91–100 of 471 posts
Good. I'd rather live in chaos than a world controlled by these technocrats. Let's do Twitter while we're at it.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
Because I'm fairly sure none of the accepted meanings make any sense.
We blame Youtube/Google management, but in reality it's as much a tyranny of the company's employees and their political leanings. We've done a terrible job the last 30 years promoting national security literacy and constitutional integrity preservation to our youth. It may well be this country's undoing. No exaggeration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. On some level, we have to acknowledge that whoever is running the shitshow at youtube and twitter are actually responsible as well, in that they believe they know enough to literally dictate what everyone in the world should see and read. For example banning Trump fro…
There is a ton of actual evidence that removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks: https://www.axios.com/reddit-hate-speech-policies-reduction-... https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/trump-twitter-faceboo...
But the new and very different point that you're making, which is "removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks", is also very disputable and shaky.
- First link is "Reddit says that the rules Reddit made helped Reddit." is not exactly impartial, so forgive me to mistrust it.
- Felt bad opening a Vox link (since so very obviously biased, but whatever, opened it for a laugh). The say: "misinformation slowed, the research indicates online discussion around the topics that motivated the Capitol riot has also diminished" if you don't see it (or if it doesn't happen online) it doesn't mean it diminished overall. The whole article is full of bias honestly. Sad that you feel it's worthy enough to source.
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?
The company doesn't find anything objectionable. It's the Who (a political org that has nothing to do with science) that is dictating what YouTube should do. YouTube and other technocrats believe that can tell people how and what they should think. With that being said, forcing a private company with state violence is not good either, unfortunately there's no magic wand to wave and reset everything. We shouldn't be p…
How are they dictating this? What power does the WHO have over YouTube to force them to make this decision?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm subjectively inserting that comment. I think that a lot of it was reasonable. I'm not arguing that it was objectively reasonable. I'm writing my thoughts on the internet. I'm not obligated by the burden of proof to justify my subjective opinions. >There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down. Nonsense. We don't apply this standard to an…
That's my point. There is no objectively reasonable way to do this. What you think is reasonable to take down and what I think is reasonable to take down are not going to always agree. I'm not sure what "elsewhere in life" means, but bookstores choose what books they will sell while also not necessarily endorsing every book they carry.
and
> I refuse to take down this video, because I do not think it needs to be taken down
are two VERY different things. The first one is a political choice about taking down videos in general. The second one is a political choice about a specific topic. The second one is more or less similar to taking down the video because you think it needs to be taken down (same topic, different political decision)... the first one is absolutely nothing like that.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear (because I replied in the wrong place), this is the comment I was discussing
> There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.
While it may be "just as political", it's a political about a totally different thing.
What's the law they ran afoul of here? I'm getting the impression from the Google Translate'd version of this[1] article, that they violated a contract with the company? [1]: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG...
If I understand correctly, the fine was imposed because Youtube failed to comply with the order of the court to make the video accessible again, which took them several weeks (20. April - 14. May 2020). What confuses me is that the article states the video was removed in January, which would only make sense if it was January 2021, because January 2020 there were no restrictions in Switzerland. Maybe the above date sh…
That "future changes may apply without notice" is invalid in Germany, that's evident. Companies writing bullshit like that in AGBs (ToS) or contracts don't realize Germany is not the US, they need a new legal team.
If the news is correct you are right about the fine being about ignoring the court, not about removing the video in the first place. With a fine that high it has to be about that, there is no way removing a regular video could cause this. Basically the court saw youtube in contempt of the court, kinda.
Might also be politically charged though, East Germany is highly penetrated by Nazis and with a high percentage of corona deniers. Depends on the judge of course whether that was a factor here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Platforms that claim to be open content systems (i.e it is not topic limited like say a Mac Forum) should only remove content that is illegal in nature, i.e Sexual Exploitation of minors, True Threats, etc. > popular anti-vax since Anti-Vax has now been refined to include anyone that opposes government mandated vaccinations, I am a Vaxxed Anti-Vaxer as I oppose all government mandates. People should be free to choose…
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…
*Naval Ravikant (I thought there was something off with your version.)
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…
'hyoerliveral boogeyman' is actually a very accurate description of the pervasive and ongoing censorship across platforms, service providers, and many others.
What else do you call the complete removal of parler?
The on going suppression of covid news?
The ongoing suppression of even discussing the 2020 election fraud?
Facebook warning people that they are being exposed to extremism?
There are many more to list, in sure I'll get nitpicks, and silent down votes -- my comment is likely auto dead because HN canceled my opinion long ago, and not for any policy violation, simply because I speak with truth and conviction.
HN is mostly propaganda.