YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#381

Post by slivym » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:55 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #339

slivym wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it. To me there are two models: - You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site. - You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the cont…

What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values. This could end up being a maximizing rule for rev…

Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#382

Post by wu-ikkyu » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:55 PM UTC

Endy wrote: post #261

So YouTube and Reddit are again saying that they're not okay with potentially illegal conduct on their platform. The only difference is that this time they're being much more direct and specific.

The documents from the Snowden leaks were illegally obtained/distributed. How long before that type of stuff is censored?

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#383

Post by headsoup » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:56 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #307

simias wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from You…

> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship. > I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use co…

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice.

It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money.

If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need to be regulated/classed as a carrier/media org.

It's only been 'open' till now because that's the most profitable model...

People need to realise these companies are not public services compelled to free speech, it's just an expectation the users expect to be met.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#384

Post by EasyTiger_ » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:58 PM UTC

It's absolutely stunning what's happened to Reddit. Between the speech clampdowns like this and the soul-crushing amount of political astroturfing going on it's clearly time for a new challenger (not Voat).

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#385

Post by aninhumer » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #350

aninhumer wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will alw…

> If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes. > ...speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real question…

>People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes.

Yes, but unless you're considering some means of achieving those social norms, even if that's just social pressure, it's unlikely to change anything. And when people do actually advocate means of changing the norms of discourse, people who don't like the proposed changes will call it censorship.

>They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things should work

I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that in practice "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal.

If we just mean the government should not directly intervene to prevent speech, that's a reasonable ideal, and relatively few people actually disagree with that. But when people try to consider other ways in which speech is controlled, they still call it "Freedom of Speech", even when arguing for contradictory things.

And I'm arguing that the reason for these contradictions is that the debate tends to be framed in terms identifying speech restrictions and acting to remove them, rather than asking broader questions about the inevitable ways in which speech is amplified or silenced, and how we should structure discourse within those limitations.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#386

Post by ptero » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC

Haydos585x2 wrote: post #356

macspoofing wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of…

The web still exists very much as it was. You could set up your own site and host any kind of weapons content you wanted assuming it fits with your local legislation. YouTube has no obligation to host your content. It's annoying that the best/most popular/easiest to use video service won't support you/these weapons channels but I don't think it really impacts on _free speech_. Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usuall…

> The web still exists very much as it was.

As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and media are putting pressure on it to do so. This, in my book, is wrong.

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#387

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:01 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #325

lightedman wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm." The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.

...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.

Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#388

Post by purple-again » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #363

purple-again wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??

Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families.

Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#389

Post by maxlybbert » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

dolessdrugs wrote: post #308

maxlybbert wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average city dweller in the US doesn’t own a gun either. There are plenty of guns around, but often it feels more like a boogeyman than a real threat.

Is this statistically true? It's not even slightly true in my experience, but I've lived in NY, Philly, and Texas...

I made the statement based on the facts that while there are roughly 200 million guns in the US, most gun owners have multiple guns (i.e., most people don’t own guns), and guns are far more popular in rural areas. When we lived in New Jersey, the leases specifically prohibited us from having guns in the house or apartment.

According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-hou... , 42% of households have guns, so while it’s close, the median household does not have a gun. And, again, firearms are far more common in rural areas than in urban areas, so I believe the statement is true.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#390

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

headsoup wrote: post #383

humanrebar wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship. > I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use co…

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice. It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money. If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need…

> ...that's their choice...

Sure. They can also choose to lie, say sexist things, and promote irresponsible drinking. And I'll criticize them if they do that, too.

I said:

1. It is by definition censorship.

2. People should strongly criticize things that are both legal and wrong.

I do think content hosts need some legal status if we want an open internet (and digital free speech) to survive. But because I'm for healthy conversation, I'm pushing back on replying to valid point with arguments for ending the conversation.