YouTube is owned by a Google, a massive, publicly-traded corporation with near-monopoly power.
Are the best interests of society served by allowing it to be governed in an authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, or would it make sense, considering it is one of the most powerful mediums of speech ever created, to let it be governed by rules somewhat approximating the much-lauded, traditional, western liberal values of free speech?
The idea a private company should be forced to use their resources to host content they deem harmful to humanity seems obviously wrong. Of course they should have the right.
YouTube is not a public service.
"Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an audience.
> "Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an audience.
"Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. When speech is being silenced (de-platformed) or people (the audience) are forbidden from hearing it even when they want to, it violates those principles.
> YouTube is not a public service.
Youtube is a powerful and unique resource without meaningful competition which I think does give them a certain level of responsibility to uphold the ideals of free speech.
Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. Rather than remove these videos, a better option would simply be to inform users that the video contains false information and where they can find the truth.
This is a ludicrous equivalency; by this standard YouTube is also “silencing (deplatforming)” people who don’t have computers because it’s not giving them resources to help them make and post videos.
Deplatforming is not silencing. The default state of an individual in society is no platform. People who want platforms should build them.
> Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression.
You do not need to give people bad information to educate them. You only need to give them good information.
I can teach you that 2+2=4 without spending hours belaboring all the numbers that 2+2 does not equal.
> by this standard YouTube is also “silencing (deplatforming)” people who don’t have computers because it’s not giving them resources to help them make and post videos.
unlike directly removing videos from their platform youtube is not responsible for preventing people from having a computer. We should all however strive to make computers and internet access as accessible to people as possible.
> Deplatforming is not silencing.
I disagree. It is suppression and obstruction of information
> The default state of an individual in society is no platform.
The default state is a very limited platform (those immediately around you at any given time perhaps), but when you explicitly provide a platform for the public to use and then censor voices because you don't like what they have to say you're violating free speech principles.
> People who want platforms should build them.
All people or just the ones you want to silence? Should that also apply to people like the WHO or any of the doctors who are spreading truths on youtube? Should they all get off youtube and just use their own platforms?
I actually agree that people should build their own platforms where it's possible because we shouldn't be entire reliant on any one place, but it's unreasonable to expect people to replicate anything on the scale of youtube. Youtube has no meaningful competition for a reason.
> You do not need to give people bad information to educate them.
It is often far more effective to show people something that is wrong, explain why\how\where it is wrong and how to spot similar wrong things than to give only explicit facts. In fact I'd argue that without that kind of instruction or understanding you're unlikely to fully understand whatever you're supposed to be learning in the first place.
route memorization is inferior to actual understanding. In addition not even YouTube controls the narrative everywhere. The same misinformation they silently censor and fail to correct often being spread elsewhere unchecked. Youtube, being so popular, has a great opportunity to raise awareness of truth by addressing misinformation at the very place people hearing it (and vulnerable to believing it) will actually see it. That's something that isn't done in email chains or facebook group etc.
>The default state is a very limited platform (those immediately around you at any given time perhaps), but when you explicitly provide a platform for the public to use and then censor voices because you don't like what they have to say you're violating free speech principles.
If the You I highlighted was the state, you would be correct. But it isnt.
The problem with the ideal is that most people have it wrong. "Free speech" is not speech without consequences.
Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If nobody wants to associate with you because of your speech, that's their right. You are not entitled to a soapbox.
> Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard.
If someone offers a platform for the public to use but censors people who say things they don't like, that is a clear violation of free speech principals. I don't have to listen to anything, but if someone chooses to speak and I choose to listen no one should try to prevent us from doing so.
There are consequences for speech, but they shouldn't involve include gatekeepers silencing specific voices on the basis of what they have to say. In fact, if you want to take a punitive approach to speech then censoring people so we never get a chance to hear what they're saying actually denies us the ability to make a judgement and hold speakers accountable for those words.
I'd sure like to know if my own doctor was spreading misinformation and making illogical errors when talking about a global pandemic that's impacting me. If she was, but I wasn't allowed to know about that I might easily think she was trustworthy when I shouldn't.
> "Free speech" is not speech without consequences
This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free speech-y.
> but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard
You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear you.
If you post a sign on my front lawn, I have the right to remove it. It's my lawn. That's my freedom of expression to remove it. It seems like you just want it one way.
You aren't entitled to a soapbox unless you make your own soapbox or buy one. Nobody is required to give you one. If you have a soapbox, you might still not get an audience.
"But what YouTube is doing would clearly be bad if it was done by a totally different actor in a totally different context" simply doesn't work as a defense here. Yes, it would be bad if the phone company got to decide who made phone calls, but let's pick something closer to the actual context here: "Should comedy clubs get to decide who gets to perform on their stage? Should they stop booking you if you say things that are unpopular?"
Telecommunications companies in the past have been treated as "public functions," legally speaking, because they were explicitly designated so by the state and given limited regional monopolies. The limits on liability afforded to YouTube and similar services do not magically transform them to state actors; they remain private corporations with their own First Amendment rights not to publish and host what they choose not to. This principle has been tested repeatedly in many cases.
I am not making any statement as to the legality of YouTube/Google/Alphabet's actions.
The effective position of YouTube is that they have responsibility over nothing you or I say but discretion over everything. How does that make sense? I believe that asymmetry is wrong.
> The limits on liability afforded to YouTube and similar services do not magically transform them to state actors
We are arguing that we should change the law to ensure that the principle of free speech applies to them as well. If they want to editorialize content then they should review content before it is posted rather than after. The only reason they should take something down is for legal reasons, like not having kids watch porn so no porn.
