5 ms·

I agree with this sentiment, although I agree it's stupid that The Hill was suspended. If anyone wants to give a reason why these arguments are always about fr

by bckr 5y ago

I agree with this sentiment, although I agree it's stupid that The Hill was suspended. If anyone wants to give a reason why these arguments are always about freedom of speech VS censorship, instead of being about private property + free markets, please I'm open to this.

DenisM 5y ago
1. Markets fails under the weight of monopolies. Youtube needs to be broken up or regulated. 2. There was a supreme court decision that a platform (in that case a large mall) that makes itself a de-facto public square has to act like one, accruing responsibility to protect speech. I believe this is the right link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...
- bckr 5y ago
  Cool thanks for a useful answer. I agree with your first point definitely.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  1. People without content share video on the internet and even sell it on plenty of sites. You might as easily not organically get it front of as many people who aren't explicitly looking for it but you can certainly share it and your content being unpopular doesn't imply that they have a monopoly. 2. Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution not the US constitution protected their right to promote nazi literature at the mall. It is also completely bonkers nonsense and invention. It is in fact the exact sort of judicial invention our current majority claims to be against it says. > Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. It nowhere says that the mall ought to provide a venue. Notably it says you may publish not someone else must publish for you with their ink and paper. This is just CA making up law from whole cloth to suit their disposition.
  - 15155 5y ago
    > Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution Where is YouTube headquartered?
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Alphabet is incorporated in Delaware and Californias law doesn't say what they said it said. Good luck convincing a judge that YouTube can't ban people.
- scarface74 5y ago
  If only Trump wasn’t so poor he couldn’t start his own video hosting service. It’s not like he’s a billionaire or something.
rhino369 5y ago
One issue you should consider is that the government can exert soft power on these companies. The same people who regulate, pass laws, and appoint prosecutors who oversee litigation against big tech, also hold hearings and blame social media for fake news and extremism. There have been explicit calls to clean up their content or face regulation. That starts to implicate government censorship. Google doesn't give a fuck about election integrity. They do business all around the world in places without elections. They use slave labor. But they are afraid US politicians might do a privacy crack down.
- bckr 5y ago
  another interesting point > slave labor Can you be more specific? Googling "Google slave labor" reveals a lawsuit from 2019 or so from folks whose children were injured & died in cobalt mines that big tech ultimately received refined cobalt from. The case was thrown out[] because the companies were found to have just purchased refined cobalt down the supply chain, and the labor did not fall under the definition of human trafficking. [] https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/federal-court-dismisses-child-labor-case-against-major-tech-companies/ https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/federal-court-dismisses-...
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
The difference between the private property + free market argument is that much of the HN crowd is sympathetic to the deranked content.

by bckr 5y ago

DenisM 5y ago

1. Markets fails under the weight of monopolies. Youtube needs to be broken up or regulated. 2. There was a supreme court decision that a platform (in that case a large mall) that makes itself a de-facto public square has to act like one, accruing responsibility to protect speech. I believe this is the right link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...

bckr 5y ago
Cool thanks for a useful answer. I agree with your first point definitely.
michaelmrose 5y ago
1. People without content share video on the internet and even sell it on plenty of sites. You might as easily not organically get it front of as many people who aren't explicitly looking for it but you can certainly share it and your content being unpopular doesn't imply that they have a monopoly. 2. Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution not the US constitution protected their right to promote nazi literature at the mall. It is also completely bonkers nonsense and invention. It is in fact the exact sort of judicial invention our current majority claims to be against it says. > Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. It nowhere says that the mall ought to provide a venue. Notably it says you may publish not someone else must publish for you with their ink and paper. This is just CA making up law from whole cloth to suit their disposition.
- 15155 5y ago
  > Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution Where is YouTube headquartered?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Alphabet is incorporated in Delaware and Californias law doesn't say what they said it said. Good luck convincing a judge that YouTube can't ban people.
scarface74 5y ago
If only Trump wasn’t so poor he couldn’t start his own video hosting service. It’s not like he’s a billionaire or something.

rhino369 5y ago

One issue you should consider is that the government can exert soft power on these companies. The same people who regulate, pass laws, and appoint prosecutors who oversee litigation against big tech, also hold hearings and blame social media for fake news and extremism. There have been explicit calls to clean up their content or face regulation. That starts to implicate government censorship. Google doesn't give a fuck about election integrity. They do business all around the world in places without elections. They use slave labor. But they are afraid US politicians might do a privacy crack down.

bckr 5y ago
another interesting point > slave labor Can you be more specific? Googling "Google slave labor" reveals a lawsuit from 2019 or so from folks whose children were injured & died in cobalt mines that big tech ultimately received refined cobalt from. The case was thrown out[] because the companies were found to have just purchased refined cobalt down the supply chain, and the labor did not fall under the definition of human trafficking. [] https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/federal-court-dismisses-child-labor-case-against-major-tech-companies/ https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/federal-court-dismisses-...

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

The difference between the private property + free market argument is that much of the HN crowd is sympathetic to the deranked content.