HBKXNCUO

23 ms·

151.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Getting banned from YouTube doesn't prevent you from voting. Right, it prevents you from taking part in the public political debate that tens of millions of voters are participating in. It's like telling someone "You can&
152.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Are you banned yet? Who, me? Never. >So you think the uninformed conversations occurring in a video entertainment cesspool are more impactful than the discourse between the engineers, founders and investors that actually built, maint
153.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>HN Good joke. First of all, this site actively tries to ban political discussion. Second, it's tiny in comparison to YouTube. >reddit Maybe. Definitely far up there, and a good candidate for being regulated. >twitter, faceboo
154.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>And it's a good idea to force private spaces to allow everything on their spaces or declaring it public spaces even if they are not? It's a good idea to force some of them to allow some things. You don't believe private p
155.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. Which platforms in particular are you referring to? >So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because
156.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>I think google will largely remove content at the edges that it deems to be offensive or dangerous And do you think they remove that content without any regard for their own political leanings? That their opinion of what is "offens
157.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance. Outsized in comparison with what? >And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well,
158.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through th
159.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote) Young people eventually grow up to vote. Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenc
160.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Is this supposed to threaten me? I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. >You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around
161.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immedia
162.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
What exactly do you mean by "not that important"? Is it your position that if, say, YouTube took down all content that was in favor of Democrats, and pushed content that was in favor of Republicans to the front page, and put it al
163.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Then I think there's a core distinction between hosting content and as you put it "finding new content for them". Yes of course those two things are different, but YouTube does both of them and both of them are necessary
164.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced. People advoca
165.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
YouTube is the most popular website on the internet for regular (i.e. non-rich) people to participate in the public political debate by posting/watching videos. This means banning regular people from it substantially reduces their abil
166.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>That would satisfy the common carrier aspect as you could simply email the links out to your existing audience. Yes, but the analogy with traditional delivery services breaks down because people don't ask the delivery service to fi
167.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It's not close to TV, in any way shape or form other than the fact that it's a video on a screen. Regular people don't put things on TV. That has always been a privilege for the very rich, or for local governments in the case
168.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Do any of those places host a substantial portion of the public political debate? If any of those places banned people, would that significantly reduce the ability of those people to meaningfully participated in the public political debate?
169.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Please be specific. Whose political speech do you believe is going to result in more real world violence, and what is the chain of events that you foresee? I've already explained why I think restricting political speech results in incr
170.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Everyone advocates for violence in some circumstances, except perfect pacifists.
171.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real wor
172.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Do you have some good reason why we should not change the regulations so that they are "otherwise regulated"? No one is claiming they are currently breaking the law by refusing to conduct business with e.g. gab or the daily storme
173.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
I'm not sure why we should give them a pass on censoring ANY legal political content, including racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, or any other political stance outside of the corporate mainstream. The fact is that YouTube has become o
174.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? You should be able to guess what my answer will be here. They should not be allowed to ban people on the basis of their p
175.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>I'm saying that it makes no sense to say that Facebook cannot determine who is allowed to access their private property. What?? That is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. >Why should anyone be allowed to demand access to
176.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>"The commons" are not controlled by Facebook; The commons used to be where people gathered. Now people gather on places like Facebook. That's why I put commons in quotes. Facebook controls a significant chunk of the new &
177.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>You are not entitled to the Facebook communication channel or any other privately owned channel. Legally, that is true. I don't think anyone in this conversation or elsewhere is claiming that Facebook is illegally silencing people.
178.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>If you think shutting down Facebook would result in people being unable to communicate and assemble you obviously haven't studied history or even been around on the Internet very long. I don't think that, and I don't sugg
179.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It is "critical" in the sense that it is at this point it controls a large share of the "commons" where political speech takes place, and shutting down the ability of people to meaningfully participate in the political d
180.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Is there any data showing that people are actually driving slower in NYC as a result of the speed limit decrease?

More ›