Free speech does not grant the right for anyone to say whatever they want. The US Surpreme court has, as a matter of case law, ruled in specific areas to restrict free speech.
These two doctors, under the pretense of medical expertise, provided false information, and used Youtube to do it.
Google being a large massive publicly traded entity does not have any bearing as to it's responsibility to guard against violations on it's platform.
Free speech DOES grant the right for anyone express opinions without interference from the government. SCOTUS limitations for freedom of speech are very narrow, and being wrong or against the mainstream opinion is not one of them.
> SCOTUS limitations for freedom of speech are very narrow
Are they though? I can think of all kinds of limitations of the freedom of speech in both the US and in Europe. Copyright, gag orders, company and military secrets, illegal numbers, etc.
The way I think of it is. Say my company makes high voltage transformers. And I get wind that one customer is using them to manufacture interrogation devices. I sure as shit can tell them to take their business elsewhere.
> These two doctors, under the pretense of medical expertise, provided false information, and used Youtube to do it.
Not according to the article. The local TV station interviewed them and the local TV station put the video on YouTube.
Presumably as they are licensed to practice medicine in the State of California they do have some expertise greater than those of us without MDs so it's hardly 'pretense'. Is wearing scrubs on camera a ridiculous rhetorical device? Yes. Were these guys wrong on some facts? Absolutely. Were they wrong on policy recommendations? Much, much harder to say.
What's astonishing though is the ease with which people seem to be willing to turn over their civil liberties and place themselves under house arrest.
We have to sit through three years of the echo chamber telling us Donald Trump is a fascist, and then finally when our freedom to assemble is literally stripped from us by the police power of the state, people are complaining that he's not fascist enough. Geez.
> Not according to the article. The local TV station interviewed them and the local TV station put the video on YouTube.
As noted in another comment, the article does not touch on the veracity of the claims of these two doctors.
"In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”"
> We have to sit through three years of the echo chamber telling us Donald Trump is a fascist, and then finally when our freedom to assemble is literally stripped from us by the police power of the state, people are complaining that he's not fascist enough. Geez.
You're making a false analogy; US Government in times of emergency has used it's authority to curtail civil liberties; I'm sure you are well aware of the gist of the War Times Power Act. And perhaps most famously (and more controversialy) when Habeas Corpus was suspended.
That said, I think it's our responsibility (duty) as citizens to continually challenge attacks on the 1st Amendment, and other curtails of constitutional protected freedoms, but it's also on us to hold accountable those who seek to use the rights granted by the Bill of Rights in ways that harm the public.
It is my pov that the opinions, presented as medical facts by these two doctors, were harmful to the public, and should be censored.
Of course they should. Youtube isn't bound by any law to be the standard video hosting site. They are simply the most popular over the past 10 years. Zero government mandate or anything. They can remove all hosted content tomorrow if they'd like, entirely up to them. If you don't like it, feel free to build your own platform. That's the beauty of disseminated knowledge of computer science and the internet, after all.
No, because there are laws against discriminating protected classes (although sexuality is not quite a protected class per se and laws can vary between states). There are no laws against discriminating bigoted content or propaganda, these aren't protected classes.
Traditional western liberal values of free speech permit and require private citizens to make decisions about which points of view they will support and which they will not support. Which is what YouTube just did.
There is not a “everyone likes your software platform so you’re not allowed to have an opinion” exception to the traditional western liberal values of free speech.
> the much-lauded, traditional, western liberal values of free speech?
Such as stopping people from saying bad words on radio/tv or stopping women from even accidentally showing a specific small part of their chest? We have a long history of direct censorship by liberal western governments for far worse reasons than saving lives.
I don't see all these "free speech" advocates stepping up to stop the ongoing suppression of comparatively harmless expression like showing the female nipple. Yet, somehow the suppression of this actively harmful content is the rallying cry that pulls in so much attention.
I am a free speech advocate, and I don't personally support the removal of this video, as I think the aims would be better served by alternate means, such as placing a strong disclaimer of inaccuracy alongside links to accurate rebuttals. However, I don't see how you stop Google from removing whatever content they want without creating laws that curtail other important aspects of free speech (e.g. creating a regulatory body that decides which groups do and do not have the right to control the content they publish).
I hope they do that with videos by cnn, fox, and the world health organisation too. This video by the doctors could be a refutation to certain pieces by others, even.
I look forward to a world where platforms are less afraid to kick off the voices they don’t like. The world would be better with 50 YouTubes rather than just one.
If there were 50 YouTubes, that would be amazing. I wouldn't care ONE BIT if someone got kicked off RandomTube. It'd be hard to argue that their voice was being silenced.
The 2nd player to YouTube, however, is a very distant second. YouTube has the power to decide if billions see a message. That's.... a power most governments would salivate to have.
Personally I feel like the perspective that "they're privately owned so they can do what they want" while technically true, intentionally and dishonestly misses the point.
There are arguments that don't involve "private property, absolute authority" which permit both some censorship (in the public interest), and some guarantees of access most especially to under-served, unprivileged, and minority viewpoints (also in the public interest).
YouTube is owned by a Google, a massive, publicly-traded corporation with near-monopoly power.
Are the best interests of society served by allowing it to be governed in an authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, or would it make sense, considering it is one of the most powerful mediums of speech ever created, to let it be governed by rules somewhat approximating the much-lauded, traditional, western liberal values of free speech?