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

291–300 of 981 posts

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

#291

Post by cromwellian »

Every online forum has moderation policies. The "law and order" brigade doesn't seem to like "order" when it is imposed on them. And if that order is to stop posting misinformation in the form of crazy conspiracy theories that encourage stochastic terrorism, or racist violence, etc then online forums are well within their rights to moderate that content.

Taibbi doesn't even talk about the biggest problem with these conspiracy videos: reinforcement bubbles. If you watch one, you will be shown more, and more and more, deep down the rabbit hole. I'm pretty sure if tech companies changed their algorithm to de-rank subsequent video suggestions of MOAR conspiracy theories, he'd again claim that they were putting their finger on the scale and that this would enrage Trump voters.

The thing is, social media is creating reinforcing but non-intersecting world view bubbles through AI suggestion mechanisms in their feeds, and unless that problem is fixed, you can't just allow an infinite amount of this shitty propaganda to be posted, because it will have damaging effects, and none of the viewers will see any counter-claims, and by the time they finally get served a counter-claim, they'll be so inside the bubble, they won't watch it. Instead, they'll go watch a reaction to it, that confirms to their existing opinion and soothes any triggering. There there now, your worldview is safe.

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

#292

Post by staticman2 »

dathinab wrote: post #234
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…

> 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 He should, it's the basis of democracy. Sure rat poison is a bad example, but thinks are much less clear cut if we speak about other things, including covid19. So putting up warnings about this problems (potential more then just a subtle note at the side) is reasonable removing it is much l…

"Oh and if you tell people to dink rat poison and they do you should be held responsible for tricking people into killing them-self,"

So in your mind Google should assist people in tricking others into drinking rat poison by boosting the signal of their videos by hosting them on one of the world's most popular web sites, essentially making Google employees an accessory to murder, because the "basis of democracy" is assisting bad actors in tricking people into doing things like drinking rat poison.

That's certainly an interesting take.

In my view, you host someone's web site where they trick people into drinking rat poison, that makes you morally culpable. If you have human decency, you try to avoid doing things like that.

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

#293

Post by charonn0 »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #269
charonn0 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications. Likewise, people are discussing reform of the laws that govern the behavior of giant media properties. Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary? > Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other w…

> Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary?

I'm puzzled by the question. My position on wiretapping laws is beside the point.

> People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information.

Again, this is puzzling because it doesn't seem related to the topic at hand. You asked a direct question (why is paying different?) and I gave a direct answer (because contracts).

> "By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."

Doesn't cover minors, who can't consent to binding contracts, and I doubt it would be popular with customers anyway. Can you imagine having that play every time you make or receive a phone call?

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

#294

Post by chordalkeyboard »

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?

> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies?

Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Should I be forced to pay for roads if they will be used to support activities I disapprove of? What if I passionately and sincerely disagree with what people are using the roadway access to facilitate? Should I be forced to subsidize activities that I reasonably believe are harmful to the environment? What if I can produce peer-reviewed academic evidence supporting my point of view? Should I be forced to hire a qualified individual at my company if I have an opening if I don't like their religious beliefs? What if their religious beliefs involve arranged marriage or female genital mutilation?

Hopefully the list of rhetorical questions serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that our society and our system of government already compels people to support things they oppose, including terrible lies, harm to people and the environment, and various forms of abuse. Yet we haven't chosen to abandon this form of government for anarchy. For this reason I am unmotivated by absolutist private property arguments when applied to this issue. Thank you for your excellent question as it draws attention to a central part of the issue.

> 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?

I don't have the answers here, I'm participating in the conversation with the aim of moving it forward. How does it work in practical terms to require that companies hire and serve people even when the owner doesn't like their religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? In theory we write laws on the basis of balancing the values we hold dear. In practice lobbyists donate money to lawmakers for influence and lawmakers compromise with each other on things that they think are going to be practical to enforce and get them re-elected or some other form of benefit. Perhaps not in that order.

