5 ms·

One of the things that gets lost in the arguments around this sort of censorship (and, before I lose you, it is censorship and that is fine; we all engage in fo

One of the things that gets lost in the arguments around this sort of censorship (and, before I lose you, it is censorship and that is fine; we all engage in forms of censorship in determining what we will or will not ingest - the danger comes when some third party is acting as the censor for others) is the distinction between legality and morality. Legally, it seems self-evident that YouTube should be permitted to curate their own content however they deem fit, whether it is fair in the abstract or not. I wouldn't want to live in a world where anyone was compelled to publish, disseminate or engage with content against their will. Morally, this sort of mass banning of a position ought to be a taboo if we want a free society. We, as free citizens, have every right to petition that an open stance be adopted even if YouTube is well within their rights to refuse. The other thing I tend to think important is to always ask one more question - would I support this action if it was taken if the sides of the issue were reversed? Sometimes the answer is 'yes', but I've found it a warning sign when the mental response is 'but....'

strgcmc 5y ago
In a funny twist of fate, I for one have become less and less worried about the "opposite" scenario coming to pass, as time goes on and we observe the evolution of political discourse at least in America (and to a lesser extent globally perhaps). What I mean is, the general trend towards anti-intellectualism in the right-wing, means that their policy positions generally trend towards being based on opinions rather than facts, and become further and further divorced from reality. For example, think about banning contraception or sex education, which are proven to reduce teen pregnancy and abortions; these are counterproductive policy positions the right wing takes, because they don't care to judge policies by their factual outcomes, but instead by what "feels right". Ergo, as time passes, I find it less and less likely that corporations or organizations that have to live in the real world, deal with practical real world facts and outcomes, will end up taking right wing policy positions or censoring pro-reality positions. It would be fundamentally anti-profit and anti-capitalist to do so and goes against their self-interest (which is an incentive structure that political parties don't share, as spewing misinformation and even acting irrationally won't necessarily lose them voters or supporters, but companies who act irrationally will over time tend to be less profitable), which is cynically the best available guarantee of good decision-making that we have in our broken society. TLDR: I am not worried about a world where "round Earther's" or pro-vaxx positions get censored, because corporations know that round Earth and pro-vaxx policies lead to better outcomes, being better grounded in reality.
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
You can't "reverse" the situation in good faith. Facts, science, logic exist on one side of the discussion, not both. So if we are going to reverse the situation, then we have to acknowledge that the original stance is science/logic invariant.
- mmcdermott 5y ago
  > Facts, science, logic exist on one side of the discussion, not both. I'm not really sure I buy this. There are people who are simply misled, but most disagreements touch on either disagreements with regard to facts or else values about what is more or less important. I tend to find that there are thoughtful people who disagree with me that are worth hearing. Beyond that, though, there is simply risk management. The harder it is to impose speech controls (governmental or corporately), the harder it is for them to be applied badly - and there is no tool that cannot be used for ill as well as good.

strgcmc 5y ago

In a funny twist of fate, I for one have become less and less worried about the "opposite" scenario coming to pass, as time goes on and we observe the evolution of political discourse at least in America (and to a lesser extent globally perhaps). What I mean is, the general trend towards anti-intellectualism in the right-wing, means that their policy positions generally trend towards being based on opinions rather than facts, and become further and further divorced from reality. For example, think about banning contraception or sex education, which are proven to reduce teen pregnancy and abortions; these are counterproductive policy positions the right wing takes, because they don't care to judge policies by their factual outcomes, but instead by what "feels right". Ergo, as time passes, I find it less and less likely that corporations or organizations that have to live in the real world, deal with practical real world facts and outcomes, will end up taking right wing policy positions or censoring pro-reality positions. It would be fundamentally anti-profit and anti-capitalist to do so and goes against their self-interest (which is an incentive structure that political parties don't share, as spewing misinformation and even acting irrationally won't necessarily lose them voters or supporters, but companies who act irrationally will over time tend to be less profitable), which is cynically the best available guarantee of good decision-making that we have in our broken society. TLDR: I am not worried about a world where "round Earther's" or pro-vaxx positions get censored, because corporations know that round Earth and pro-vaxx policies lead to better outcomes, being better grounded in reality.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

You can't "reverse" the situation in good faith. Facts, science, logic exist on one side of the discussion, not both. So if we are going to reverse the situation, then we have to acknowledge that the original stance is science/logic invariant.

mmcdermott 5y ago
> Facts, science, logic exist on one side of the discussion, not both. I'm not really sure I buy this. There are people who are simply misled, but most disagreements touch on either disagreements with regard to facts or else values about what is more or less important. I tend to find that there are thoughtful people who disagree with me that are worth hearing. Beyond that, though, there is simply risk management. The harder it is to impose speech controls (governmental or corporately), the harder it is for them to be applied badly - and there is no tool that cannot be used for ill as well as good.