6 ms·

I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always s

I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.

selfhifive 5y ago
Or, if you don't like it, don't watch the channel or leave a dislike or comment why the claim is wrong. This isn't even a call to violence or targeted harassment. It's the opinion of a man about election results.
- headsoup 5y ago
  I think you missed the bit where the platform removed content for the mere mention of Trump. So you agree YouTube is perfectly ok to remove content because it mentions 'the opinion of a man about election results.'? And if Trump was to hypothetically win in 2024, would it be perfectly fine for YouTube to remove any content which is dissenting of Trump? I'm sure a dislike or negative comment would stop that...
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Yes. There is nothing stopping Trump from creating his own video platform. He is supposedly a billionaire isn’t he?
    - headsoup 5y ago
      And of course nothing from stopping Biden creating his own platform should the tables turn, right? It's true the large social platforms are privately owned and so they can censor to their hearts content, but given the obliquity and integration these largest platforms have in the social fabric, is that reasonable? Should they at least have clear moderation policies? It's an issue that needs some hefty discussion and evaluation especially, as we're seeing in this thread, the outsized influence on and control of public discourse they have.
      - scarface74 5y ago
        Yep, Biden and the DNC could fund their own site.
- MrLeap 5y ago
  This comment is extra funny in light of youtube removing downvotes.
jankyxenon 5y ago
It’s true that YouTube is a private entity and should be able to do whatever is in its profit maximizing interest. But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one platform - is it right to give control of that to one entity into perpetuity? That a political question.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? No. > Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. The answer is no. Vimeo exists. Facebook and Twitter both feature user-generated video content. I hear TikTok is a thing. In addition to these platforms basically anyone can self-host in 2022. Plenty of news outlets self-host. > If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one platform - is it right to give control of that to one entity into perpetuity? You have not made the case that there should be only one platform so the second part of your statement is irrelevant. > That a political question. Only for people who want to say things without suffering the consequences.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Yep, popular != monopoly, especially given the number of easily accessible alternatives. Given the state of cloud computing in 2022, there has never been a time that it has been easier to host your own video streaming, so it's not a natural monopoly either.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - jankyxenon 5y ago
    The answer is not yes or no. The answer is whatever a large enough portion of the electorate believe. I’m not making a case for anything - I’m explaining the narrative behind a growing POV. But I will say that YouTube is different than Facebook videos or TikTok. YouTube is meant to be a searchable video index across topics and time. It’s a video search engine and hosting service in one.
Kranar 5y ago
The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product. If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restaurant. I'm simply saying that the product served to me was not good. Similarly when someone complains about Youtube engaging in censorship, you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights, or that everyone is forced to use Youtube... rather it's an argument that the product Youtube provides is not as good as it could otherwise be. People are welcome to have an opinion and discuss whether Youtube's policies improve its service or are detrimental to its service without it devolving into a discussion about legal rights and government enforcement. You can disagree with a position about censorship and make good arguments that Youtube censoring certain content or being the arbiter of truth makes for a better product, just as you can disagree with someone about whether a restaurant serves good food... but don't change someone's argument about the quality of a product into an argument about someone being forced into something or having their rights violated since no one ever made any such claim.
- mulmen 5y ago
  The First Amendment is always relevant to cases of free expression in the United States. It is what gives YouTube the right to control what is on their platform.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    No it's not always relevant, in fact it's mostly a distraction that does nothing to contribute to the substance of the discussion. There is almost nothing of value to be gained by pointing out that Youtube is a private company that has the right to censor or serve any content it so chooses anymore than it's relevant to point out that a restaurant has the right serve shitty food and if you don't like it you can go to another restaurant. Everyone already knows this... so instead of constantly bringing it up to make ourselves sound smart, let's instead actually discuss something more meaningful, such as whether the food served by the restaurant really is shitty? What reasons might a restaurant have for serving shitty food, do they perhaps gain financially from it? Would it be more effective to work with the restaurant to get them to stop serving shitty food, or would it be more effective to open up a restaurant next door that doesn't serve shitty food? What are the trade-offs? Those are more interesting topics rather than pointing out the fact that a restaurant has the right to serve shitty food and you can't force them not to.
nextaccountic 5y ago
At this point, major platforms function like public spaces in online discourse, even though they are legally considered private property. Because of their huge influence in society, Youtube shouldn't be permitted to censor political viewpoints in their platform. And see, there's always a fine balance between private property rights and other rights. For example: you can't prevent people from a given ethnicity from shopping in your store, even though it is a private property and in many cases you can refuse service to a particular customer - just not for this reason. And this is perfectly okay, because private property rights aren't absolute.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Should Trump’s “Truth” platform be allowed to “censor” political speech? There is nothing stopping Fox News/NewsMax/OAN from creating their own video hosting platform.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Yeah they could create a video platform, but until it gained the prominence of YouTube it would be just a niche hosting platform. I'm putting forward a view that YouTube has a status so powerful in global society that it should be held at a higher standard. But regarding your question, I actually think that there's a serious dysfunction here in the way Fox News can legally spread lies that are very damaging to society with little to no legal consequence. They even alleged in a slander case that the Tucker Carlson show is actually just entertainment, and reasonable people can't expect it to be truthful - even though millions of people get their news primarily from Fox News, including Carlson talk shows, fully believing they are telling the truth. And I see that YouTube is cracking down on a lot of the same misinformation that Fox News propagates (and sometimes, worse stuff), but my point is that this shouldn't be up to Google to decide what political talking points are or aren't allowed. YouTube functions as a public space in our daily lives, we express ourselves there, I don't think it's good for society for a single company decide this policy unilaterally. On the other hand, it's good that platforms offer some kind of curation and differentiate themselves based on that. There are YouTube alternatives like Lbry in which practically everything is allowed, and I think both models are necessary.
vmception 5y ago
Agreed, I just want to sue them to oblivion for the user generated content they host :)) Nothing to do with youtube’s first amendment right, only Section 230 privileges Lets strip them down to shreds in the public square for not censoring fast enough! Woohoo
nullc 5y ago
> No one is forcing you to use it. I must have missed the covenant to not enforce their patents that youtube extends to parties they've deplatformed and the indemnity they offer against the enforcement third party patent rights that they've obtained through cross licensing.

