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

371–380 of 981 posts

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

#371

Post by heavyset_go »

waterhouse wrote: post #273
majormajor wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed The key word is "allowed". YouTube should be allowed to do everything they have the right to do. They have the right to stop providing all free services (unless they have contractual obligations). They have the right to ban all creators whose names start with "K". They have the right to add a 10-second delay to all page loads. They have the right to put Goatse on their homep…

> However, if they do any of the above things, the rest of us have the right to be disappointed, to think YouTube sucks, and to tell everyone else about it.

> So, if they demonstrate that they have no respect for the principle of freedom of speech, we have the right to call them cowardly, un-American, probably unfair in their implementation, counterproductive even assuming their goals, etc.*

They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

They want to fundamentally shift the liability for user created content online, effectively ensuring that hosting any speech becomes a massive liability for those without billions of dollars comb through user uploads for illegal content.

As a business owner, I don't want to be raided by the FBI in the middle of the night and then go to prison because someone thought it would be funny to upload illegal content to my servers.

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

#372

Post by srcreigh »

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?

This is a turning point for YouTube. YouTube was a medium of expression. In that sense your question is like "Why should the paper company allow ideas to be written on their paper that they disagree with?"

Of course YouTube does also take a editorial role. As both a platform and a publisher, we should allow them to stop giving recommendations for things that don't align politically.

By taking the more extreme step of taking down videos, they are balking on their self expressed purpose of being a platform for digital expression.

There are several people in my life who I completely disagree with politically. At the same time, I'm grateful that I can hear their perspective. YouTube is no longer supporting this dynamic.

I'm already seeing folks signing up for social networks that have less censorship, I think alternative video hosting platforms may increase too.

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

#373

Post by rhino369 »

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…

Just look early 2020 for an example.

Should Youtube have taken down videos saying face masks were effective given the CDC said they weren't?

Should Youtube have taken down videos about Li Wenliang. After all, there was no new SARS problem, according to china?

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

#374

Post by FlyMoreRockets »

spacebear wrote: post #261
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?

Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US.

> Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US.

More specifically, YouTube has a practical monopoly on publishing and promoting user-generated video in the US.

Anybody can generate video and a great many do. Promoting your video to millions of viewers is a bit more challenging, though can clearly be done wihtout YouTube: https://www.lifewire.com/videos-that-went-viral-before-youtu...

This doesn't even get into the really early viral videos like the charcoal briquettes lit with liquid oxygen, or the massive viewership of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact way back in the day.

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

#375

Post by habeebtc »

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.

I dunno if you have explored the wingnut parts of the internet... But a huge amount of it runs off youtube via embeds.

The youtube ban impacts the most wingnuttiest parts of the internet directly.

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

#376

Post by chordalkeyboard »

glennpratt wrote: post #334
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.

No, that would be the basis for the US to stand up its own video publishing platform. Forcing YouTube to host content it doesn't wish to is "un-American".

Is forcing Jeff Bezos to hire qualified black people and women un-American?

> that would be the basis for the US to stand up its own video publishing platform.

Why not just nationalize YouTube? As a corporation, Google already enjoys special privileges enshrined by law. Lets not pretend to be private property absolutists when the government already limits the liability of shareholders for the actions that bring them profit.

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

#377

Post by FreeTrade »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #360
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.

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 pla…

Pseudo anonymity is probably fine, but web-of-trust solutions to help quarantine armies of sock puppets and manipulators would be really useful. Can't imagine why Twitter/FB won't implement. (Ok. I can imagine)

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

#378

Post by chii »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #320
FlyMoreRockets wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

#379

Post by FlyMoreRockets »

waterhouse wrote: post #254
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?

No, they should not be forced. However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.

I think YouTube should be applauded for protecting democracy. Why do you think they should be shamed for doing this?

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

#380

Post by meowface »

jessah wrote: post #368
Orou wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see these reddit bans referenced every now and then as evidence that censorship works. I think it's important to emphasize these bans are not evidence they shutting down communities changed participants' minds about anything. Further, the paper states that "The empirical work in this paper suggests that when narrowly applied to small, specific groups, banning deviant hate groups can work to reduce and contain the b…

I's not about changing the participants minds. It's about keeping them to radicalize more people by taking away reach.

I suspect there could be a frequency vs. intensity trade-off there. Fewer total radicalizations, but of the ones that remain, they may intensify on average. The "radicalization expected value" so to speak might go up even if the frequency goes down. (This obviously isn't to suggest banning is never a solution, but trade-offs do have to be considered.)
Post reply on HN