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

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

#571

Post by chordalkeyboard » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:13 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #536

chii wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> force YouTube to host content that their shareholders would prefer not to host. youtube isn't the gov't. Public schools and roads are funded by taxation. If youtube is to host content that their shareholders don't want hosted, then youtube needs to be paid a portion of gov't taxes.

> then youtube needs to be paid a portion of gov't taxes. No actually. The way society works is we can just force them to do it, via the law. It is our right as citizens to change the law.

I think its entirely reasonable for YouTube to be compensated if the polity concludes that they maintain a useful public service by providing a place for people to share videos and they adhere to reasonable objective guidelines on what content to permit and remove.

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

#572

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:13 AM UTC

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #504

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy. who is to be trusted with the authority to decide what counts as misinformation? Is it possible that a gatekeeper of information would find it easier to misinform the populace than a prominent person who had to contend with other dissenting voices?

It feels to me like both sides in this debate want to argue "of course it's patently obvious that I'm right". But services like YouTube and Facebook have no real historical precedents in terms of audience reach, and it's hard to think of a more rock-and-a-hard-place situation than choosing between "force a private company to treat their property like a public square no matter the cost to society" and "allow a private…

[deleted]

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

#573

Post by kill-procrustes » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:14 AM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #495

I find it really disconcerting how many people on Hacker News want a corporate entity to decide what information is deemed acceptable to know. Do you even know where that word came from? The irony is almost overwhelming. But I digress... The idea that banning certain information will somehow result in it disappearing has been shown repeatedly to not work. A cursory reading of history should make this clear. You canno…

This is a really underrated point. This whole site is really "tech industry news" with some hacking sprinkled in, but its name at least is based on the idea of the hacker ethos. That whole thing about decentralization, distrusting authority, information being free? A curiosity for how things work and logical investigation rather than letting someone else do your thinking for you? Disinformation is a huge problem and I understand the impulse to grab for the easiest available solution, but this is fool's gold and anathema to what hackers and Western democracies claim are the foundations of their belief system.

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

#574

Post by stale2002 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:15 AM UTC

scoopertrooper wrote: post #557

stale2002 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think this is new or something? The government has a documented history of retaliating against people regarding speech issues. There was a long period, know as "the red scare" in which this happened. There are many forms of "in between" retaliation, that is in between a democracy and an authoritarian government. And it is important to also protect people against these in between consequences, by allowing them…

The red scare didn't end with the advent anonymity, but rather it was ended by the checks and balances within the government belatedly stepping up to the plate. Joe McCarthy was censured by congress and fell out of political favour. Furthermore, the Supreme Court handed down a number of decisions that greatly reduced the scope of the government's ability to penalise supporters of communism such as: Yates v. United St…

> but rather it was ended by the checks and balances within the government belatedly stepping up to the plate.

Ok, and regardless of that, anonymity still helps people avoid consequences for their speech. Which is a good thing, given that the government has in the past done things like that.

> This is how such matters should be tackled in a free society

Well that is cold comfort to the people who suffered real harm, during the red scare. While other people were trying to solve that problem "the right way", lots of people still suffered harm in the mean time.

Things don't always get solves immediately. Sometimes, problems just exist. And regardless if things have been solved "the right way" or not, other solutions, such as anonymity still help.

None of this stuff is exclusive. Feel free to try and stop government consequences some other way. But regardless of that, anonymity still helps some people avoid some consequences for their speech, which is good.

> elaborate mechanisms

None of this is elaborate. Lots of people have pretty effective ability to post speech anonymously.

Instead, it would be you who would have to engage in large elaborate schemes to prevent people from being anonymous.

The default, easy, non-elaborate solution is what we have now. Which is that there are many platforms where anonymity is easy for most people, most of the time. And that the government would have to take pretty extreme actions to remove that from people, like court orders that don't happen very much right now for most people.

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

#575

Post by dleslie » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:16 AM UTC

waheoo wrote: post #569

dleslie wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is also intrinsically linked to freedom of association. YouTube has chosen to deny associating itself with certain views, as is their right. It is no different than how Fox, CNN and others may choose what to broadcast. Don't like that? Use BitChute or PeerTube or similar.

YouTube isn't a broadcaster. Don't confuse them.

For sure, it's subject to even less regulation than broadcasters.

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

#576

Post by robbywashere_ » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:17 AM UTC

Russia has every right to spread disinformation in our country via an administration which was never brought to proper trial because witnesses were silenced. It’s a free country!

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

#577

Post by millstone » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:17 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #509

darepublic wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not engaging with the articles main point, that this censorship and exclusion is not evenly applied, and that it is rather conspicuously applied along political lines. There are many non scientific, ideology driven ideas that have been bullying their way into every facet of communication these days. Labelling people who resist this trend as fringe radicals who should be segregated and monitored is frankly disg…

For example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019... (AOC: “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."). This is flat-earth conspiracy theory level falsehood. And it’s a falsehood about an extremely politically and socially important issue that if widely accepted could have massive repercussions. Is YouTube going to censor it?

This is hyperbole and AOC would be the first to acknowledge it. If "the world will literally end in 12 years" were to take root, then it would be a massive problem for society, not just YouTube.

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

#578

Post by rayiner » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:17 AM UTC

newfriend wrote: post #289

maccard wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the most shallow and outright racist comments I've ever seen on this site.

Islam isn't a race. If you criticize Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or yes, even Islamism, you aren't being racist.

This is mostly true but the three religions you mention aren’t parallel in this respect. Apostasy in Islam is (typically) defined as someone who leaves Islam after being born into a Muslim family or previously accepting Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam. So it’s not a race or ethnicity, but in a theological and practical sense people are “born Muslim.” Put differently, separation of ethnic group, language, and religion are less well-defined in many parts of the world than it is among people of European descent.

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

#579

Post by gnusty_gnurc » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:18 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #426

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lies are toxic to free speech IMHO you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant. You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable. You need to protect speech that is almost universally opposed. Minorities need protection, majorities don't, and this the basis of the American notion of freedom - insofar as the individual is the smallest minority. > Do y…

> IMHO you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant. I am extremely confident that I can find examples of speech you wouldn't defend. How do you feel about false advertisement? Sharing of confidential military secrets?

I’m arguing about free expression and unpopular speech, not illegal speech.

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

#580

Post by weavejester » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:20 AM UTC

zionic wrote: post #267

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.

If people are too stupid to reject false information that wasn’t curated for them why are they smart enough to vote. Any argument advocating censorship is ultimately arguing for dictatorship.

How would one determine whether information is false or not? It's easier to publish disinformation than it is to disprove it, and while some people are clearly better at sifting truth from fiction than others, I suspect everyone has beliefs that are based upon false information.

Moreover, this isn't censorship by the government, but by Google. Why should a private company be made to disseminate disinformation when it doesn't want to? A key part of freedom of speech is the freedom not to speak, and mandating that a company publish information it doesn't want to is surely just as bad as forcing it to censor information it does want to publish.