selfhifive 5y ago

Or, if you don't like it, don't watch the channel or leave a dislike or comment why the claim is wrong. This isn't even a call to violence or targeted harassment. It's the opinion of a man about election results.

headsoup 5y ago
I think you missed the bit where the platform removed content for the mere mention of Trump. So you agree YouTube is perfectly ok to remove content because it mentions 'the opinion of a man about election results.'? And if Trump was to hypothetically win in 2024, would it be perfectly fine for YouTube to remove any content which is dissenting of Trump? I'm sure a dislike or negative comment would stop that...
- scarface74 5y ago
  Yes. There is nothing stopping Trump from creating his own video platform. He is supposedly a billionaire isn’t he?
  - headsoup 5y ago
    And of course nothing from stopping Biden creating his own platform should the tables turn, right? It's true the large social platforms are privately owned and so they can censor to their hearts content, but given the obliquity and integration these largest platforms have in the social fabric, is that reasonable? Should they at least have clear moderation policies? It's an issue that needs some hefty discussion and evaluation especially, as we're seeing in this thread, the outsized influence on and control of public discourse they have.
    - scarface74 5y ago
      Yep, Biden and the DNC could fund their own site.
MrLeap 5y ago
This comment is extra funny in light of youtube removing downvotes.

jankyxenon 5y ago

It’s true that YouTube is a private entity and should be able to do whatever is in its profit maximizing interest. But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one platform - is it right to give control of that to one entity into perpetuity? That a political question.

mulmen 5y ago
> But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? No. > Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. The answer is no. Vimeo exists. Facebook and Twitter both feature user-generated video content. I hear TikTok is a thing. In addition to these platforms basically anyone can self-host in 2022. Plenty of news outlets self-host. > If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one platform - is it right to give control of that to one entity into perpetuity? You have not made the case that there should be only one platform so the second part of your statement is irrelevant. > That a political question. Only for people who want to say things without suffering the consequences.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Yep, popular != monopoly, especially given the number of easily accessible alternatives. Given the state of cloud computing in 2022, there has never been a time that it has been easier to host your own video streaming, so it's not a natural monopoly either.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jankyxenon 5y ago
  The answer is not yes or no. The answer is whatever a large enough portion of the electorate believe. I’m not making a case for anything - I’m explaining the narrative behind a growing POV. But I will say that YouTube is different than Facebook videos or TikTok. YouTube is meant to be a searchable video index across topics and time. It’s a video search engine and hosting service in one.