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

#295

Post by prucomaclu2 »

metabagel wrote: post #195
prucomaclu2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This woman's testimony starts at 1:34:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... I use this example because I find it particularly blatant, but there are many examples to choose from. According to her testimony, ballots which had two intentional marks (e.g., one for Biden, and one for Trump) would go to Biden. When she raised challenges to this, she was ignored. When she escalated to the super…

Bear in mind that she's a self-described "poll challenger", which is a partisan position. We can reasonably infer that she is a strong supporter of Trump and therefore is not impartial.

That's a fair point, which is why challenged ballots get marked as "challenged" and not "rejected".

It is the duty of the observers to challenge ballots.

It is the duty of the election workers to record these challenges, which wasn't happening.

The only reason her challenge should have been denied is if she was shown to be challenging ballots indiscriminately or she was preventing the election workers from doing their jobs. To my knowledge, there has not been any evidence that this was the case.

Challenger rights are detailed on page 28: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/XI_Election_Day_Issue...

It is not the Trump legal team's responsibility to prove that this woman (and the others like her) was impartial. Their only obligation is to provide a "preponderance of evidence" that supports their case. Given the large number of affidavits that their team has provided of a similar nature, it seems reasonable that the case should be allowed to be heard in a manner that takes both sides seriously.

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

#296

Post by Daishiman »

int_19h wrote: post #274
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…

What happens when all megaphones are either government- or large-corporation-owned, and whenever you try to speak on your own, the nearest megaphone just yells over whatever you have to say?

It's a very good argument to support 1950's style anti-monopoly legislation, and as someone who defends platforms' rights to have some degree of moderation it follows that we should have as many platforms as needed to satisfy demand.

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

#297

Post by phailhaus »

zionic wrote: post #277
phailhaus wrote: post #188

Though I too am surprised that YouTube is setting such a precedent for fine-grained moderation, we cannot pretend as if this is an "infringement of our rights." YouTube is running a for-profit website, you don't have the "right" to a spot on their platform. YouTube has made the careful calculation that the people who are turned off by this ban are far outweighed by public support, and will reduce their contribution t…

For the record: please post “I support YouTube banning all BLM content because it is not profitable” I’m just asking you to be ideologically consistent

I don't have to support it, I'm acknowledging that YouTube is allowed to do it. Framing it as being "against our rights" is fruitless. The article author claims that this will inflame tensions, but that's unlikely.

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

#298

Post by FlyMoreRockets »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #294
xnyan wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Should I be forced to pay for roads if they will be used to support activities I disapprove of? What if I passionately and sincerely disagree with what people are using the roadway access to facilitate? Should I be forced to…

> Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught?

Yes you should. An informed populace is the basis of democracy. If you choose to continue living in a democracy, you have to help pay for its upkeep.

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

#299

Post by dragonwriter »

prucomaclu2 wrote: post #295
metabagel wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that she's a self-described "poll challenger", which is a partisan position. We can reasonably infer that she is a strong supporter of Trump and therefore is not impartial.

That's a fair point, which is why challenged ballots get marked as "challenged" and not "rejected". It is the duty of the observers to challenge ballots. It is the duty of the election workers to record these challenges, which wasn't happening. The only reason her challenge should have been denied is if she was shown to be challenging ballots indiscriminately or she was preventing the election workers from doing thei…

> Given the large number of affidavits that their team has provided of a similar nature, it seems reasonable that the case should be allowed to be heard in a manner that takes both sides seriously.

Before presenting evidence, you have to present a legal argument for which the evidence would provide factual substantiation. The vast majority of the Trump- and Trump-allied-lawsuits have failed at that and been dismissed for that reason. The number of affidavits is immaterial if you don't have a legal argument for them to support which, if the facts were on your side, would support the remedy you are asking for.

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

#300

Post by Daishiman »

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…

What a retconning farce this is. 40 years ago you could not publicly endorse recreational drug use, atheism, or interracial marriages without a substancial block of society chastating you as an incorrectable heathen.

Values change, what people find acceptable and what they do not find acceptable changes.

Post reply on HN