3 ms·

Hate speech is not illegal in the US. Youtube is not judging what speech is legal or not, they're just making a decision about which types of content they want

Hate speech is not illegal in the US. Youtube is not judging what speech is legal or not, they're just making a decision about which types of content they want to distribute.

mrtksn 3y ago
Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those concern by the content of the speech should simply produce counterarguments and discredit that speech.
- ghaff 3y ago
  You realize the idea that YouTube videos of the sort being discussed here will result in thoughtful counter arguments is a completely naive notion?
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Twitter's community notes works quite well. I don't think that people are incapable of discussion. IMHO the problem is anonymity combined with some harmful dopamine loop, making people act horribly. Maybe even putting the age of the poster next to the nickname will reduce the heat of the discussion quite a bit.
    - djur 3y ago
      Have you ever seen the kind of stuff people post on Facebook or on local news sites under their own name, next to their own photographs? These theories about internet civility have been disproven repeatedly over the past decade plus.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        Yep. Who was hurt by all that? The problems arise when bunch of incels congregate on some anonymous imageboards or forums. People saying dumbs stuff with no follow up is never a problem. If anything, they are quite interesting because you can look at those and see what kind of stuff they believe and talk about IRL. There are people analysing those to tackle actual issues because banning it online doesn't stop it from beings discussed in private or small groups.
        sumeno 3y ago
        > Yep. Who was hurt by all that? The Rohingya for one
        mrtksn 3y ago
        They were hurt but I’m not convinced that it was due to online posting. IMHO, Facebook was a reflection of what’s happening in real life. FB banning it would not do a thing, maybe change the timing due to the butterfly effect. What they(those who care about Rohingya people) should have done was to use these posts as intelligence about what’s about to happen and take precautions.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  What is the counter argument to speech that calls a particular group of people "sub-human, and a stain on our planet"? What's to debate? Lets be clear here - we're not talking about difference in opinion of fiscal policy that we can debate the pros and cons of.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    I don't know, what about teaching the kids the history of hate they can recognise BS and just don't pay attention to it? You can't delegate raising your kids to YouTube, right? What about the grown ups you say, well words are not spells - just because someone said that some group of people are sub-human doesn't make others believe that. We are not photocopiers, we are humans. That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned. Wait, so youtube shouldn't go after hate speech, because that's legal in the US, but should go after conspiracies and alternative history, despite those also being legal in the US? This doesn't make sense.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        Nope, that’s not what I said.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        I don't understand then, can you explain where I got it wrong? madeofpalk said "Hate speech is not illegal in the US. [...]" to which you responded "Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those concern by the content of the speech should simply produce counterarguments and discredit that speech." I take this to mean that you think hate speech shouldn't be removed from youtube because it isn't illegal in the US. Then you said "That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned." I take this to mean that you think people who claim stuff like conspiracies and alternative history are fair game for youtube to "go after". But those things are just as legal as hate speech in America. Where is my error in understanding?
- phillipcarter 3y ago
  That's a great policy idea! You should create a competitor to YouTube so that you can enforce it. Nobody's stopping you.
maest 3y ago
They haven't stopped _distributing_ Brand's videos. They just have stopped paying him money from the ads.

Hate speech is not illegal in the US. Youtube is not judging what speech is legal or not, they're just making a decision about which types of content they want to distribute.

mrtksn 3y ago

Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those concern by the content of the speech should simply produce counterarguments and discredit that speech.

ghaff 3y ago
You realize the idea that YouTube videos of the sort being discussed here will result in thoughtful counter arguments is a completely naive notion?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Twitter's community notes works quite well. I don't think that people are incapable of discussion. IMHO the problem is anonymity combined with some harmful dopamine loop, making people act horribly. Maybe even putting the age of the poster next to the nickname will reduce the heat of the discussion quite a bit.
  - djur 3y ago
    Have you ever seen the kind of stuff people post on Facebook or on local news sites under their own name, next to their own photographs? These theories about internet civility have been disproven repeatedly over the past decade plus.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Yep. Who was hurt by all that? The problems arise when bunch of incels congregate on some anonymous imageboards or forums. People saying dumbs stuff with no follow up is never a problem. If anything, they are quite interesting because you can look at those and see what kind of stuff they believe and talk about IRL. There are people analysing those to tackle actual issues because banning it online doesn't stop it from beings discussed in private or small groups.
      - sumeno 3y ago
        > Yep. Who was hurt by all that? The Rohingya for one
        mrtksn 3y ago
        They were hurt but I’m not convinced that it was due to online posting. IMHO, Facebook was a reflection of what’s happening in real life. FB banning it would not do a thing, maybe change the timing due to the butterfly effect. What they(those who care about Rohingya people) should have done was to use these posts as intelligence about what’s about to happen and take precautions.
madeofpalk 3y ago
What is the counter argument to speech that calls a particular group of people "sub-human, and a stain on our planet"? What's to debate? Lets be clear here - we're not talking about difference in opinion of fiscal policy that we can debate the pros and cons of.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I don't know, what about teaching the kids the history of hate they can recognise BS and just don't pay attention to it? You can't delegate raising your kids to YouTube, right? What about the grown ups you say, well words are not spells - just because someone said that some group of people are sub-human doesn't make others believe that. We are not photocopiers, we are humans. That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned. Wait, so youtube shouldn't go after hate speech, because that's legal in the US, but should go after conspiracies and alternative history, despite those also being legal in the US? This doesn't make sense.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Nope, that’s not what I said.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        I don't understand then, can you explain where I got it wrong? madeofpalk said "Hate speech is not illegal in the US. [...]" to which you responded "Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those concern by the content of the speech should simply produce counterarguments and discredit that speech." I take this to mean that you think hate speech shouldn't be removed from youtube because it isn't illegal in the US. Then you said "That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned." I take this to mean that you think people who claim stuff like conspiracies and alternative history are fair game for youtube to "go after". But those things are just as legal as hate speech in America. Where is my error in understanding?
phillipcarter 3y ago
That's a great policy idea! You should create a competitor to YouTube so that you can enforce it. Nobody's stopping you.

maest 3y ago

They haven't stopped _distributing_ Brand's videos. They just have stopped paying him money from the ads.