[simias]

This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from Youtube effectively means removing it from the internet for a large chunk of the population.

If you don't want large monopolies to act as censors then don't put them in the position to do so. You're uploading your videos for free on their platforms, sometimes even expecting them to pay you for it. I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. Find an other platform or make your own, that's how the internet is supposed to work.

[humanrebar]

> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

> I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore.

I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.

[soundwave106]

The problem is, being a corporate entity supported by other corporate entities' advertisements, there is not much you can do about it. The First Amendment does not apply here: with a few exceptions, you can't force a corporation (or any private entity) to promote something contrary to its interests.

This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condoms, pro-#BlackLivesMatters posts, etc. Not my cup of tea, but they have a right to moderate how they want. We all can chose the social webs we want with the amount and style of moderation we look for. (Seeing the places on the web that are "moderation free", I don't think that is a great option unless you really enjoy a lot of spam and nastiness.)

The real problem is really that, for the average person, the social web has become monopolized into a few uber-dominant platforms, most of which (due to their size) are going to pursue a middle-of-the-road-American moderation policy that (due to their size) is muddy, opaque, and arbitrary. If one sticks to a social vision of just the monopoly platforms, there is "no choice".

Personally, I don't use the big social networks much. The more specialized, de-centralized social web of 10 years ago (eg: forums) is still around, and they are less subject to big-corporate moderation messes. A quick Google shows that, for instance on firearms trading, several firearms BST forums still are around and active. In forum world, if a lot of people didn't like the moderation of one place, they simply went to another forum. That's something that's not always possible even with the closest big-social equivalent, subreddits. The web in general originally was a lot more decentralized than today. The centralization of social in today's web feels like quite the mistake.

[tutts]

The first amendment does apply - just, it applies the other way around. The primary function of media sites is to broadcast their users' messages, and in doing so they're exercising their own freedom of speech. To force them to broadcast certain content would be to compel certain speech from them, which would violate their freedom of speech.

(do note that I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be 100% accurate)

[simias]

>On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

I suppose you can say that but I don't think it's a useful definition. Censorship is a strong word, if we overuse it it's going to lose its meaning. Censorship generally has the intent of removing something from society at large because the elites deem it dangerous. Youtube isn't calling for the removal of gun content from the internet, they're just policing their platform. I mean, if what they're doing is censorship then what isn't? HN will ban/flag/delete many off-topic/controversial posts on sight, is that censorship? If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

I'm not saying that Youtube couldn't or shouldn't be criticized for their move, I was specifically replying to the parent's claim that there was a change of mentality on the internet at large. Moderation or "censorship" as you like to call it has always existed everywhere, online and off. The real problem here is that Youtube wields a disproportionate amount of power by virtue of being quasi-monopolistic.

If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono to suddenly start fighting for your ideals against what they feel is their own economic interest I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Especially if said platform has no serious competitors and knows a huge amount of its users is effectively "captive" audience.

[humanrebar]

> If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

Yes. Censorship is a neutral term.

> If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono...

I expect people to let each other say their piece. Content owners and content hosts have a partnership, and the balance of power definitely tips toward Reddit and YouTube at the moment.

We can argue that "someone can go start up a more permissive platform", but if we're not sharp and clear about how current hosts should behave, the next hosts won't have a clear understanding of what they should be doing differently. If we're not sharp and clear about how current hosts should behave, regulators trying to get YouTube and Reddit out of the moderation business will likely defer to whichever lobbyists happen to be in the room.

[simias]

The only way to be sharp and clear about how Youtube and Reddit should behave is either boycotting them or having the regulators strongarm them into changing their practices. You exclude the 2nd option, that leaves us with the boycotting. We'll see how it'll turn out but I doubt the general reddit and youtube audience is mature and principled enough to drop these websites because of their idealistic goals. As long as they don't ban cat videos and videogame streaming I'm sure they'll do fine.

I expect that, as always in these situations, a minority of users will migrate to alternative websites (voat, alternative video streaming websites etc...) many of them will end up coming back to Youtube/Reddit because that's where all the content is and the network effect is strong. Repeat in one year when Reddit decides to issue a new wave of subreddit bans. I genuinely don't know how we can get out of this situation.

[chillwaves]

So can we take your argument to its logical conclusion, that you are against all content moderation on any site?

Or where exactly is the line?

This is not censorship.

[headsoup]

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice.

It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money.

If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need to be regulated/classed as a carrier/media org.

It's only been 'open' till now because that's the most profitable model...

People need to realise these companies are not public services compelled to free speech, it's just an expectation the users expect to be met.

[salawat]

Have you ever noticed that no one ever brings up a company being private until they do something that outrages the public?

[humanrebar]

> ...that's their choice...

Sure. They can also choose to lie, say sexist things, and promote irresponsible drinking. And I'll criticize them if they do that, too.

I said:

1. It is by definition censorship.

2. People should strongly criticize things that are both legal and wrong.

I do think content hosts need some legal status if we want an open internet (and digital free speech) to survive. But because I'm for healthy conversation, I'm pushing back on replying to valid point with arguments for ending the conversation.

[moomin]

Indeed. Try to get onto Fox News every day and push a pro-choice message and see how long it is before your name appears in a database somewhere with a note saying “do not let on air”. ALL media firms have a slant, bias, &c. YouTube and Reddit, by virtue of their size, _have_ to go for “acceptable to a very wide audience”.

