3 ms·
When you're systemically banning speech because it's a "threat"... isn't that literally, exactly, the same argument that every censorship regime in history has
by douncks 12y ago
When you're systemically banning speech because it's a "threat"... isn't that literally, exactly, the same argument that every censorship regime in history has used in order to manipulate the public to support things it wouldn't otherwise?
Isn't China, Russia, Singpore, and everyone else pushing that same line? Are we going to tolerate it here?
- sp332 12y agoIt's illegal to incite people to violence and make death threats in the USA, even on YouTube.
- undersuit 12y agoHitler's speeches did an amazing job of inciting people to violence, guess we should ban any videos of that, you know just in case.
- mmagin 12y agoGoogle is a private company not a state.
- brettkc 12y agoGoogle is a public company.
- mmagin 12y agoDisingenuous use of a different use of the words public/private. I meant that they are not necessarily expected to treat Youtube as we would expect, say, the US Government to treat a piece of public land like a park (ignoring of course the recent phenomenon of "free speech zones" and such.) You are referring to the fact that fractional ownership of the company is available to nearly any member of the public, as opposed to a company held by a small set of owners.