Unfortunately, this brings an obvious question:
If they sensor something like this, how could we trust platforms with the actually important subjects?
If they sensor something like this, how could we trust platforms with the actually important subjects?
Most Americans literally can’t imagine news as anything other than entertainment.
Framing it in terms of trust is already problematic.
We don't trust the NYTimes or Washington Post, they are a source of information that needs to be taken with shovels of salt and require additional research to get to anything trustworthy. And we always understood that was their role.
We don't trust supermarkets or retailers to give us important pricing information, we do the research to get anything actionable.
Why is trust involved for YouTube ?
and it is why total freedom of speech on a platform does not mean we can trust it. maybe even the opposite because people who tell a lie are more motivated (money or whatever)
I am not justifying w11 video removal I'm just saying thinking youtube trustworthy because it's open to everybody is a mistake
More or less, the charitable and responsible approach to being ultra-rich, and which has disappeared in this century.
I see the people in charge of these big corporations as lizards, given every decision they take seems to be anti-Humanity. We should cherish non-profits, small businesses, having a good and boring life, doing normal things. Instead we idolise being successful, rich, or famous. What a stupid system…
The answer is no, we can't.
The only real competing video platform that promises no censorship is Rumble ( https://rumble.com ), but it has a very right-wing slant due to conservatives flocking to it during all the Covid-era social media censorship.
Take freedom of speech for instance, half the thing you can say in usa would be deemed as hate speech in Europe.
There's also this annoying pattern where 98% of the complaints about censorship are from people who are mad that the objectively stupid and dangerous stuff they were trying to profit from got censored, so it becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation where any complaint about internet censorship is ignored on the assumption it's one of those. (What if there really is a Nigerian prince who needs my help, and I don't read his email?)
This time, though... Society is not being destroyed by people pirating Windows 11. That is entirely different from censoring things that destroy society, and they don't have a good excuse.
That one time in Germany, actually an 80 year long ongoing event in central Europe. Hitler didn't wake up one day with a novel idea about the Jews and the place of the German people, these were foundational ideas in the culture at least as far back as Wagner.
If anything, this pro-censorship argument is self defeating, because the "disinformation" peddlers that were silenced in the second reich were generally those of the liberal, anglo, and francophilic variety, those who would seek to decenter the goal of a collective German destiny.
Censorship is only ever a good if you find yourself a part of the group that would be doing the censoring.
Rumble isn't going to save the internet.
We call those "free speech" platforms nowadays, because apparently the only free speech is Nazi speech.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
> The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.