[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?