4 ms·

A private company shouldn't get to pick and choose what opinions are valid. YouTube is not an arbiter of truth, and there is no universal law that says YouTube'

A private company shouldn't get to pick and choose what opinions are valid. YouTube is not an arbiter of truth, and there is no universal law that says YouTube's moderators will always be correct. As a massive corporation, when they decide to take the path of banning critics of Google, pro-Palestinian activists, feminists and so on, the other companies will follow suit. They don't have to justify it, because almost no-one will care. If that makes you angry, go convince people that vaccines are safe and effective. You use the internet to out-argue anti-vaxxers, which should be easy because they're so wrong and ideological. And if you think that YouTube is large enough and a big enough monopoly that it should be treated as a public service and subject to the rules that apply to public services, then either nationalize it so that it is, or break it up so that there's competition in the market.

mabbo 5y ago
> A private company shouldn't get to pick and choose what opinions are valid They aren't. Their not deciding universal truths. They're deciding what content they want to host on their platform, which they operate and pay for. You have no control, nor any say, in what content that is. Go make your own. And I'd gladly vote in favor of a break up of all the big tech firms.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  they literally decide truth and state their decided truth in UI boxes next to the video title, for certain classes of videos. this does not just apply to medical information. (edit) my account is rate-limited for some reason even though I'm not engaging in any sort of flamewar behavior or anything, so I have to ask here instead: what's incorrect about this analysis?
  - beebmam 5y ago
    Should the government be able to force a private company to host content that they don't want to host?
    - datenarsch 5y ago
      > Should the government be able to force a private company to host content that they don't want to host? If that company is so big and powerful that it's becoming an active threat to the democratic process, yes why not? Better yet, break it up and/or nationalize these companies. They are the biggest threat to democracy in modern times.
      - beebmam 5y ago
        I do actually agree with this. At least we should be honest about what we're doing, that we're forcing this on businesses (and that's a good thing!) Nationalization of most social media would do a tremendous amount of public good, and moderation should exist only for illegal content. That means: spam, porn, extreme political views should all be legal to post and not be able to be removed. Moreover, comments should not be removable, users shouldn't be able to ban each other and so on. And you shouldn't be able to post anonymously on these publicly owned platforms. Also, nothing would be monetized, which is also a huge boon to the public, as you won't have people trying to game algorithms for monetization purposes. It's just a far healthier way to operate social media for a society
- detcader 5y ago
  Why shouldn't a government be able to decide what content it wants to host in its nation? Not a facetious question, I am curious to understand your reasoning (assuming you agree)
  - judahmeek 5y ago
    Do you want the government in control of censorship instead of Youtube?
    - detcader 5y ago
      No, by "assuming you agree" I meant "assuming you agree the government shouldn't"

mabbo 5y ago

> A private company shouldn't get to pick and choose what opinions are valid They aren't. Their not deciding universal truths. They're deciding what content they want to host on their platform, which they operate and pay for. You have no control, nor any say, in what content that is. Go make your own. And I'd gladly vote in favor of a break up of all the big tech firms.

adamrezich 5y ago
they literally decide truth and state their decided truth in UI boxes next to the video title, for certain classes of videos. this does not just apply to medical information. (edit) my account is rate-limited for some reason even though I'm not engaging in any sort of flamewar behavior or anything, so I have to ask here instead: what's incorrect about this analysis?
- beebmam 5y ago
  Should the government be able to force a private company to host content that they don't want to host?
  - datenarsch 5y ago
    > Should the government be able to force a private company to host content that they don't want to host? If that company is so big and powerful that it's becoming an active threat to the democratic process, yes why not? Better yet, break it up and/or nationalize these companies. They are the biggest threat to democracy in modern times.
    - beebmam 5y ago
      I do actually agree with this. At least we should be honest about what we're doing, that we're forcing this on businesses (and that's a good thing!) Nationalization of most social media would do a tremendous amount of public good, and moderation should exist only for illegal content. That means: spam, porn, extreme political views should all be legal to post and not be able to be removed. Moreover, comments should not be removable, users shouldn't be able to ban each other and so on. And you shouldn't be able to post anonymously on these publicly owned platforms. Also, nothing would be monetized, which is also a huge boon to the public, as you won't have people trying to game algorithms for monetization purposes. It's just a far healthier way to operate social media for a society
detcader 5y ago
Why shouldn't a government be able to decide what content it wants to host in its nation? Not a facetious question, I am curious to understand your reasoning (assuming you agree)
- judahmeek 5y ago
  Do you want the government in control of censorship instead of Youtube?
  - detcader 5y ago
    No, by "assuming you agree" I meant "assuming you agree the government shouldn't"