YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:23 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #574

indigochill wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most new organizations are also general-purpose, meaning the organization will cover everything from politics to sports to tech to finance to gossip. My assertion is that trying to be all things to all people leads us into impossible-to-moderate scenarios even before you look at the motivation/resources available with which to perform said moderation.

I'm proposing approaching the US code and other bodies of law (and associated jurisprudence) as a Wiki and seeing what happens. I propose that this could be an improvement over the whole representative democracy approach.

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #670

dane-pgp wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling a silenced victim that they can easily move to somewhere else in digital space is of little comfort when their complaint is that they are being denied access to a public audience who are habitually congregating in an existing location. The extent to which someone is entitled to an audience is of course more difficult to judge.

I disagree with your last sentence; I don't think anyone is entitled to an audience, so it's not a very difficult situation to judge. Free speech means you can shout in the wind all day long.

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:43 AM UTC

lugg wrote: post #660

kypro wrote: post #256

What I find funny about all this is that I'm certain if YouTube existed a few decades earlier we would likely be under pressure to ban "disgusting" pro-LGBT content or content supporting things as "vile" as interracial relationships. We would say, these private companies have a duty not to radicalise our children. That our children are being led away from god and into sinful lifestyles like homosexuality. Some of us…

I don't think the analogy fits. Those individuals are protected classes and refusing them access like this would be discriminatory behavior. Likely not illegal in USA but it would be illegal elsewhere. Racists are not a protected class of people. They aren't afforded those same rights. And on some grounds their disruption of society actually puts an onus on you as a platform to restrict their access.

Post by ng12 » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #661

danans wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were primarily concerned with Pan-Germanicism. If that was the case, then why did their policies include the murder of millions of German-speaking Jews, Gypsies, and people with disabilities. What was it about those people that made them not fit the category of "German"? The answer from clearly documented history is that the Nazis systematized the categorization of humans on their deeply flawed model of the Ar…

There is also historical conflicts between ethnic Germans and other ethnic groups. The Nazi's had a plan to exterminate most Slavs which includes Poles, Russians and Ukrainians after they won the war. See Generalplan Ost.

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 4:24 AM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #678

leereeves wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free speech means you can shout in the wind all day long." That's the idea those absurd behind "free speech zones" off in a remote corner. Free speech means free speech in every public space.

I respect that you take that stance, but I don't share that opinion.