And for those of you who think it's okay because "free market" and "private corporation", you're naive to think the government isn't heavily influencing social media censorship.
And for those of you who think it's okay because "free market" and "private corporation", you're naive to think the government isn't heavily influencing social media censorship.
Using what definition of "censorship"?
If you're going to define any removal action by a private company as "censorship", consider the following types of content which YouTube routinely "censors":
* Scam / spam content, like fake "double your cryptocurrency" streams
* A wide range of content "harmful to children", like violent cartoons featuring popular characters, or videos urging children to perform dangerous acts
* Videos containing nudity, hate speech, or excessive vulgar language
* Videos promoting or praising criminal / terrorist groups
If I own a public pool, and a minority of my patrons decide to ridicule another minority of my patrons, should I be able to have rules against making fun of people?
I mean, the first group isn't doing anything illegal. I guess they have a _right_ to be nasty, at my pool, just because I normally let in anyone who will pay $5?
Youtube is basically a monopoly and without trying to debate the ethics or correctness of how they got there, the message should be that they can choose to uphold certain principles like free speech or they can choose to be broken up.
I’m ok with bars throwing out rude patrons, and I’m ok with YouTube banning nutjobs. Nutjobs can pay for their own video hosting.
Until the hosting providers throw them out too, like AWS does.
> Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
The quote may be wrong, but the concept remains: there are legal limitations on speech. They exist and are more or less universally supported. The question is what those limits are, but few people believe that there shouldn't be any.
Overt de-platforming is just the most obvious kind of censorship. Inexplicably, those who label themselves free speech advocates rarely seem genuinely concerned about the more covert kinds of influencing.
After the lab leak ban fiasco you would think they would quietly abandon this. But no, it’s all laid completely bare now. YouTube has a political agenda to push and they’re pushing it.
Germany's current censorship of Nazi imagery and holocaust denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#:~....
The US (and most countries) ban on child pornography's is also an extremely valuable and effective form of censorship.
I enjoy this tautological directive. By OP's logic, China's censorship is totally fine because it's illegal to criticize the government there.
Child pornography isn't allowed because we believe that pornography requires consent of the involved parties and children are inherently incapable of consenting.
In plenty of U.S. states the age of consent is below the age at which pornographic images are legal. I really have no idea what point you're making.
You're understanding of the legal framework under which CP is censored and banned is incorrect, which might be indicative of a larger lack of understanding of what censorship means and how its used on a daily basis.
this si also why "revenge porn" is illegal, the person distributing the porn is NOT the speaker, the person in the photo;s is, and it is for them to control how that is distributed.
As to Germany's censorship of Nazi imagery, and holocaust denial, I believe the better path is the path the OP outlines where debate and open dialog is a better path and government laws. so I disagree that is an example of "good censorship"
I think, in post-war Germany, that type of censorship had a role and was necessary. It probably does do more harm than good today.
>As to Germany's censorship of Nazi imagery, and holocaust denial, I believe the better path is the path the OP outlines where debate and open dialog is a better path and government laws. so I disagree that is an example of "good censorship"
you can't "debate" people who are firmly detached from reality. We can see that with COVID-19 misinformation. Allowing them to parade around in Nazi costumes only helps them, it does nothing for society to let them dress like that and goodstep around.
Another example of positive censorship is when Reddit banned /r/jailbait. Do you agree with that? The pictures weren't illegal.
Given the rapid and profound spread of Omicron against all efforts, I also question the effectiveness of masks and other containment measures being used. Should I be blocked for typing these words on HN?
How long ago was it prohibited to talk about the lab leak origin theory? Kyle Rittenhouse, who was ultimately acquitted by a jury, was blocked from discussion on Facebook and couldn't raise money for his defense on GoFundMe. Numerous news outlets wrongly asserted over and over that he chased his assailant, when the video plainly showed otherwise.
Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy?
Which words? Just what you posted? No. Now, if you want to make up lies and misinformation, sure. Masks are effective. Youtube has a policy on lying on that subject. If you don't like that, don't use Youtube.
>Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy?
You can still find plenty of whatever right wing misinformation you want on Facebook/Instagram/Nextdoor/Youtube. Do you really think your statement is the realm of reality at all?
I guess it depends on what you are talking about. The US left has no equivalent to Fox News, OAN, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, QAnon, etc..
The right-wing misinformation machine is massive. Millions of people think the election was stolen because of how effective the right-wing misinformation machine is. Part of the right-wing misinformation machine is indoctrinating viewers into believe that there is a left-wing indoctrination machine, which is probably why you are 'both-sides'ing something that is clearly a much bigger problem for the right-wing of America.
No one is entitled to be given a "platform" to spread their message. Youtube is a megaphone and they have all the rights to control which messages they don't want to amplify. It also very much reasonable to refuse to amplify messages that literally lead to real human beings dying.