This isn’t censorship, it’s commercial positioning. You don’t have to like it, and indeed you can pressure the firm to take a different line but centralisation is the real enemy here.

But Other Websites Are Available.

[mrlala]

>This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs

But that's also in the best interested of everyone.

Instead of youtube, we should visit 10 different video sites? Instead of reddit, we should visit 10 different global info sources that now have 10x less content, and spend even more time finding what's relevant? Instead of twitch, we should visit 10 different sites to watch streams?

It's the natural order of things.. there's no way to have a LOT of different sites that also contain basically everything you want.

[simias]

What if each subreddit was an independent forum? What if each youtube channel was a blog hosted on potentially a whole bunch of different hosts? If reddit is so much better than the alternatives what are you doing on HN instead of /r/programming or similar?

The only thing you'd lose is the unified user profile but we have the tools to have distributed identities (oauth and friends). Before the era of social networks having mililon of forums for niche topics was common. Now you just create a subreddit instead.

Want to talk about knitting? Search for "knitting discussion online". Here are a few results: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/knitting-and-crocheting https://crochettalk.com/ http://www.knittingparadise.com/active-topic-list

Each site does not contain "everything I want" but each fills a particular niche. The fact that you actually have to search for them to find them can actually be seen as a bonus, you don't have the sort of "cross-contamination" you can observe on reddit when a community is suddenly popular enough to propelled into the frontpage and you have an influx of people who overrun your community and destroy its "culture".

Should reddit disappear tomorrow I'm sure we'll do just fine. Youtube is more complex because video hosting is much more demanding in terms of resources.

[zrobotics]

On the contrary, centralization can actually reduce the amount of content, at least for certain types. For instance, nearly any automobile will have a dedicated forum, and often these forums will provide some of the most helpful information, simply because they concentrate people around a specific subject. Whereas asking a question in one of the general automotive subreddits will typically yield poorer quality answers or will simply be lost in the noise. Thankfully reddit somewhat solved this problem w/ subreddits, since it's pretty common knowledge that the default subs are complete garbage, but youtube hasn't really done much about this. Sure, if someone made a video for your exact probem it is nice, but for finding specific information youtube is pretty poor.

[Scoundreller]

The latter is just getting worse.

YouTube is doing its best to demonetize content that doesn’t result in subscribing to an uploader. Ie: people posting numerous videos that are unrelated because they are so specific.

[chillwaves]

If content is centralized in this manner you should expect it to moderated and influenced from a central source.

[wu-ikkyu]

>It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

This is doublespeak.

>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

"Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable."

[simias]

You say that I doublespeak and I say that you cry "wolf". If you're willing to go full 1984 when Youtube updates its ToS where do you go from there?

Note that the definition for censorship you quote doesn't necessarily apply here, youtube is not prohibiting "any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security", they're prohibiting it on their platform. That's a huge difference. It's "you can't say that here" versus "you can't say that period". If I invite you to my home and you start spewing nazi propaganda I'm going to kindly ask you to leave, is that censorship?

You can't force Youtube to host your content if they don't want to and they can't prevent you from posting your content on other websites if you want to. There's no censorship or free speech issue here, only the problem of a monopolistic centralized platform without serious competition. That's why net neutrality is important and that's why Making the Internet Decentralized Again is critical if you value freedom of speech and opinion.

[wu-ikkyu]

I agree with you that the root problem bere is monopolistic centralized platforms without serious competition, but you misread the definition of censorship and went on to create your own definition -- this is how doublespeak happens.

It's the suppression or prohibition. Nowhere is the definition constrained by location. There has never been a case of censorship that was enforced on every corner of the globe -- only where one's scope of influence has the power to do so.

[wan23]

The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. In English the word has the implication of being action taken by someone who actually has the power to make moral decisions on behalf of society, such as a government. Maybe you think the word has a different meaning, or maybe you think Youtube has this power, but you should try to disagree without accusing people of being part of a conspiracy to change the meanings of words.

[wu-ikkyu]

>The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things.

Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like:

>Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge

http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c...

>Maybe you think the word has a different meaning

It was simias who thinks the word has a different meaning, which is why I cited the dictionary. Do you think the dictionary is wrong?

[comex]

"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

The name of the Roman office was based on "censere" but had a more specific meaning, and it's that which evolved into the English word "censor", due to the "supervising public morality" part of the censors' job. But the meaning shifted in the process. The Roman censors didn't "censor" anything in the modern sense; rather, they judged people for violations of public morality.

[dragonwriter]

The modern English sense of “censor”, IIRC, isn't directly derived from the as actions of the Roman official, but more from those of the Catholic ecclesiastical official of the same name (sometimes more fully “censor librorum”) who reviews books intended for publication and provides (or withholds) the nihil obstat certifying it free of anything harmful to good faith and morals, which is generally a prerequisite to the episcopal imprimatur allowing it to be published, a function which is very much in line with the modern English understanding of censorship.

[talmand]

I've seen many people lately try to claim that censor is solely a government-related word and censorship is only something that government officials are capable of. Every definition of the word I've seen does not say this.

Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

[wu-ikkyu]

>Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see the euphemization of technology in a forum full of and run by technologists.