5 ms·

No one is arguing about YouTube being forced to do things. People are discussing how sad it is that YouTube has gone down that road.

jmull 5y ago
It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? It’s sad that not everyone agrees with all the choices they make? Doesn’t seem sad to me. The alternative, where youtube cannot choose what content to host, seems sad to me.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  Google is a nearly two trillion dollar company. I shed no tears for “forcing” them to host speech they don’t like. My desire to give companies rights diminishes with scale.
  - jmull 5y ago
    Fortunately, in the US, we have the first amendment as a shield against authoritarians who would dictate the content we see.
    - car_analogy 5y ago
      Against government authoritarians. You have no shield against private oligopolies.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        Who else but the government is going to force Google to host content against their wishes?
      - lordnacho 5y ago
        Really? What's the difference? It's not whether it's public or private making the decisions (they are both considering the amount spent in lobbying), it's the degree of control you ought to worry about. There needs to be an actual free market where people have a realistic set of alternatives. Pointing out public versus private is IMO misidentifying the problem.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        > Really? What's the difference? For starters, Google doesn't get to raise a private army or arrest The Hill for misuse of their services.
        lordnacho 5y ago
        Historical various East India Companies did exactly that while also holding monopolies. With enough size and political influence they could do it, it just hasn't been in fashion.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- bko 5y ago
  Let be real here. It's very likely the former guy may run again. You may be against that, as would I. But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps. You want to argue he did something illegal, should be in prison, should not be allowed to run? Fine, that's what the court system and respective political parties are for. But please don't tell me it's completely cool that tech CEOs get to decide who can and can't run. You may like the side they fall on this time, but how confident are you that you'll agree in the future? What if leadership changes? What do you think would happen when a politician has a credible shot of winning on a promise to break them up?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > get together That's probably the moment they could face regulation. Individually, it's their platform to choose what they want to host or not.
    - bko 5y ago
      Do you think it was weird that when a damning article about a presidential candidate's son came out a few weeks before the election, every single media company and social network decided at the same exact time not to cover the story? Even so much as censoring the one paper that carried it and on private messages between people? Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, NPR and others. The former guy got banned on all the services all at once. Even tiktok which he was not on. Hell, even grindr banned him. There may not be direct coordination (maybe there is), but there's a signal and no one likes to make waves They all took a different direction about the "pee tape": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-you-right-like-getting-it-on-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-y... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-private-spies-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr... For more: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee+tape https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee...
- jasonfarnon 5y ago
  Sad that they decided to start "choosing what content to host" after everyone has become dependent on it. It's the bait and switch.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? There is virtually no competition to youtube in the video streaming space (in terms of sheer reach and volume), so choices that youtube make have clear political implications on what voices get heard.
- downandout 5y ago
  It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? As I suspect you know, his point was that it’s sad that YouTube is making politically motivated censorship decisions, just like China would. While we all know that Silicon Valley leans left, I think that those of us who want good things for the world would like to believe that these companies can check their politics at the door when it comes to running platforms that serve people across the political spectrum. Sadly, that’s not the case. If YouTube identified itself as a partisan platform where speech that is not left leaning is in danger of being curtailed (which is what it is), I wouldn’t have a problem with these actions. But it masquerades as a neutral platform that is open to all, in the same way that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox masquerade as news outlets. That is a threat to democracy, because it creates the impression that only content which aligns with the platform owner’s political ideology is newsworthy or acceptable for viewing, and anything else is fringe.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
FeepingCreature 5y ago
No hang on, I'm a free speech maximalist and I totally want YouTube to be forced to do things.

jmull 5y ago

It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? It’s sad that not everyone agrees with all the choices they make? Doesn’t seem sad to me. The alternative, where youtube cannot choose what content to host, seems sad to me.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
Google is a nearly two trillion dollar company. I shed no tears for “forcing” them to host speech they don’t like. My desire to give companies rights diminishes with scale.
- jmull 5y ago
  Fortunately, in the US, we have the first amendment as a shield against authoritarians who would dictate the content we see.
  - car_analogy 5y ago
    Against government authoritarians. You have no shield against private oligopolies.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Who else but the government is going to force Google to host content against their wishes?
    - lordnacho 5y ago
      Really? What's the difference? It's not whether it's public or private making the decisions (they are both considering the amount spent in lobbying), it's the degree of control you ought to worry about. There needs to be an actual free market where people have a realistic set of alternatives. Pointing out public versus private is IMO misidentifying the problem.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        > Really? What's the difference? For starters, Google doesn't get to raise a private army or arrest The Hill for misuse of their services.
        lordnacho 5y ago
        Historical various East India Companies did exactly that while also holding monopolies. With enough size and political influence they could do it, it just hasn't been in fashion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
bko 5y ago
Let be real here. It's very likely the former guy may run again. You may be against that, as would I. But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps. You want to argue he did something illegal, should be in prison, should not be allowed to run? Fine, that's what the court system and respective political parties are for. But please don't tell me it's completely cool that tech CEOs get to decide who can and can't run. You may like the side they fall on this time, but how confident are you that you'll agree in the future? What if leadership changes? What do you think would happen when a politician has a credible shot of winning on a promise to break them up?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > get together That's probably the moment they could face regulation. Individually, it's their platform to choose what they want to host or not.
  - bko 5y ago
    Do you think it was weird that when a damning article about a presidential candidate's son came out a few weeks before the election, every single media company and social network decided at the same exact time not to cover the story? Even so much as censoring the one paper that carried it and on private messages between people? Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, NPR and others. The former guy got banned on all the services all at once. Even tiktok which he was not on. Hell, even grindr banned him. There may not be direct coordination (maybe there is), but there's a signal and no one likes to make waves They all took a different direction about the "pee tape": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-you-right-like-getting-it-on-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-y... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-private-spies-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr... For more: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee+tape https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee...
jasonfarnon 5y ago
Sad that they decided to start "choosing what content to host" after everyone has become dependent on it. It's the bait and switch.
ekianjo 5y ago
> It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? There is virtually no competition to youtube in the video streaming space (in terms of sheer reach and volume), so choices that youtube make have clear political implications on what voices get heard.
downandout 5y ago
It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? As I suspect you know, his point was that it’s sad that YouTube is making politically motivated censorship decisions, just like China would. While we all know that Silicon Valley leans left, I think that those of us who want good things for the world would like to believe that these companies can check their politics at the door when it comes to running platforms that serve people across the political spectrum. Sadly, that’s not the case. If YouTube identified itself as a partisan platform where speech that is not left leaning is in danger of being curtailed (which is what it is), I wouldn’t have a problem with these actions. But it masquerades as a neutral platform that is open to all, in the same way that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox masquerade as news outlets. That is a threat to democracy, because it creates the impression that only content which aligns with the platform owner’s political ideology is newsworthy or acceptable for viewing, and anything else is fringe.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

FeepingCreature 5y ago

No hang on, I'm a free speech maximalist and I totally want YouTube to be forced to do things.