People who listen to Fox News have a 3x higher chance of dying of COVID than people who don't [0]. Killing your own users is the stupidest thing a business can do.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828...
Exactly, and this is what so many discussions of social media "censorship" miss. You have a right to say whatever you want. You don't have a right to have whatever you say automatically broadcast (and algorithmically surfaced to) millions of users.
It would be like arguing that a newspaper should be required to publish anything anyone wrote.
Well that day is not today, and you can live just fine without being able to post to Youtube. The majority of Americans don't post to Youtube and they live just fine. Also, for the majority of human history, it was literally impossible to have your opinions broadcasted to millions of people across the globe, let alone do it for free. So no, nothing about being able to post a video on Youtube is a "right" or a "necessity". Nor is it in any shape of form comparable to utilities.
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
But, I'll play your game. "Any newspaper in history". They all have or had a policy that they'd only post those letters sent in that were interesting, and would never post outright lies or inflammatory stuff just to get a kick out of things, unless they posted it with a boatload of editorializing around it. Or they WOULD post such things, but only because they were actively attempting to espouse that logic (fox news is certainly not the first channel that is fairly nakedly attempting to steer the conversation towards an entire party's worth of political viewpoints - that's been something newspapers have been doing for a long time, read some editorials of 1900s newspapers for a few laughs).
You really think a newspaper that adopted a system where they'd post every letter verbatim regardless of content (as long as the content wasn't illegal on its own) or some sort of lottery system where they'd post randomly selected content, regardless of what it was? - that such a newspaper would have flourished, or that a society that likes that kind of newspaper would have? That's.. crazy talk.
I can hear you say; Nah, that does not apply - not what I'm talking about. Okay. So, then - what? Name me _anything_ in history that is neither directly governmental or otherwise 'total' (a ban or other pressure to eliminate a certain kind of discourse means virtually nobody hears it, no matter what the one wanting to say it tries to do about it - usually an outright government-backed ban on something - which is not relevant here. There are plenty of other platforms out there).
The suspension will be vague, near-instant and can be for any random reason. Good luck if you encounter a human to recover your account, unless you are a fortunate famous user or know someone who works at those companies.
If not, just scream loud enough everywhere about it to cause outrage. Since only when it happens to them or to someone they know, they will do that and complain here about it, proving my whole point.
I think maybe censoring Hitler would have been a good idea, too, but what do I know.
Censoring Hitler looks like a great idea in hindsight but what babys would have gone out with that bathwater?
If robust speech against Hitler had been possible that would be good too. But opposition was censored, wasn't it...
Think about it.
Of course we aren't. That's why newspapers and media outlets of all kinds should be regulated. Any one individual's views are insignificant compared to the fourth estate firepower of think tank funders and media billionaires of all varieties.
There is no equivalence here. The latter can dominate and define public conversations and opinions in a way that most of us can't even imagine, never mind match.
Free speech and monopolistic concentrations of money and media power simply cannot co-exist. You can have one or you can have the other, but there is no way you can have both together.
And without free speech all you have are distortions generated by very powerful people with very loud bullhorns, who will be front and centre about their views some of the time, but deniably covert the rest of the time.
In that kind of environment the concept of censorship is a distraction, because the "freedom" to say what you want - as if it has any real influence at all - is an illusion anyway.
If you disagree with Alex Jones, the only ultimate solution is to try and shift the opinions that tens of millions of his viewers hold.
People complain a lot about Alex Jones style thought these days. But what it actually is is the spread of the opinions and views millions of "salt of the earth" folk have always held.
The internet is forcing us to address the thoughts, beliefs and emotions of millions of non-college educated folk worldwide. Ultimately I think it's a very good thing.
What you say must be correct some degree, but to what extent?
I seriously wonder what percentage of US households in say, 1975, did not receive any newspaper subscription for example, what's the dataset you look at for that?
Or even adult literacy in the United States. You could apply this same thinking to many non US parts of the world, but lets confine it to the US.
I feel like it's stating the obvious that most major newspapers and media in 1975 did not reflect the true opinions of a blue collar, rural family in most parts of the United States.
Setting bigotry aside, popular support for isolationism and far too many other issues ran extremely deep.
My feeling is that generally speaking society as of 1975 was entirely predicated on a bottleneck of information flows. If your view was out of step with what the Ivy-League or flagship university educated editor was willing to publish, your views didn't make it into any form of mainstream media.
Nowadays, we directly have to confront those blue collar views, whatever their form.
I reckon that's probably good for humanity in the long term. 100-200 years from now addressing this information and political bottleneck will be good for society. But for now we are being directly exposed to the consequences.
From what I understand from Bongino is that he is a really popular conservative and was talking about a specific book that Youtube doesn't like.
Can't find him removed for spreading hatespeech, nor inciting violence.
And if it's true then that's incredibly disturbing to me.
YouTube is so big that they really must try to refrain to remove people for their opinions etc.