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

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

#351

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:43 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"?

The are US laws like the Electronic Communication Act that addressed some of these issues for phone companies and ISPs.

Google, et al, need to be roped into similar laws. They are providing a defacto public square that deserves more regulation -- one way or the other.

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

#352

Post by totony » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:43 AM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #70

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 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.…

>As software engineers, we understand the value of code reviews. That kind of thing shouldn't be anathema.

Yet you can still release bad code. Code review is people looking at your idea/code and judging for themselves. Giving feedback.

Here we're trying to prevent that code from even being seen by others.

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

#353

Post by chordalkeyboard » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #335

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm puzzled by the question. My position on wiretapping laws is beside the point. No, it isn't. Spartan-S63 seem to be advocating [0] YouTube can moderate their platform however they like. souprock suggests [1] that same logic allows the phone company to disconnect anyone who criticizes the phone company. You say [2] that doesn't apply because that would require breaking the law. I'm observing that the law you refe…

[0] isn't mine. I've only commented on the phone company analogy.

I'm sorry for misattributing the comment to you.

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

#354

Post by saurik » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

Ottolay wrote: post #340

wkjenjkwenf wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it reduced tensions on reddit , but what about tensions everywhere else? The author doesn't care about how toxic Youtube is, he cares how toxic the US is. Pushing these radicals onto radical websites only further radicalizes them. That should be an axiomatic fact, yet nobody seems to understand it.

Maybe because it's not an axiomatic fact. There has been niche radical internet communities for ages. It has only been with the radical communities coming into the mainstreams ones (reddit, twitter, and facebook)that the radical communities exploded.

I think the idea is more like this: you have two clubhouses, one that has 10 super radical people and one that has 190 people who are less radical. If you take the most radical 20 people from the 190 and force them to go across the street and spend all of their time with the super radical people, those 20 people probably will become somewhat more radical. Now, the 10 people possibly become slightly less radical as maybe do the remaining 170, which might balance things out a bit? But the people who are saying this makes people more radical are concentrating on the idea of taking people on the verge of being super radical and saying that they now only get to hang out with each other and the people who were thrown out of the mainstream long ago... it isn't that that group will "grow" past the people handed to it, but that the people given to it will become radicalized (which might be more dangerous than accepting everyone into the same system and attempting to have them all adjust a bit towards the mean).

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

#355

Post by Bud » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:45 AM UTC

wkjenjkwenf wrote: post #331

phailhaus wrote: post #303

The author theorizes that this ban will inflame tensions, but I don't believe that's true. Look at Reddit's ban on toxic subreddits. They found that banning toxic subreddits reduced the toxicity in the website as a whole, and that "post-ban, hate speech by the same users was reduced by as much as 80-90 percent." [1] Reddit is just a closed system of communities; YouTube is one such community in the larger system of s…

Sure, it reduced tensions on reddit , but what about tensions everywhere else? The author doesn't care about how toxic Youtube is, he cares how toxic the US is. Pushing these radicals onto radical websites only further radicalizes them. That should be an axiomatic fact, yet nobody seems to understand it.

The author doesn't care about anything other than making a few cheap dollars with mendacious lies.

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

#356

Post by malwrar » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:45 AM UTC

phailhaus wrote: post #303

The author theorizes that this ban will inflame tensions, but I don't believe that's true. Look at Reddit's ban on toxic subreddits. They found that banning toxic subreddits reduced the toxicity in the website as a whole, and that "post-ban, hate speech by the same users was reduced by as much as 80-90 percent." [1] Reddit is just a closed system of communities; YouTube is one such community in the larger system of s…

Incels and other such creeps aren't popping up in other places or real life though. Spend a week in a rural place near you and you'll find that people there legit think that "big tech"--who they know is insanely powerful and think are biased against folks like them--attempt to a.) censor people and b.) censor claims about election fraud specifically in regards to "their president" winning. Think about how that might come off to you if you were Trump supporter. You can disagree with that viewpoint but you have to admit you can see what lots of people who totally buy it would think about those actions. Those are people who aren't going to stop talking with each other either, regardless of what we in the "big tech" think.

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

#357

Post by dboreham » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

octokatt wrote: post #306

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'm guessing there's a lot more deliberate troll farming hitting HN, and threads like this (and how far up this incoherent rant of a post went up the list) lend credit to that.

Certainly feels like that's the case. However, there are also a large number of nutty people in the US and some of them may be posting here.

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

#358

Post by chordalkeyboard » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

FlyMoreRockets wrote: post #332

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes you should. Thank you. This is exactly the basis upon which we justify the proposal to force YouTube to host content that their shareholders would prefer not to host. Or the alternative formulation, this is the basis on which we justify prohibiting YouTube from censoring political speech that their shareholders disagree with.

You missed the most important point. It bears repeating: an informed populace is the basis of democracy. A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy.

> 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?

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

#359

Post by kennywinker » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

effingwewt wrote: post #330

phailhaus wrote: post #303

The author theorizes that this ban will inflame tensions, but I don't believe that's true. Look at Reddit's ban on toxic subreddits. They found that banning toxic subreddits reduced the toxicity in the website as a whole, and that "post-ban, hate speech by the same users was reduced by as much as 80-90 percent." [1] Reddit is just a closed system of communities; YouTube is one such community in the larger system of s…

I see this argument all the time. Sweeping opinions you don't like under the rug doesn't make them go away. People will still hold the same opinions they will just do so where you can't hear them. I prefer the racist I can see. This pushes them underground and radicalizes them. You mentioned reddit. Do you remember what voat became when reddit closed down subs? That hate didn't go away it just moved and concentrated…

The idea is not to sweep them under the rug, but rather to stop the uptake of new people. A lot of people go to reddit for funny pictures, and end up being exposed to some very radical ideas. Those same people might never be drawn to a more fringe site. Banning posters doesn’t stop them from holding their views, but it seems like it may stop them from spreading. It’s a gamble, but i think it’s worked in reddit’s case

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

#360

Post by scoopertrooper » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

wkjenjkwenf wrote: post #331

phailhaus wrote: post #303

The author theorizes that this ban will inflame tensions, but I don't believe that's true. Look at Reddit's ban on toxic subreddits. They found that banning toxic subreddits reduced the toxicity in the website as a whole, and that "post-ban, hate speech by the same users was reduced by as much as 80-90 percent." [1] Reddit is just a closed system of communities; YouTube is one such community in the larger system of s…

Sure, it reduced tensions on reddit , but what about tensions everywhere else? The author doesn't care about how toxic Youtube is, he cares how toxic the US is. Pushing these radicals onto radical websites only further radicalizes them. That should be an axiomatic fact, yet nobody seems to understand it.

Regardless of the morality, I suspect that it will prove to be quite efficacious. Banning this kind of nonsense from mainstream platforms will certainly not reduce the toxicity of the existing radicals, but it will curtail their ability to spread their message and recruit.

These movements did not materialise out of a vacuum. Their growth and replenishment of strength is largely contingent on permissive mainstream platforms on which to set up shop.

I think platforms like Youtube and Facebook have shown the dangers of democratised mass-broadcasting. There were dreams at the dawn of the internet that enhanced access to information would create a better informed citizenry, but rather it has just exacerbated our worst traits as a society.

I don't know what the solution is really. The current situation is untenable in America, but how does one unpick it without resorting to totalitarianism? I'm somewhat partial to ending anonymity on social media posts, so at least people must stand publicly by their positions and can't create sock puppets to inflate their message.