By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?
Is Youtube actually in the right here? The guy just wanted to say he couldn't find pork ribs. He wasn't telling anyone to inject bleach or chug quinine.
That isn't just clamping down on the conspiracy nutters. This has repeatedly become an issue in multiple videos from videogame commentary to cooking shows I watch. Youtube and other large corporates often see themselves as leading the dumb cattle that is the general population and frankly it's outright insulting and their handling of this situation is abysmal.
But also it's going to get worse. The more Youtube can get away with these things, the more they'll do them. Don't be surprised when this extends even more to protected political speech (Israel BDS, free HK, Taiwanese independence, etc) because it's happened before and it will happen again.
Are you saying he got banned for this? I feel like you left something out in your comment.
When a grown man who was in the marines for several years is afraid he's going to lose his youtube channel talking about why he can't find pork ribs, that's a chilling effect. When a multi-million dollar videogame streamer is afraid he's going to be demonetized if he talks about why he's filming from home instead of his studio, that's a chilling effect.
The goal of a good censor is not to enforce censorship. It's to get the people to enforce it themselves.
Now the conversation is drifting away from the original point so I want to be sure
https://www.reddit.com/r/SamandTolki/comments/foem3m/h3h3_up...
Here's a related article:
https://onezero.medium.com/youtubes-independent-creators-are...
I'm arguing against the parent comment that essentially makes the argument that _all forms_ of censorship/moderation are bad and inherently lead to oppression.
If you instead want to argue that youtube's specific policies regarding coronavirus are bad/harmful/etc, go ahead, I won't stop you.
Except you can view the dead comments. You can still see the removed stories. You have to opt-in to that, but it's just a checkbox in your profile. HN is moderated, but there is no censorship.
The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK. Either the platform openly admits that it's biased or it has to keep growing what can't be discussed and inevitably that's going to start including content that everyone feels shouldn't be censored.
> The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK.
I fail to see how this property, if it exists, is any less present in a "moderated but without explicit censhorship" system.
If your employer threatened to not pay you because you took a political position that would be abhorrent and oppressive treatment. Youtube is not a direct employee and it's more of a business partner, but it's wielding it's power to control speech - which is oppressive.
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote an entire book about 'censorship' that's not technically censorship, titled Manufacturing Consent. Rather, what happens in the industrialized west uses soft influence and economic power to achieve the same ends. Media in such a "propaganda model" of operation does technically disseminate information, but does it in such a way as to reduce visibility, reduce emotional impact, and economically discourage.
Actually, the power to engage in a "propaganda model" of operation enjoyed by YouTube is in many ways much more immediate and absolute than that exercised by the western governments in the 20th century.
This is "basic straw-manning 101." Of course, if you put an absolute re-framing into the mouth of another, it's going to break. Let's try this: Any censorship/moderation of sufficient scope and power, combined with too little accountability, is probably going to produce bad outcomes.
Is YouTube possessed of great scope and power? Check.
Is YouTube transparent and accountable in the way it uses this power? Many, many people don't see it this way. To the point, that people write innumerable articles and make innumerable videos about it. In fact, people have even established at least one union around this issue.
Look, the whole principle of "Power Corrupts" is based upon the same underlying forces as, "You can't convince someone of a fact, if their paycheck depends on it." Everyone is subject to such biases. No one is possessed of all the relevant facts and perspectives. This, in fact, is the true principle behind such phrases as "check your privilege."
We are all human beings. We are all fallible. We all have the potential to make mistakes and even carry out miscarriages of justice and unfairness, if we are given enough power with too little accountability. It's thinking one is somehow immune, or somehow justified by circumstances, which is the key ingredient to the very worst evils in history.
Scope for self doubt and transparency work, and when people lack self doubt and exercise power without transparency, bad things happen. It's not some "weird slippery slope." It's an established part of the human conditions, going back thousands of years, valid in all times, all cultures, and all places.
(P.S. A key historical indicator that such corruption is happening: When a group of highly educated people start to work against transparency and the openness of information, one is in this regime of "Too much power, too little transparency." Heck, these highly educated, smart people might even pull some middle-school shenanigans, like "refutations" that leave out the sources.)
(P.P.S. One thing younger people don't understand, is how in past decades the ethos of Free Speech used to suffuse society. People wouldn't just accede to the letter of the law, they would enact the ethos in their everyday lives. There is an obvious epistemological wisdom in such practice. Really, wanting to hang out with people with such an ethos is really just an extension of wanting to hang out with honest people. Seems to me, this changed in the early days of the Internet, with electronically implemented forms of near-censorship, and that the ethos of regular life has shifted to accepting such practice of near-censorship.)
We only have one telephone system so being banned has a rather large impact as it is an essential service. So maybe we should ask what platforms are like other essential services. Radio is an essential service. What about Youtube? The telephone system is an essential service. What about Skype? I think libraries are also seen as an essential service, so what about Wikipedia? And then we have HN. How essential is HN?
If this rule was implemented earlier, you’d be banned for saying there is human-to-human transmission, proposing flight restrictions, or advocating for the general public to use masks. The W.H.O. has explicitly advised against each of those measures, despite significant disagreement on every one of those claims. It’s absurd that dissenting against the W.H.O. has been banned, although it’s predictable of course.
For example, shutting down a flamewar for simply being aggressive is not censorship, as long as the same discussion would have been permitted if held in good spirit.
Censoring "wrong" content likely has bad outcomes, the worst being that with only "good" content, critical thinking may get even sloppier.
Again, does banning content from an internet forum inevitably lead to "oppression" or "bad outcomes"? If so, why hasn't this happened to HN/Reddit/Twitter/etc?
Sure, if you stop something early you may have overstepped, but no one questions violence taking place when rocks are being thrown. Same goes for once a discussion degrades to ad hominem attacks/insults.
You may call something an insult or an ad hominem as a third party, but you cannot know what value the consenting parties are gaining from the fight.
If you claim that you do, you are asserting that you know better about their experience than they do.
I’m not saying there is no room for third parties to intervene, but I question the judgement of anyone who thinks it’s that easy.
There are good reasons why people choose to engage in combative dialog, although it may not be obvious to observers.
Sorry, but history is overwhelmingly against you. The historical precedents are legion. We're not talking about some "weird slippery slope argument." This is well established human nature. In fact, many of the items in the Bill of Rights are based around this principle.
In fact, the principle has a much shorter, snappier version: Power Corrupts.