Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 158 posts

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#51

Post by simonh »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #26

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social m…

Concerns about liability is why platforms like Youtube are blocking stuff, they're trying to self-police before the government hits them with a big liability hammer.

So I'm not sure really what you're trying to say. You seem to be against safe harbour and laws that make them not liable. You argue that they should 'become liable at scale'. However you seem to be against their attempts to block content such regulations are likely to make them liable for.

Yes of course, I know perfectly well this is an inappropriate example. None of us want it to have been blocked. Probably nobody at Youtube actually wants to block it either, they're just applying their rules inappropriately. In fact it looks like it's already unblocked. But who gets to write the rules and objectively define what is or isn't appropriate?

If you want regulation and liability, edge cases like this are absolutely going to happen and we're going to have to find ways to manage that.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#52

Post by basisword »

wizard-beta wrote: post #16
basisword wrote: post #9

"Freedom is the reason the UK has had such a long an illustrious history." I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. The Online Safety Bill he mentions in his outrage at YouTube taking down his speech is itself an attack on freedoms. He's also part of a political party working to criminalise protests they disagree with.

>I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. Propose one colony where the indigenous society was freer

It's impossible to know. You would need to be able to predict how that country would have evolved over the last number of years without British involvement. Comparing it now to how it was when it was colonised by the British is pointless.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#53

Post by maxehmookau »

makomk wrote: post #42
zpeti wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense when they are letting insulate britain block motorways? Like which protests are they trying to stop? I assume blocking motorways is illegal already, yet the police are doing nothing, which is leading dangerously to vigilante justice as per some videos, which is only a question of time before it turns really violent. Wtf is the UK government doing? Why do they need more p…

Blocking motorways is probably illegal - the trouble is, the police arrest people and then they just go ahead and do it again. (Also, I think the Supreme Court decided that the law on blocking highways didn't apply to people doing it in the name of protest so it's far from clear that those people could be convicted - the court has shown activist tendencies in general, something that some pundits predicted would happe…

the court has shown activist tendencies [citation needed]

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#54

Post by misnome »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #26

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social m…

> I'm just saying that ultimately, the legislator makes the laws...

Almost always when this debate is had, it's in the context of the US, where the First Amendment is a _hard_ stop against this sort of thing, but otherwise suggesting that the government have the final say over whatever you are allowed to say isn't historically a very popular suggestion.

Of course, in other jurisdictions, they can pass whatever laws they want, and platforms can choose to comply, comply only locally, withdraw, or pay whatever fines to keep going as they are.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#55

Post by michaelt »

zpeti wrote: post #27
dua2020 wrote: post #5

This is a government which is in the process of criminalising protest under a deliberately vague 'public nuisance' clause. They only want freedom of expression for their views and not for those that oppose them.

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense when they are letting insulate britain block motorways? Like which protests are they trying to stop? I assume blocking motorways is illegal already, yet the police are doing nothing, which is leading dangerously to vigilante justice as per some videos, which is only a question of time before it turns really violent. Wtf is the UK government doing? Why do they need more p…

> Or is it for "other" types of protests?

There was a BLM protest that pulled down a statue of a slave trader in Bristol. Honestly, pretty much every elected politician would have been OK with that. But then there was another protest in London where some critical graffiti was sprayed on a statue of Winston Churchill. Despite his faults, Churchill is an extremely popular figure; no elected politician would support statues of him being damaged or removed.

So a bill to stop protests damaging statues seemed like a good idea to them.

From the perspective of civil servants and the police, if you offer them more power of course they'll say yes. Who wouldn't want more power, after all?

But getting the bill through the bureaucracy took time, and by the time it was ready the most recent protest-policing news was a police crack-down on a candle-lit vigil for a woman who'd been raped and murdered just days before... by a policeman.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#56

Post by misnome »

zpeti wrote: post #27
dua2020 wrote: post #5

This is a government which is in the process of criminalising protest under a deliberately vague 'public nuisance' clause. They only want freedom of expression for their views and not for those that oppose them.

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense when they are letting insulate britain block motorways? Like which protests are they trying to stop? I assume blocking motorways is illegal already, yet the police are doing nothing, which is leading dangerously to vigilante justice as per some videos, which is only a question of time before it turns really violent. Wtf is the UK government doing? Why do they need more p…

> Why do they need more powers when they don't use the current ones?

Is this a serious question? To make their job easier, always. It's a lot easier to do what you want when you don't have little things like the law or people's rights standing in the way.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#57

Post by oauea »

misnome wrote: post #54
throw_m239339 wrote: post #26

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social m…

> I'm just saying that ultimately, the legislator makes the laws... Almost always when this debate is had, it's in the context of the US, where the First Amendment is a _hard_ stop against this sort of thing, but otherwise suggesting that the government have the final say over whatever you are allowed to say isn't historically a very popular suggestion. Of course, in other jurisdictions, they can pass whatever laws t…

Do you also think you should be able to freely share child pornography on HN as part of your free speech? Or is that not how it works at all?

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#58

Post by loriverkutya »

funshed wrote: post #25
my123 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PeerTube doesn't scale when most of the user base nowadays is on mobile, with asymmetric connections that have data caps. (which happens to be the real world)

UK Mobile Data for most is unlimited. A few will have a data cap but those will be unlikely to watch videos on mobile.

I just asked around (~100 people) and nobody I know has unlimited mobile data here in the UK. As you can get 120gb/month for £20 and unlimited for £40 on a 12 month sim only contract, I think not many people using more than 120GB/month so no good reason to pay double for it.

As anecdata, I cut my package back to 5GB at the start of the first lockdown as my mobil data usage went to nearly 0 since wifi at home and did not run out of data during the last year. I assume anybody who was able to do that done the same.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#59

Post by geofft »

simonh wrote: post #51
throw_m239339 wrote: post #26

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social m…

Concerns about liability is why platforms like Youtube are blocking stuff, they're trying to self-police before the government hits them with a big liability hammer. So I'm not sure really what you're trying to say. You seem to be against safe harbour and laws that make them not liable. You argue that they should 'become liable at scale'. However you seem to be against their attempts to block content such regulations…

I'm interpreting the comment above as advocating for the pre-Section 230 world, where as long as you didn't moderate at all, you were shielded from liability.

I'm not sure that's good for the world per se (there's also no obligation for YouTube to collect contact info, so either you've effectively legalized defamation/libel because there's no way to hold anyone legally accountable for it in order to remove it, or you're replacing it with a DMCA-like system where mere accusations of defamation are enough to remove a video, thereby increasing censorship). But it is true that it's specific policy choice by lawmakers and we could choose differently.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#60

Post by misnome »

oauea wrote: post #57
misnome wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just saying that ultimately, the legislator makes the laws... Almost always when this debate is had, it's in the context of the US, where the First Amendment is a _hard_ stop against this sort of thing, but otherwise suggesting that the government have the final say over whatever you are allowed to say isn't historically a very popular suggestion. Of course, in other jurisdictions, they can pass whatever laws t…

Do you also think you should be able to freely share child pornography on HN as part of your free speech? Or is that not how it works at all?

Do you think that the government should force HN to host child pornography and not remove it if someone uploads it? Or is that not how it works at all?
Post reply on HN