[threatofrain]

But the endgame is to have an organization, such as the AMA or the ABA, for the delegation of responsible judgment. Google and YouTube just grew up too fast without the FCC catching up, but in a society where we felt that Google and YouTube shouldn't be in a position of deciding whether youths might come into contact with swear words, that ultimately means we want delegation to another trustworthy body such as the FCC.

In this case Google choose the WHO. We can argue that there's a better choice on the table, but what?

[philwelch]

Delegating “responsible judgment” to a formal institution or organization sounds fundamentally dubious in this context.

[threatofrain]

How is it fundamentally dubious? If you don't trust Google to make a category of social or moral judgments, you're either trusting the market or you have another institution do the job.

[Natsu]

> How is it fundamentally dubious?

It's fine to have a trusted organization to make decisions. It's not fine to place that organization above all criticism.

I think their statistical methods are suspect and likely wrong. I don't think they should be censored and the act of censoring them is actively harmful if you don't want people taken in by misinformation, then we need to actively produce good information. There is not and cannot be some way to absolve a free society of that burden. Censorship only helps to convince people that you know you're wrong and you're hiding from criticism. This is especially bad when you're right.

[em-bee]

having an independent organization does not imply being above criticism. even the government is not above criticism. what matters is how likely it is that the criticism will actually result in a change if there was a wrong decision made.

as it stands, google is already above all criticism because they are to big to be approached by any individual wronged by their decisions. an independent organization would be much more approachable, even if that approach ends up being a lawsuit.

[Natsu]

> having an independent organization does not imply being above criticism

It will be if we have no problem deplatforming all criticism.

[philwelch]

Or you could just not do the censorship in the first place and give people the freedom to make their own personal judgments whenever they’re presented with conflicting perspectives.

You’re assuming that some global institution has to be The Arbiter Of Truth because common people are too stupid to think for themselves and I find that assumption disgusting.

[threatofrain]

> Or you could just not do the censorship in the first place and give people the freedom to make their own personal judgments whenever they’re presented with conflicting perspectives.

> You’re assuming that some global institution has to be The Arbiter Of Truth because common people are too stupid to think for themselves and I find that assumption disgusting.

The market is the sharpest vote the people may give for companies. Next would be holding businesses liable, which Google is in various ways. If Google is accountable for the content it serves, and it is in various ways, then that is the people's will in motion.

I find it alarming that you think you understand my thoughts without getting into a conversation with me, to the point of announcing your disgust over a forum.

[philwelch]

> I find it alarming that you think you understand my thoughts without getting into a conversation with me, to the point of announcing your disgust over a forum.

You’ve been expressing your thoughts on that same forum, and if I’ve misunderstood them I am sorry, but as far as I did understand them I am disgusted by them. You are free to clarify anything you think I have misunderstood, of course. But I would advise you to be more careful publicly sharing your thoughts on any forum if you’re going to go clutching pearls at how they are received. Failing that, let me clarify that I am merely disgusted at what you actually wrote, which may have nothing to do with the ineffable inner workings of your mind.

Did you not mean to imply, as a premise, that Google (specifically YouTube) should be censoring user-submitted content on the basis that it disagrees with the “responsible judgment” of some institutional authority? If so, please inform me what you meant in the first place. Because even in the best of faith I can’t find any other way to interpret your comment.

Specifically:

> If you don't trust Google to make a category of social or moral judgments, you're either trusting the market or you have another institution do the job.

If someone posts a video on YouTube, anyone who watches that video will make their own “social and moral judgments” about the content of that video, and in most circumstances that’s enough for me. Why are you assuming that some “institution” will inevitably make those judgments for us, and decide based on those judgments whether we’re allowed to see the video in the first place? Why is that something you accept, and seemingly advocate? Because that is the premise that I question, reject, and express my disgust at.

[roywiggins]

If Google is liable, then HN will be liable for comments, and any website with user submitted content will die except Google, which has the money to fight lawsuits.

[Fjolsvith]

It will have to be proven that the comments actually caused harm.

Hello first amendment.

[em-bee]

any other organization would be better. the key issue is to remove the financial incentive from the decision. google as a profit making entity needs to not care either way. it can only do that when the responsibility for the content is out of its hands.

any third party would be easier to approach, even if they need to be sued to see the error of their ways (if there is a decision in dispute).

ideally such an institution is directly answerable to the public and to lawmakers for their decisions and it could be properly funded to handle those decisions.

such an institution could work with multiple companies, especially smaller ones who can not afford this amount scrutiny to their content, and who would already are affected by the ever increasing requirements to police content.