The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire • Hacker News Board

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#251

Post by charonn0 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:35 AM UTC

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #206

charonn0 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would involve eavesdropping on a private conversation, and as such the analogy falls flat (also since you pay them directly for a service.)

Why can't the phone company listen to private conversations? What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?

There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications.

> What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights?

Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract.

> Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?

I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#252

Post by int_19h » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #81

ardy42 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. I mean, the American founders already rejected a lot of ideas about the people governing themselves, because they knew from history that the people often can't check their worst impulses. > Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.…

This is literally the foundation of American govt structure namely the respect for unalienable rights of individuals to express themselves. It’s the first line in our enumerated rights. This isn’t “oh we should rethink things” this is a matter of natural rights and precedes anything we’ve constructed.

Given that the Alien and Sedition Acts took less than 10 years after the passing of the Bill of Rights, and were passed by many of the same people working on the original Constitution, I would dare say that it wasn't all that unanimous.

But, and perhaps more importantly, relatively few people at the time could vote - in 1789 it was about 6% of the population as a whole. On the federal level, there was basically no protection of the right to vote at all - there was that bit about states having to have a "republican form of government", but it wasn't codified, and the broad understanding was that property requirements, poll taxes etc are all compatible with it. So, it was a very different environment overall.

(I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise - I support, it actually. But US is not a good historical model for it. I don't think there's any country that really is, or ever was. Those of us who believe that democracy is dead without radical free speech, have to figure out how to make it all work in a way that is, at least, tolerable to those who disagree with us.)

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#253

Post by 8note » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

d1zzy wrote: post #220

Analemma_ wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the days on forums when people screaming "YOU'RE VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!11" after the admin banned them were treated as the laughable jokes they were. Now there are supposedly serious political thinkers subscribing to this same idea: that the Constitution forces private parties to do business with you against their will. It's a serious lack of civic knowledge.

I would argue that the right of business to not do business with anyone they don't want to is very much American (regardless if it's right or wrong).

Pretty American,though now it's illegal to keep black people our of your store

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#254

Post by waterhouse » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #217

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are making normative arguments, not legal arguments. We are aware that this is legal, just like it used to be legal to discriminate in hiring practices against black people. Taibbi is suggesting that if you can't trust the people not to post error and lies, how can you trust the oligarchs and officials? Especially if your access to alternative perspectives is limited. Read for yourself: >> Cutting down the pub…

Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?

No, they should not be forced.

However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#255

Post by int_19h » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

deeviant wrote: post #155

swiley wrote: post #2

If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.

> Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked. Not really. UK has far more limits on speech than the US but is just as much of a Democracy as the US. "Free" speech has be weaponized in the internet age. It is a cancer that is actively destroying democracy.

They are a democracy in a sense that people are allowed to vote. But do people get access to all the information they need to meaningfully vote?

And, frankly, stuff like ASBO makes it hard to take UK as a good example of a free society.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#256

Post by miohtama » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #216

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are making normative arguments, not legal arguments. We are aware that this is legal, just like it used to be legal to discriminate in hiring practices against black people. Taibbi is suggesting that if you can't trust the people not to post error and lies, how can you trust the oligarchs and officials? Especially if your access to alternative perspectives is limited. Read for yourself: >> Cutting down the pub…

Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution." Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves. If y…

This is the best explanation of the dangers of mega publishing platforms I have seen on Hacker News.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#257

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #247

belorn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it legal in the US to encourage people to jump in front of a train? If the answer is no then telling people to drink rat poison is illegal. The legal system has the power to punish the uploader, and youtube can remove it just as it do with copyright infringements. If the answer is yes then I would suggest to change the law. Pushing people to drink rat poison sound awful close to harassment, which is just the kind…

> Is it legal in the US to encourage people to jump in front of a train? Yes

Some judicial venues say no:

“A Massachusetts woman [Michelle Carter] who sent her suicidal boyfriend a barrage of text messages urging him to kill himself was jailed Monday on an involuntary manslaughter conviction nearly five years after he died in a truck filled with toxic gas.”

She appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and the conviction was upheld (unanimously).

https://apnews.com/article/320866bd419a49c8a82b55e39390f2c8

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#258

Post by AndrewKemendo » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:40 AM UTC

travisoneill1 wrote: post #193

Thank god for all of the people at Youtube working on censoring misinformation. They are so much smarter than me and obviously better than me at figuring out what is true and what isn't! And isn't it great that they always act selflessly in favor of the truth and never in the narrow interest of Google? I don't know what I would do if I didn't have them there to protect me from the dangerous misinformation. I am so he…

I'll take the bait in the spirit of casual friday night internet debating and recognizing your tone as purely sarcastic. I would ask then...

What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them?

Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?

Would you argue that you should be free to make measurably worse or less optimized decisions for yourself - by virtue of the value of you being un-baised was more important than you making a better decision?

This is probably my favorite topic where optimization and normative economics converge, so I'm curious the replies here.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#259

Post by 8note » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #81

ardy42 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. I mean, the American founders already rejected a lot of ideas about the people governing themselves, because they knew from history that the people often can't check their worst impulses. > Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.…

This is literally the foundation of American govt structure namely the respect for unalienable rights of individuals to express themselves. It’s the first line in our enumerated rights. This isn’t “oh we should rethink things” this is a matter of natural rights and precedes anything we’ve constructed.

But that's not democracy.

Go is arguing that free speech is required for democracy, and that democracy is why we want free speech.

The founders didn't like democracy all that much though

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#260

Post by justwalt » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

olefoo wrote: post #150

This is all the result of confusing 1st amendment rights with the right to access the audience that gathers at a particular URL. What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you should be allowed an audience and that even putting a warning alongside the video would be an infringement on his rights. Looking at the comments here I have to conclude that HN is no longer on…

I think this opinion is short sighted, because it assumes that we can trust Youtube (or other governing body) to rightfully and honestly decide which content is worth deplatforming. Isn't this idea central to the concept of freedom of speech?