Hacker News Reader

Comment by shadowgovt | Hacker News Reader

So under what philosophical model do we justify forcing YouTube to host content that they find objectionable just so that content is more easily discovered using their algorithm?

View on HN

I'm certainly not arguing that. What I'm saying is it's complicated, and we (the people & our governments) need to have a discussion around youtube/facebook/twitter and private companies that are basically used like public utilities. It's not their fault, but the fact is there is no real alternative to yt/fb/twitter unless one wishes to avoid a large part of the human population.

Of course youtube can remove whatever it wants, it's a private company. This doesn't mean that people can't find this objectionable, and it doesn't mean the only argument has to be "well, just use another company/site/provider".

I think people here are -reasonably- concerned about YT censoring particular information and the precedent it sets. In this case you and I might agree with YT's stance. Will we agree the next time YT decides to take a stance and censors a topic?

YT already flagged LGBTQ content as objectionable and demonitized it years ago, and I, for one, never questioned their right to do so. I think it's a bad look for them and will have consequences, but most of those consequences are of the form "LGBTQ companies are going to think twice about tossing ad dollars your way" and "People have solid questions about your actual dedication to LGBTQ inclusivity," not "We should modify the law to take away your right to flag that content objectionable."

I agree that ad dollars are where YT is hurt the most, and them making bad decisions ought to lead to corrections via advertisers pulling out.

However, a lot of people making content on yt are facing demonetization due to the same thing: advertiser pressure. For things like swearing, any sort of violence, etc. A lot of people have issues in some game communities for example.

So I don't think relying on the benevolence of Coca-Cola is the best solution either. Until relatively recently it would not have cared about appearances regarding LBGTQ+ issues either.

We prohibit discriminating customers on the basis of color. religion etc. Add one more clause: discrimination based on political/social beliefs or something along those lines however stupid those might be.

That's a terrible clause. Half the point of free exchange of information is so we can find which deeply-held beliefs (which are maleable, unlike color) are incorrect, detrimental, or even dangerous when acted on.

Black people and pedophiles don't deserve the same legal protections to have access to a playground or a private school.

I don't think it would make much of a difference. Are there pedophiles who publicly post controversial views without the cover of anonymity? How would you even know what their views are?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com