[xenadu02]

You're arguing for unbounded trolls, spam, and the complete destruction of all online communities.

I don't understand what worldview leads to the conclusion that any moderation of a private platform by a private entity is equivalent to government censorship.

[guscost]

Maybe we need to have a discussion about what kinds of trolling and spam should be legal. And if you have a problem with that stuff, why doesn’t the current state of YouTube comments bother you just as much as this idea?

> I don't understand what worldview leads to the conclusion that any moderation of a private platform by a private entity is equivalent to government censorship.

I didn’t say “government censorship”.

[marcinzm]

I prefer the current state to having the government literally kick down my door for "trolling" someone online.

[guscost]

Swatting, doxing, and harassment are all forms of trolling. It can have lethal consequences, and these are already variously illegal for good reasons.

[akersten]

You are more comfortable with the government regulating what kind of trolling is legal (an actual, on its face violation of the 1st Amendment), than you are with YouTube removing a gore video for violating their community guidelines?

This is the most bizarre take on libertarian free speech absolutism that I've heard all week.

[guscost]

Hey, I said it was controversial.

[apostacy]

> You're arguing for unbounded trolls, spam, and the complete destruction of all online communities.

Nonsense. The Internet in general, and YouTube in particular did quite well for themselves for most of their existence, without any significant moderation.

You would have to pretty new to the internet to think that it would all collapse without heavy handed censorship.

I remember very clearly that up until about 2015 there was almost no moderation outside of spam, copyright infringement, or blatantly illegal stuff.

It would probably benefit these online communities to stop moderating and censoring stuff so much.

YouTube clearly is trying to gentrify their platform, and turn it into a sanitized short-form Netflix.

They pay media companies like MSNBC and Fox News to post clips of their shows, and heavily promote them.

They've driven many of the best content creators off of their platform. I used to really enjoy YouTube, but my favorite channels are constantly having to worry about their videos being deleted. They've been removing their old videos for fear of getting too many strikes, and moving to other, less good platforms.

> I don't understand what worldview leads to the conclusion that any moderation of a private platform by a private entity is equivalent to government censorship.

Well, when a platform becomes ubiquitous and powerful enough that only government can restrain it, then the question of people's general welfare comes up.

America has had these discussions before. We used to let oil companies, coal companies, rail roads, and phone companies become aggressive and destructive monopolies.

I think that at this point, calling YouTube "private" is not really correct. Not just do they heavily benefit from many government protections, but they are so big that they are not bound to market forces, and are essentially unaccountable to the public.

Corporations have no right to exist. And corporations that do not follow the rules certainly should not enjoy Section 230 protections. I don't think it is too much to ask that we be allowed to sue them if they don't follow the law.