The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
>> What were those clear rules we apparently abandoned for no reason?
> The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Ah yes, the good old days when every newspaper was obligated to publish every letter to the editor and every citizen was required to reproduce and distribute pamphlets put out by every nut job they ran into on the street.
You are free to ignore people as much as you want. You should not stop them from uttering those words in the first place though.
So you're fine if YouTube/Google chooses not to reproduce and distribute certain messages?
2) Sure, private companies can do what they want. My point is that they just use the first amendment, because the current nebulous definitions aren't really working.
That argument doesn't hold water. If someone pins a message to my corkboard, I'm disallowing the expression if I express my disapproval by removing it?
> 2) Sure, private companies can do what they want. My point is that they just use the first amendment, because the current nebulous definitions aren't really working.
The First Amendment only works because non-governmental actors in society are allowed to decide what to publish, what to pass on, and what to throw away according to their own standards. It's not some blanket "everyone allow all" rule.
Most pamphlets are judged to be garbage and go into the trash, much to the consternation of their authors.
2) You agree with me. Again, my point is not that they shouldn't do that, but that the filter they use to do so is so highly subjective and opaque that it's no longer useful.
> 2) You agree with me. Again, my point is not that they shouldn't do that, but that the filter they use to do so is so highly subjective and opaque that it's no longer useful.
No, I don't. I think it's fine to have opaque, highly subjective standards; and such standards are can be very useful. My standards about what I publish, what I pass on, and what I throw away are like that. The costs of transparency can be extremely high, and subjectivity just can't be avoided. In some cases, my judgement may differ from theirs, and I may even say so, but ultimately subjective judgement can't be avoided.
2) That doesn't make sense in the context of a privately owned company, the 1st amendment doesn't define a standard for speech, it outlines explicit limitations of the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
So there is no such thing completely “free” speech if there are constraints.
It's more analogous to people talking in a bar.
I disagree.
"I rented this hall [for this open forum], and now I’m going to turn off the lights."
There is no difference. If I invite people to come to my place to talk in some kind of forum, I have no obligation to let people who I think are disruptive or offensive stay, nor do I have an obligation to preserve any record of their words.
No, not really. The only difference that's important is between forums run by the government and forums that are not. In the case of the latter, the people who run it have an extremely free hand.
They didn't really have much more for a long time, until the recent addition of ever-changing and heavy-handed limitations.
What’s good is the clarity of the rule. Other attempts at rules become too subjective, perhaps.
So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to.
Perhaps if they had to play by those rules, they would come up with a better solution than subjective moderation by a small group of employees.
I disagree. The difference between private organizations enforcing a moral code, and the government, is strong.
Ostensibly, if racists wanted their own youtube, they could make one. I see nothing of value in the further existence of the racists' mindset, but I do think it's important that there aren't thought police, for many of the same reasons that your average alt-right racist would yell about "freeze peach."
Of course, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to have thought police, if there were open stretches of ungoverned land where racists could go live and start their own government. Beyond Antarctica though, that isn't the case. So for now, I think it's important to allow that separation between private and public rule.
So even if it shouldn’t be mandated that a private company do that, it’s reasonable to hold the position that this would be a preferable stance for the company to take.