4 ms·

Youtube isn't your friend. It's not going to act in its own interests and those interest will rarely align with yours. This includes willing cooperation with a

by jmyeet 2y ago

Youtube isn't your friend. It's not going to act in its own interests and those interest will rarely align with yours. This includes willing cooperation with any government they want to do business with, including Russia. This is one reason why I think China banning Youtube is a policy mistake (for them): they could exert more control over Youtube if they allowed it in mainland China. I feel like every story like this is like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. Just how many times do we need to do a surprised Pikachu face? Youtube, Meta and Twitter all suppress content related to a certain current Middle East conflict [1] and they do so largely to keep the US State Department happy. My point here is that this "free speech" and "censorship" tends to get used very selectively by people in a way that oddly coincides with their world view on certain topics. If you're against Youtube censoring anti-Russian content as per this post (as I am) you should also be against suppression of Middle Eastern news and content too yet I so often find a complete double standard here. Oh and literally nobody is a free speech absolutist (including me, except arguably for Noam Chomsky) yet many pretend to me but again, this tends to be self-serving in a way aligned with their own views on things. [1]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

pphysch 2y ago
> This is one reason why I think China banning Youtube is a policy mistake China didn't ban YouTube, Google just refused to comply with the strict regulations. So China tried to do exactly what you said, but they can't exactly force YouTube to stay (it would involve a lot more than just seizing local physical assets).
- jmyeet 2y ago
  Well there's banning and there's effective banning. If you make the regulatory structure so cumbersome that no one wants to participate, that's an effective ban, whether you intend it or not, whether you realize it or not. Given the almost complete lack of foreign Internet companies in China, I'd say there's good evidence the effective ban is intentional. That's really what I mean when I say "China banned Youtube". Also, Google has shown prior willingness to comply with Chinese regulation (eg participation before the pullout in ~2010 and Dragonfly [1]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)
  - pphysch 2y ago
    China does have strict media regulations which can be expensive for foreign companies to implement, but there are still a TON of Western brands that operate very successfully in China.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      And those departments are basically owned and run by the party.
      - pphysch 2y ago
        In the same sense that US-based firms are run by the national security apparatus, via mechanisms like NSL, sure.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
lupusreal 2y ago
> Oh and literally nobody is a free speech absolutist (including me, except arguably for Noam Chomsky) yet many pretend to be The ACLU used to defend the 1A rights of neonazis and left wingers alike. Wouldn't that qualify them as free speech avsolutists? Or did they not count because they didn't lobby for the legalization of libel? Either way, I think you're projecting a bit.

by jmyeet 2y ago

pphysch 2y ago

> This is one reason why I think China banning Youtube is a policy mistake China didn't ban YouTube, Google just refused to comply with the strict regulations. So China tried to do exactly what you said, but they can't exactly force YouTube to stay (it would involve a lot more than just seizing local physical assets).

jmyeet 2y ago
Well there's banning and there's effective banning. If you make the regulatory structure so cumbersome that no one wants to participate, that's an effective ban, whether you intend it or not, whether you realize it or not. Given the almost complete lack of foreign Internet companies in China, I'd say there's good evidence the effective ban is intentional. That's really what I mean when I say "China banned Youtube". Also, Google has shown prior willingness to comply with Chinese regulation (eg participation before the pullout in ~2010 and Dragonfly [1]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)
- pphysch 2y ago
  China does have strict media regulations which can be expensive for foreign companies to implement, but there are still a TON of Western brands that operate very successfully in China.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    And those departments are basically owned and run by the party.
    - pphysch 2y ago
      In the same sense that US-based firms are run by the national security apparatus, via mechanisms like NSL, sure.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

lupusreal 2y ago

> Oh and literally nobody is a free speech absolutist (including me, except arguably for Noam Chomsky) yet many pretend to be The ACLU used to defend the 1A rights of neonazis and left wingers alike. Wouldn't that qualify them as free speech avsolutists? Or did they not count because they didn't lobby for the legalization of libel? Either way, I think you're projecting a bit.