problem.