6 ms·
I'm not sure I see the connection between Google search integrity and Youtube choosing to or not choosing to host a video from a conspiracy theorist who thinks
by bdhe 3y ago
I'm not sure I see the connection between Google search integrity and Youtube choosing to or not choosing to host a video from a conspiracy theorist who thinks that "Wi-Fi opens your blood brain barrier" and whose candidacy is propped up by far-right Bannon types. Why bring him up (surprising?) if you don't particularly like him (not surprising).
- primax 3y agoBecause he has the right to express his views and be judged by the listener.
- labster 3y agoGoogle should provide access to his views as an indexer, not as a publisher.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoThe search engine, yes. The video platform, no.
- KnobbleMcKnees 3y agoYouTube is private platform. They can take down the video because they think his fingernails are too long or his shirt is ugly if they so choose to.
- blibble 3y agoat the point it's an effective monopoly things should be treated differently
- yunohn 3y agoIt’s really not, it’s trivial to host videos on the web. YouTube additionally exposes it to millions of eyeballs for free.
- snovv_crash 3y agoIf youtube were taking down videos by pro-choice politicians or anything related to increased gun control would you find that problematic? Authoritative tools are oppressive by nature, it's just a matter of time before they get turned on you.
- mrguyorama 3y agoYoutube takes down HISTORY videos plenty of the time, and I do find that stupid, but that's not an argument for violating their right to choose who to associate with. Youtube is actively hostile to the creators I watch, but that doesn't mean they should be legally compelled to broadcast any and all content that someone uploads. They are well within their right to control the narrative that exists on their private platform. This is just like how elon is well within his right to control the narrative on Twitter now, and make it a safe haven for right wing trolls. I don't like that, but you won't see me advocating ending his right to freely run his business. That's authoritarian. Nobody puts a gun to my head to use twitter, so I don't use it. There are multiple alternative video platforms out there, including small ones started by the edutainment youtubers and there is nothing preventing all the right wing youtubers from starting their own system. Hell, Nebula was literally using a white label private video distribution platform for a long time! All they have to do is sign a check and they can run their own youtube!
- onion2k 3y agoYouTube refusing to host a video doesn't stop someone putting their content in Vimeo or PeerTube. His right to free expression hasn't been impacted; only his ability to post on YouTube, which is a privilege and not a right.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mrguyorama 3y agoThere is no honest reading of the first amendment that requires a private party to broadcast someone else's message without violating their first amendment rights. The freedom of association is just as vital as the freedom of speech (THEY ARE IN THE SAME AMENDMENT) and anything that compels the speech of a private individual is a violation in several ways of those rights. If you don't like that the private company has a strong presence in the market because of normal free market process, maybe we should be talking about that Anti-Monopoly thing we used to do.