4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    The entire topic is uninteresting. It’s a nothingburger invented by divisive voices who want to speak without consequence.
- goodluckchuck 5y ago
  It’s also a statement of domestic values and proof that YouTube’s conduct is un-American.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    As a great late 20th century philosopher said “that’s like, your opinion man”.
    - earleybird 5y ago
      The Dude abides.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
yibg 5y ago
The restaurant isn't forced to make good food. But in this analogy isn't it more like the restaurant being forced to put up a poster of your bad review? The overall point being made is, why should a private entity be forced to do something they don't want to do?
- Kranar 5y ago
  No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would otherwise be. Criticizing a video game, or a movie, or a restaurant or a streaming service does not imply the use of force to do anything nor does it imply having to get the government involved. It just means we think a product could be improved upon. I think Youtube would be a better product and better serve their viewers and content creators if they didn't suspend The Hill for playing a clip of Donald Trump. My belief in this does not imply any use of force whatsoever.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Okay, but the problem here is you're making a moral statement based on what YouTube is, making it an is-ought problem. Youtube ought to share the message of a president who incited a riot and tried to overthrow a democratic election, because it is blocking it. You're not addressing why YouTube is blocking it or the state of it's own rights as a private platform, just making blanket moral statements about opinion.
    - clord 5y ago
      No the point is whether YouTube is better if it allows us to evaluate. I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. I don’t want to be treated like the child here though. If I click on a Ukraine war video or I want to find a quote from trump to pick apart there should not be filters preventing it. The product is better if I am in control. YouTube ought to stay out of it. It does not know my intent. If it guesses wrong it should be criticized, just like a restaurant guessing at my food preferences and allergies.
abernard1 5y ago
> you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights It is much more like 14th Amendment rights and the 1964 CRA enhancement of that. There are prohibitions on private organizations denying equal service based upon certain characteristics. As Twitter, Youtube, Facebook are not actually broadcasters in any sense (what are they broadcasting?), their refusal to conduct business with others can't be cloaked in 1st amendment grounds. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything on any of these platforms. The crux of this issue is political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore it can be discriminated against. (And we do have non-immutable, changeable characteristics as protected classes.) Any of 1) section 230 clarifications or changes, 2) expansions of protected classes under the 14th, or 3) monopoly regulatory power will make these prohibitions invalid.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Political association is a choice and is thus not a protected class. There is a certain U.S. political party who has a persecution fetish that makes bad faith statements about their opinions needing to be protected, but I'll let you figure out which one it is.
- scarface74 5y ago
  The Civil Rights Amendment has no protection for political speech. I wonder how Trump’s new “Truth” platform would feel about being forced to post information discrediting his claims?

by Kranar 5y ago

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.
- mulmen 5y ago
  The entire topic is uninteresting. It’s a nothingburger invented by divisive voices who want to speak without consequence.
goodluckchuck 5y ago
It’s also a statement of domestic values and proof that YouTube’s conduct is un-American.
- mulmen 5y ago
  As a great late 20th century philosopher said “that’s like, your opinion man”.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    The Dude abides.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

yibg 5y ago

The restaurant isn't forced to make good food. But in this analogy isn't it more like the restaurant being forced to put up a poster of your bad review? The overall point being made is, why should a private entity be forced to do something they don't want to do?

Kranar 5y ago
No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would otherwise be. Criticizing a video game, or a movie, or a restaurant or a streaming service does not imply the use of force to do anything nor does it imply having to get the government involved. It just means we think a product could be improved upon. I think Youtube would be a better product and better serve their viewers and content creators if they didn't suspend The Hill for playing a clip of Donald Trump. My belief in this does not imply any use of force whatsoever.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Okay, but the problem here is you're making a moral statement based on what YouTube is, making it an is-ought problem. Youtube ought to share the message of a president who incited a riot and tried to overthrow a democratic election, because it is blocking it. You're not addressing why YouTube is blocking it or the state of it's own rights as a private platform, just making blanket moral statements about opinion.
  - clord 5y ago
    No the point is whether YouTube is better if it allows us to evaluate. I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. I don’t want to be treated like the child here though. If I click on a Ukraine war video or I want to find a quote from trump to pick apart there should not be filters preventing it. The product is better if I am in control. YouTube ought to stay out of it. It does not know my intent. If it guesses wrong it should be criticized, just like a restaurant guessing at my food preferences and allergies.

abernard1 5y ago

> you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights It is much more like 14th Amendment rights and the 1964 CRA enhancement of that. There are prohibitions on private organizations denying equal service based upon certain characteristics. As Twitter, Youtube, Facebook are not actually broadcasters in any sense (what are they broadcasting?), their refusal to conduct business with others can't be cloaked in 1st amendment grounds. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything on any of these platforms. The crux of this issue is political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore it can be discriminated against. (And we do have non-immutable, changeable characteristics as protected classes.) Any of 1) section 230 clarifications or changes, 2) expansions of protected classes under the 14th, or 3) monopoly regulatory power will make these prohibitions invalid.

bduerst 5y ago
Political association is a choice and is thus not a protected class. There is a certain U.S. political party who has a persecution fetish that makes bad faith statements about their opinions needing to be protected, but I'll let you figure out which one it is.
scarface74 5y ago
The Civil Rights Amendment has no protection for political speech. I wonder how Trump’s new “Truth” platform would feel about being forced to post information discrediting his claims?