[irjustin]

It's that youtube, reddit take on more of a public forum than TV, radio at least that was the feeling in the past.

The idea that anyone can be a content creator is, it's supposed to be as neutral as possible. Let the world battle it out against itself. Once you start taking sides of opinions (as opposed to legal ones) then you become a content curator.

For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. We'll fight to my death but it is my right to hold said stupid idea and voice it with youtube being my megaphone.

That's a core tenant of free speech and youtube was supposed to be able to help that. Now they're taking sides and it's not comforting

[jpdb]

> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right.

> That's a core tenant of free speech

I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points.

The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worrying about survival of the fittest.

I believe it was Jefferson that was vehemently against government officials making false claims / lying...which is a limitation of free speech, but results in a net surplus of free speech.

The idea that all speech should be free is a fairly ignorant one.

> and voice it with youtube being my megaphone.

And this is ABSOLUTELY against any sort of semblance of the ideas America was founded on. YouTube is a private platform. They can (and SHOULD) police their speech, because it is a private platform.

YouTube is ultimately socially responsible for the outcomes of what people say on it's platform. If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic, YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.

[irjustin]

> If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic

Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives.

But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.

> YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.

Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no?

If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?

Tomorrow, if Youtube said, "We'll remove all content that does not agree with the POTUS." That's only a few letters away from the WHO, right? POTUS is authority.

But that's insane. That's absurd.

That's what this debate is about. Censoring goes both ways.

[jpdb]

> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker.

I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it.

> That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.

I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it.

> If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?

(I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me)

I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.

> Censoring goes both ways.

Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"

[irjustin]

> I think you mixed your words up here.

Yea, you're right, but thanks for getting the spirit.

> Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist.

That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux.

Your sense of justice is driving your opinions. Someone else's is going to be slightly different. Okay that's obvious, but the high level is how do you decide what is right/wrong? It's a spectrum, a very wide and diverse one. What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?

> I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.

FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas. You can have a net-surplus of "good done" via censorship. But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?

All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.

[jpdb]

> That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux.

I'd say this was a poor choice of words. All opinions are "legitimate" in that people actually hold them and believe in them.

> What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?

I don't think this is hard to measure, especially since we already have tests for what is protected speech and what is not in the US. For instance, we have federal laws that stop employers or landlords from exercizing their right to free speech when it involves discrimination against certain protected classes of people. Or slander/libel, or inciting violence.

> FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas.

This is not the case, as explained above and in an earlier comment. In the US we already have laws that limit free speech, yet result in a more free society.

> But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?

Yes, both of these things are good and would be considered good under just about any normative ethical framework.

> All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.

I agree with this fully, and would condemn anyone using censorship to remove free speech that isn't harmful. I advocate for similar positions in that I am generally ok with the government jailing people (which is an act of violence) that commit crimes. The right to jail people is an even more powerful tool than censorship, but most people are ok with this being done.

[joshuamorton]

> You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring

Of course you can. The government banning a platform from moderating content is a form of government censorship. Yet you believe that this would lead to more free speech.

Either a platform moderating is more free speech, or not moderating is more free speech. In either case, someone is being censored. So some form of censorship leads to more free speech.

[Natsu]

Here's a noted first amendment expert explaining why "fire in a crowded theater" is a very bad example to cite:

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[jpdb]

Interesting article! I'll try to pay more mind in the future. That said,

> First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.

Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.

[Natsu]

> Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.

Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory:

Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous!

Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous.

Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then?

Not all snakes are venomous.

So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech:

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

[seppin]

> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no?

You misunderstand how wrong information, identified as such, is received.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news...

Pointing out something is false either has no effect, or makes people double down on wrong ideas / beliefs. Continuing to host said ideas will cause them to spread.

The responsible thing was removal, but perhaps with more transparency around how and why.

[ypzhang2]

Conversely, America was also founded on the rights of private property, and the shareholders of Google has delegated the power to control their property to the management team at Google, who have then implemented this policy to remove this content from their property.

Its arguable just as important for the concept of America to let owners of private property not be deprived of their freedom and liberties.

[paulcole]

> America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right.

Was it though? First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want.

[kerkeslager]

It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform. But just because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?".

The bill of rights is a legal document, and it can only govern the actions of government. But I don't think that there's any debate that the first amendment came about because the founding fathers believed free speech was an inalienable human right. I don't think the founding fathers would say that inalienable rights are suddenly alienated because you put a corporation in charge of your communications platform.

