6 ms·

> Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content. Right,

> Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content. Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.

d_e_solomon 3y ago
So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
- bt4u 3y ago
  [dead]
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  > So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? “Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes. > Is that really a standard you want to set? Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman? > Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog? No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
  - d_e_solomon 3y ago
    So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand? In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
    - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
      So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it. You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube. Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
      - d_e_solomon 3y ago
        My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service. The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech. In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
        3y ago
gregjor 3y ago
Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards? How does that work? Nationalize Google? No one forces me or Russell Brand to watch or post on YouTube. I don’t have social media accounts because I don’t want to give up my privacy or get subjected to their whims. Russell Brand made different choices.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  > Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards? "We” are human beings who are born free and equal in dignity and rights. > How does that work? Nationalize Google? Social expectations, social awareness, legal means. It would work like all other customs and laws work: you get socially shunned and get legal trouble for your actions that don’t meet social expectations. Try to open a bar that doesn’t allow black people to enter it to see how those mechanisms work in practice.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    Good luck getting enough people to care about a celebrity cancellation. The only way to change the behavior of big corps like Google is not to give them money, and to get other people to do the same. I wouldn’t count on getting enough people worked up, though. Russell Brand has his rights intact for now. Any damage to his dignity he did himself. He doesn’t have the right to post on YouTube, and YT has every right to decide who and what gets on their platform. Don’t like it? Don’t use it.
    - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
      It’s not just about celebrity cancellation. This is just another form of a bigger problem. For example, many people got their Google accounts blocked for no reason and no recourse. There are stories about it on HN. Yeah, LGBT rights and defunding police are more trendy issues to care about than the techno dystopia of tomorrow; but one doesn’t exclude the other. And hopefully the public sentiment will get there before it’s too late.
      - 3y ago

d_e_solomon 3y ago

So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?

bt4u 3y ago
[dead]
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? “Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes. > Is that really a standard you want to set? Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman? > Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog? No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
- d_e_solomon 3y ago
  So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand? In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it. You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube. Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
    - d_e_solomon 3y ago
      My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service. The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech. In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
      - 3y ago

gregjor 3y ago

Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards? How does that work? Nationalize Google? No one forces me or Russell Brand to watch or post on YouTube. I don’t have social media accounts because I don’t want to give up my privacy or get subjected to their whims. Russell Brand made different choices.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards? "We” are human beings who are born free and equal in dignity and rights. > How does that work? Nationalize Google? Social expectations, social awareness, legal means. It would work like all other customs and laws work: you get socially shunned and get legal trouble for your actions that don’t meet social expectations. Try to open a bar that doesn’t allow black people to enter it to see how those mechanisms work in practice.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Good luck getting enough people to care about a celebrity cancellation. The only way to change the behavior of big corps like Google is not to give them money, and to get other people to do the same. I wouldn’t count on getting enough people worked up, though. Russell Brand has his rights intact for now. Any damage to his dignity he did himself. He doesn’t have the right to post on YouTube, and YT has every right to decide who and what gets on their platform. Don’t like it? Don’t use it.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    It’s not just about celebrity cancellation. This is just another form of a bigger problem. For example, many people got their Google accounts blocked for no reason and no recourse. There are stories about it on HN. Yeah, LGBT rights and defunding police are more trendy issues to care about than the techno dystopia of tomorrow; but one doesn’t exclude the other. And hopefully the public sentiment will get there before it’s too late.
    - 3y ago