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

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

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 981 posts

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

#211

Post by will4274 »

titanomachy wrote: post #89
siliconc0w wrote: post #47

It is amazing to me that there are so many people, smart people even, that are adamant that we shouldn't have free speech in society.

You have a right to say whatever you want to whomever you want without fear of government retaliation, as long as it isn't "hate speech" in a fairly narrow legal sense. This is what "having free speech in society" has always meant. The government will also punish people who commit crimes against you merely because they dislike your words, which frees you to say things you might otherwise keep to yourself. What you do…

> You have a right to say whatever you want to whomever you want without fear of government retaliation, as long as it isn't "hate speech" in a fairly narrow legal sense. This is what "having free speech in society" has always meant

Wrong twice.

First of all, the United States doesn't have laws against hate speech. The US Supreme Court has said hate speech is protected by the first amendment. So, you're protected from government retaliation, even if it's hate speech.

Second of all, that's NOT what "having free speech in society" means. It's what the first amendment means. In American culture, writing op eds to a privately owned newspaper is a classic example of free speech, going all the way to revolutionary times (and actually predating the constitution). In the past (before the internet), prominent newspapers would brag that they would publish editorials from any significant public figure, even if they detested that public figure, because free speech was a good thing. That's why the NYTimes has published so many editorials from dictators.

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

#212

Post by drak0n1c »

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #16

These types of articles are always insane to me. YouTube is a private company. They're pretty much allowed to moderate the content on their platform in an arbitrary way. I would argue that this is a good thing. We can't have it both ways, but we want it both ways. We want a non-government controlled way to communicate, but we want to mandate that they're liable to uphold the same First Amendment protections that the…

Why is it insane to criticize the decisions of a corporation? Activists of all stripes regularly criticize corporate behavior that is completely legal and within their rights as a private company. Is there some substantial difference between arguing a corporation should go out of its way to accommodate the spirit of environmental conservation, and going out of its way to accommodate the spirit of open discussion? You shouldn't presume such criticism is lobbying for a change to the law (the original article does not).

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

#213

Post by Vomzor »

prucomaclu2 wrote: post #176
Vomzor wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far it has not. The courts have shot down the the lawsuits on procedural grounds without looking at the evidence. Several states have held hearings were a lot of these allegations are discussed in detail. The hour long hearings are on youtube. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqFTUEvMoU Wisconsin State Legislature Election Hearing is still live streaming when I post this. Second edit: Why is my first comment…

Your reply was probably flagged because it had only a link. Generally people expect some content to go with a link. I also doubt most people on HN have the patience to wait for that site to load. It took like a minute. And of course it's pro-Trump, but I'm sure that's only a small reason why it was flagged. (Odd thing, I posted a comment to you earlier and it's not visible except when I am logged in. Hopefully at lea…

I did see it but it was also flagged so I couldn't reply. The thing about those affidavits, multiple people said the same thing about different polling places which makes it more believable in my eyes than if it was just one person for each allegation. I do think there was fraud, I'm sure there is even some amount of fraud every election. The real question should be, was the fraud widespread and did it make a difference? I don't know but the fact that people can't even debate this is concerning to me.

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

#214

Post by csnover »

pmcollins wrote: post #63

for folks with a strong opinion on this, how do you square your opinion on youtube censorship with your opinion on net neutrality? youtube censorship is okay but isp censorship is bad? i have multiple isps available to me without any change to the quality of my life, but no comparable alternative to youtube.

What does it mean to be a “comparable” alternative to YouTube?

There are dozens of online video platforms[0], plus other places like Patreon and OnlyFans, and decentralised systems like PeerTube. If none of them work for you, you can get a VPS and start hosting videos on your own web site.

The difference between YouTube censorship and ISP censorship is the amount of capital you need to circumvent it. If ISPs start filtering traffic, you need tens-to-hundreds of millions of dollars to build hardware infrastructure to run a competing ISP. If YouTube starts filtering videos, you need $5 to rent a server to host those videos instead.

Boy, technologists. We used to see a gap in the market and fill it with superior products. Now we see a gap in the market and complain that the market leader isn’t owning that space any more.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_video_platforms

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

#215

Post by chordalkeyboard »

jfrunyon wrote: post #129
Vomzor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be that the tech companies where champions of free speech, the ideal. It changed when generation woke entered their workforce. There has been a generational change brought on by changed values in American universities. That's what really is happening. > We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government sho…

No, it changed when capitalism got involved and realized it was more profitable to centralize, close themselves off, and gain a monopoly.

Thats an interesting definition of capitalism that excludes the part where the capital was accumulated. Probably that's why the libertarians say "free market capitalism" in order to exclude the mixed market and autocratic versions.

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

#216

Post by majormajor »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #194
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…

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 you didn't have your own credibility, you had to convince those who did to run your stuff. The cost of this is that it's slower to break things, and some stuff gets missed.

Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms.

Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights).

The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)

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

#217

Post by xnyan »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #194
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…

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?

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

#218

Post by jessaustin »

Vomzor wrote: post #91
titanomachy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a right to say whatever you want to whomever you want without fear of government retaliation, as long as it isn't "hate speech" in a fairly narrow legal sense. This is what "having free speech in society" has always meant. The government will also punish people who commit crimes against you merely because they dislike your words, which frees you to say things you might otherwise keep to yourself. What you do…

It used to be that the tech companies where champions of free speech, the ideal. It changed when generation woke entered their workforce. There has been a generational change brought on by changed values in American universities. That's what really is happening. > We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government sho…

Don't blame the children; they don't know any better.

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

#219

Post by ipython »

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.

Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...

In addition other democratic states have strict limits on free speech such as Singapore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constituti...

After all even “democracy” is nuanced here in the states. Obvious examples from our past include the wholesale disenfranchisement of women until 100 years ago, Jim Crow era laws, poll taxes, and more. Did we have democracy then? Do we have democracy now?

Did we have free speech when broadcasters in the USA had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine. Our system has it’s faults. But one can’t say that we ever had unfettered democracy or free speech, ever.

At what point is speech considered abuse? If you make the analogy between speech and network traffic, we intentionally censor “abusive” traffic to save our networks from collapse. Could one make the argument that entities with an interest in destabilizing our democracy should not be able to inject propaganda into our discourse because “free speech”? I think it’s a valid argument to have and a nuance that we have to contend with.

There are no absolutes. Trivializing this with a snappy trope of “democracy can’t survive without free speech” is disingenuous IMO.

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

#220

Post by d1zzy »

Analemma_ wrote: post #184
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 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).
Post reply on HN