Do you believe free speech is a human right? If so, then why do you care when it's violated by a government, but not care when it's violated by corporations who are arguably more powerful in the field of communication?

[klyrs]

Is spam free speech?

Are bookstores required to stock every book ever published?

Are fraud and defamation free speech?

Must newspapers post every classified ad submitted to them?

Is medical advice free speech?

Are government clerks required to serve verbally abusive clients?

No, no, no... there are plenty of examples where the right to free speech is found to have limits. Especially when that speech violates other freedoms.

You have the right to make videos and distribute them. You do not have the right to compel anybody to watch them, receive them or redistribute them. A platform such as youtube has the right to curate -- otherwise it would be a useless mass of SEO'd spam.

[kerkeslager]

Did you actually read the post you're responding to? I'm confused on why you would view this as a response to what I said.

Again, the question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?".

If you don't understand that there might be reasons to do something beyond legal obligation or profit, you're not equipped to participate in this conversation.

[klyrs]

> Did you actually read the post you're responding to?

> ... you're not equipped to participate in this conversation.

Please review the site guidelines and take a more charitable approach to this conversation. There's some irony that your argument around ideologically pure free speech is punctuated by insinuation that I should self-censor because I'm not ideologically pure enough.

I provided a handful of reasons where speech can do harm, and where forced publication impinges other rights. I'm saying that yes, "platforms" (which are also publishers / promoters / marketers due to features such search, recommendation, featured content etc.) have an obligation, ethical or legal, to take certain content down. In the case of spam, that content is taken down or shadowbanned for the greater good. That's a free ethical choice, not a legal obligation.

By all means, there are cases where publishers should resist external pressure to censor, and I fully agree that Congress shall make no law. But youtube isn't the government. They have a right to curate the content that they distribute that is just as important as your right to produce and self-publish your content.

[kerkeslager]

> There's some irony that your argument around ideologically pure free speech is punctuated by insinuation that I should self-censor because I'm not ideologically pure enough.

I said, "[J]ust because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

Sure, you're allowed to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean saying it was the right thing to do. Saying that you said the wrong thing isn't ironic: it's exactly what one would expect given what I actually said.

There can be no irony with regards to my argument around ideologically pure free speech, because I didn't make any such argument.

Additionally, there's a difference between me censoring you by force, and me asking you to say things that are relevant.

> I provided a handful of reasons where speech can do harm, and where forced publication impinges other rights.

I never suggested forced publication, so these cases are not a response to my post.

> They have a right to curate the content that they distribute that is just as important as your right to produce and self-publish your content.

I specifically said that YouTube has this right. I said, "It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform."

[runawaybottle]

Well, in that case, this is unacceptable going forward.

We’re going to need a Youtube clone that has a better charter for content creators, and viewers alike.

[klyrs]

Nothing's stopping you from making ChanTube, GabTube, or whatever you find "acceptable". But, if it gets popular, be prepared to take down illegal content, filter spam, get sued by copyright holders, etc. until it looks a lot more like youtube than you intended. Or, y'know, break under the weight of the consequences of harmful speech without substantial ad income since most advertisers won't want to associate with your toxic platform.

[kerkeslager]

You're right: this is a great example of the free market not solving a problem. Which is only a relevant point if you think the free market is the only way to solve problems.

A decentralized video platform not under the control of a centralized company would bypass all the issues you mention. There are technological challenges, but we've made slow progress toward solutions over the past few decades.

[paulcole]

I believe I shouldn’t go to jail or be killed for the things I say. I don’t believe I have the right to say whatever I want without consequence.

[kerkeslager]

Me too.

Now that we've got that out of the way, care to discuss the question I asked?

[dpatru]

> Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the American government contains the same kind of people that are in governments the world over and throughout history. And governments have always attempted to suppress speech: that's why the First Amendment was written.

Given Snowden's revelations, can you be sure that Youtube's censoring is simply a business decision by executives and not a result of government influence? How would things be different if the government were pressuring the big platforms to squelch speech?

[seppin]

> Given Snowden's revelations

What did Snowden reveal about government influence over private sector censorship? I must have missed it.

[seppin]

Nothing?

[paulcole]

Honestly I don’t care why YouTube censors what they censor.

The text of the amendment looks pretty clear to me. Pressuring big platforms is a world away from passing a law.