YouTube reverses TalkRadio ban for allegedly breaching content policy | Hacker News Reader

YouTube reverses TalkRadio ban for allegedly breaching content policy

theguardian.com

31 pointskypro16 comments

I find it a little worrying that a US tech company has the power to censor a popular UK media company for being critical of UK government policy.

While I didn't personally agree with them, I do acknowledge there was a legitimate argument to be made for removing hateful content and even harmful conspiratorial content from social platforms. However, this seems to be a significant step beyond the moderation / censorship we've seen in the past.

Pandora's Box is difficult to close once it has been opened. Too many shortsighted people cheered with delight as the tech companies punished those with wrong think, believing that they'd be able to keep the tech monster under their control. Thing is, the danger isn't just from the tech companies forever expanding their power to suppress, it's that they can be compromised and flipped. Suddenly those who were cheering for the suppression could find themselves under the boot they previously celebrated. That tech works hand-in-hand with repressive regimes around the world in exchange for expanded market access shows how quickly they can change their values when it serves their financial interests.

Is Youtube infrastructure or publisher?

The way ad placement works suggests publisher. Is the scale of that publishing transformative?

Why would that matter? It's an arbitrary distinction with no basis in US law.

Yes, it's a philosophical argument. It's never really been the case that publishing something means you have to publish everything, whereas with things like electricity and water, we tend to say you get it if you keep up with the payments.

So if YouTube is a publisher, it'd be a new thing to force them to publish everything anyone asked them to publish.

>a US tech company has the power to censor a popular UK media company for being critical of UK government policy

As always, this comes down to the fact that Google owns the platform they are broadcasting on. No one is preventing them from using other platforms. If the UK doesn't like it, they need to pass a law preventing Google from operating YT in the country unless they follow said law. GDPR is a great example of this.

I'm on the fence with this one (A postion I don't like). While I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the goverments stance on the lockdown (For my own reasons: Being in a tier 3 and 4 region for so long, I'm missing my friends, I'm missing being able to have a beer with them and its getting to a mental health issue with me now. But thats just my own personal reasons) TalkRadio would also tell its listeners to not bother with face masks and spend their money on beer instead on the basis that unless its a well fitting N95 or better mask it offers less than ideal protection to the wearer (ignoring the fact that face covering also help prevent those without symtoms spreading it to others).

So where do you draw the line? Disagree with the goverment? Yeah I disagree with them on many things. But what about when they start pushing people to break the rules?

But then again do I want a corperation dictation what can be said? Nope. I like the idea that shitty ideas/speech should be countered with more speech then to nuke the speech in the first place. So even though I heavly disagree with what they were putting out to the public, I think they shouldn't of just got nuked of YT for having shity (imo) ideas.

I'd argue that it should be within our rights to have discussions about breaking laws we don't agree with.

Last week a lot of people were disagreeing and openly discussing breaking the government rules about sending kids back to school which was tolerated by tech platforms. I strongly suspect it's only because this example of disobedience isn't seen as favourably by US tech leaders that they are targeting it.

Selective censorship seems to be the norm on YouTube though. It's perfectly acceptable to push left-wing conspiracies or support violence and looting if it's for a cause like BLM, while right-wing conspiracies or support of violence is quickly removed (perhaps rightly so).

I share your lockdown-related mental health struggles though. I've suffered with depression most my life and one of the few things that helps me is being out in nature, especially if I'm with friends and family. As someone with almost crippling anxiety it's been quite nice not having to go into the office, but in general I've also found it very difficult this year. I was in quite a rough spot a few years back and the only thing keeping me going back then was the support of my friends. Although even then things could have gone either way. I guess I'm grateful this has come at a time I'm more mentally prepared to cope with it all, but I know it's not been as easy for everyone.

> I'd argue that it should be within our rights to have discussions about breaking laws we don't agree with.

My point is they wasn't so much discussing breaking the laws we don't agree with but more out right telling people to disregrad the law.

Its differnt (at least in my eyes) to have a discussion about should cannabis be legal (in my mind it should be) than saying "you shouldn't bother with the law and just spark up where you like because the goverments reasoning is wrong" which they were kinda doing by invisting people on and saying "don't bother wearing masks". I know thats a stretch, and not 1 to 1 with my arguement. But I think having a discussion about why you think a law shouldn't stand and telling your listeners to just ignore the law are two differnt things.

As much as I fell that weed shouldn't be illegal in the UK its a differnt thing to me to suggest that your should spark up while picking your kids up from outside a school if that makes any sense.

Ideally it shouldn't matter if you spark up a joint outside of a school just like its perfect fine to spark up a cigarette outside a school (just like when I order a mcdonnalds via just eat (they have lower delivery charges) they moan about refusing to deliever to outside of schools, but its still legal). But TalkRadio wasn't so much saying question what the goverment are saying, but outright saying "just ignore what the goverment are saying" (I would love to link to a clip of it as it popped up in my YT feed, but its obv been nuked).

But yeah I don't think it should of been nuked (so I could of shown why I disagree with them, in order to do so now, I'm gonna have to dig into their own archives to find that clip).

BUT on the other hand, if something is really messing with your rights as just an ave joe, surely your should have the right to object to it how ever you feel is right to do so.

Which is why i'm so on the fence against it.

As someone who really dislikes how they (TalkRadio) expressed their objection to the rules. I feel it should of been countered with objections from the other side of the arguement instead of being nuked from orbit. So as much as it pains me to say (because I disagree with them) they should be put back on YouTube.

What this is making me "hate" more is Google (along with the other tech gaints) thinking they have the right to control what even the idoits think.

Why? because one day they will disagree with me, even if its about tab sizes, and I don't want to be nuked from orbit because I'm not a fan about tabs and spaces fuck up python code :-P

> ... I've suffered with depression most my life and one of the few things that helps me is being out in nature...

for me its been my IRL friends. Most of them are non techies, which helps me center myself. It reminds me that not everyone spends all day infront of code and I hope allows me to create easyier to use code for them. And I miss them just talking their normal days, and the things they like so its not all just "geek". (which is a reason I dislike the lock downs :-p)

anyways I'll stop rambling now. I just needed to get that out of my system :-)

EDIT: sorry for the ramble.... But Why should my morals be "law"? even if I don't argee with them. doesn't me their point isn't valid. (even if it drives me fucking nuts....)

If the CCP can’t get western governments to act like an extension of the party and Chinese State Media, they’ll be happy to work directly with big tech.

Agreed, you can see this now with them using big tech platforms to try to get Americans to believe you can't trust elections (replacing who's in charge every 4 years, yikes!), don't trust journalists, vaccine isn't safe (can't have the US bouncing back too fast), and ubiquitous surveillance is the only way to stay safe.

Hopefully YouTube and Twitter figure out the game they're playing and put a stop to it.

Welcome to the new normal.

There were so many "slippery slope" jokes when Alex Jones et al were deplatformed, but it really does look like they were warming up for censorship to go mainstream.

Why would we let the status quo decide what's good? The status quo always protects the status quo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com