4 ms·
>Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. Well, people are facing repercussions for viewing pro-Ukraine material. There's no immunity from repercu
by Jiro 5y ago
>Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions.
Well, people are facing repercussions for viewing pro-Ukraine material. There's no immunity from repercussions, right?
(Or more precisely, people are facing repercussions for violating the algorithms that Google chose. But they're still repercussions.)
The point is that there's a double standard. If social media censors someone you hate, it's "there's no freedom from repercussions" or "they're a private group so they can ban anyone they want" or "their system, their rules". If they censor someone you like, this suddenly changes to "nobody is entitled to a business model" and "Youtube has no right to operate like that".
- Shared404 5y agoThe problem isn't that they are banning people. As I've said in other comments, I support the right of people/companies to avoid association with other people/companies via many(most?) methods - including banning. Much like I said in the other comment as well - Gab can ban lefties while touting free speech, Twitter can ban righties while touting free speech, Youtube can ban both - I don't really care. The issue is when automated banning leads to there not being a human in the loop, or when "well it's just the algorithm" becomes the go to excuse.