51–60 of 471 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not forced to do anything but live up to the contract they signed.
Google signed a contract? Do you have the text of this contract?
When you agree to it, you are entering into a contract with that company. In exchange for agreeing to their terms, you get access to their services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
The same way a store can't kick someone out who's running around saying racial slurs to everyone?
The same way the New York Times is required to print every letter to the editor that is sent to them?
The store example doesn't hold up at all for a number of reasons and online communities have had extra legal standards since the beginning of the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
There’s a carve out of protections against discriminating based on membership in a protected class, but you can totally decide to get up one day and not provide service to anyone whose ever worn a hat for instance
The article calls this a "historically high fine". It's also really small compared to the scale of YouTube dollars, i.e. for YouTube to care (about this fine in isolation).
Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…
I'd argue that much of their censorship was not reasonable at all. None of it was illegal. Mostly just differences of opinion. My "information" is your "misinformation".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube unsuccessfully argued the video violated its policies on Covid-19 “misinformation.” It sounds like YouTube's stance is that the video may cause harm to their users; one of their criteria for removal.
> may cause harm Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."
Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…
> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…
They tried to get YT to do it, when YT ignored them they went after the money... It is right from the liberal playbook
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
Which is generally a thing left up to the store owner and not the government.
Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…
> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere. Can you define "reasonable" here in an objective way that we could all agree on? There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.
That's a misconception, and basically what the whole trolley problem is all about. Doing nothing is not the same as doing something. Each have their own ethical consequences and it's not as easy as you think to spurt out the "right" answer. Sure, you might have a preference that's difficult for others to argue against or for, but others also have the right to reach a different conclusion.
With that being said, may I ask you what you know about vaccination? Are you using information from articles you've read online from "authorized" sources, or are you an expert on the matter? Again my point here is not to say that you're wrong or right, you're absolutely free to reach whatever conclusion you desire, but it's really difficult even for actual experts in the medical field to know what's going on currently, who's motivated by altruism, greed, selfishness, or cronyism. Taking up these stands and pretending it's "science" is an insult to science, because "science" is ever evolving and there's no such thing as consensus in the scientific process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
In America, you can, as long as it is not based on a protected class. The "burden of proof" (either "beyond a reasonable double" for criminal or "a preponderance of evidence" in civil) is not on the business, but on the rejected customer.
Further, as this is talking about content that they are required to host, rather than restricting who is viewing a video, a more accurate analogy is a store picking their distributors. Which they obviously do.