Kranar 5y ago

The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product. If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restaurant. I'm simply saying that the product served to me was not good. Similarly when someone complains about Youtube engaging in censorship, you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights, or that everyone is forced to use Youtube... rather it's an argument that the product Youtube provides is not as good as it could otherwise be. People are welcome to have an opinion and discuss whether Youtube's policies improve its service or are detrimental to its service without it devolving into a discussion about legal rights and government enforcement. You can disagree with a position about censorship and make good arguments that Youtube censoring certain content or being the arbiter of truth makes for a better product, just as you can disagree with someone about whether a restaurant serves good food... but don't change someone's argument about the quality of a product into an argument about someone being forced into something or having their rights violated since no one ever made any such claim.

mulmen 5y ago
The First Amendment is always relevant to cases of free expression in the United States. It is what gives YouTube the right to control what is on their platform.
- Kranar 5y ago
  No it's not always relevant, in fact it's mostly a distraction that does nothing to contribute to the substance of the discussion. There is almost nothing of value to be gained by pointing out that Youtube is a private company that has the right to censor or serve any content it so chooses anymore than it's relevant to point out that a restaurant has the right serve shitty food and if you don't like it you can go to another restaurant. Everyone already knows this... so instead of constantly bringing it up to make ourselves sound smart, let's instead actually discuss something more meaningful, such as whether the food served by the restaurant really is shitty? What reasons might a restaurant have for serving shitty food, do they perhaps gain financially from it? Would it be more effective to work with the restaurant to get them to stop serving shitty food, or would it be more effective to open up a restaurant next door that doesn't serve shitty food? What are the trade-offs? Those are more interesting topics rather than pointing out the fact that a restaurant has the right to serve shitty food and you can't force them not to.

nextaccountic 5y ago

At this point, major platforms function like public spaces in online discourse, even though they are legally considered private property. Because of their huge influence in society, Youtube shouldn't be permitted to censor political viewpoints in their platform. And see, there's always a fine balance between private property rights and other rights. For example: you can't prevent people from a given ethnicity from shopping in your store, even though it is a private property and in many cases you can refuse service to a particular customer - just not for this reason. And this is perfectly okay, because private property rights aren't absolute.

scarface74 5y ago
Should Trump’s “Truth” platform be allowed to “censor” political speech? There is nothing stopping Fox News/NewsMax/OAN from creating their own video hosting platform.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Yeah they could create a video platform, but until it gained the prominence of YouTube it would be just a niche hosting platform. I'm putting forward a view that YouTube has a status so powerful in global society that it should be held at a higher standard. But regarding your question, I actually think that there's a serious dysfunction here in the way Fox News can legally spread lies that are very damaging to society with little to no legal consequence. They even alleged in a slander case that the Tucker Carlson show is actually just entertainment, and reasonable people can't expect it to be truthful - even though millions of people get their news primarily from Fox News, including Carlson talk shows, fully believing they are telling the truth. And I see that YouTube is cracking down on a lot of the same misinformation that Fox News propagates (and sometimes, worse stuff), but my point is that this shouldn't be up to Google to decide what political talking points are or aren't allowed. YouTube functions as a public space in our daily lives, we express ourselves there, I don't think it's good for society for a single company decide this policy unilaterally. On the other hand, it's good that platforms offer some kind of curation and differentiate themselves based on that. There are YouTube alternatives like Lbry in which practically everything is allowed, and I think both models are necessary.

vmception 5y ago

Agreed, I just want to sue them to oblivion for the user generated content they host :)) Nothing to do with youtube’s first amendment right, only Section 230 privileges Lets strip them down to shreds in the public square for not censoring fast enough! Woohoo

nullc 5y ago

> No one is forcing you to use it. I must have missed the covenant to not enforce their patents that youtube extends to parties they've deplatformed and the indemnity they offer against the enforcement third party patent rights that they've obtained through cross licensing.