[olefoo]

This is all the result of confusing 1st amendment rights with the right to access the audience that gathers at a particular URL.

What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you should be allowed an audience and that even putting a warning alongside the video would be an infringement on his rights.

Looking at the comments here I have to conclude that HN is no longer on board critical thinking much less common sense.

[chordalkeyboard]

People are making normative arguments, not legal arguments. We are aware that this is legal, just like it used to be legal to discriminate in hiring practices against black people.

Taibbi is suggesting that if you can't trust the people not to post error and lies, how can you trust the oligarchs and officials? Especially if your access to alternative perspectives is limited. Read for yourself:

>> Cutting down the public’s ability to flip out removes one of the only real checks on the most dangerous kind of fake news, the official lie. Imagine if these mechanisms had been in place in the past. Would we disallow published claims that the Missile Gap was a fake? That the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged? How about Watergate, a wild theory about cheating in a presidential election that was universally disbelieved by “reputable” news agencies, until it wasn’t? It’s not hard to imagine a future where authorities would ask tech platforms to quell “conspiracy theories” about everything from poisoned water systems to war crimes.

[majormajor]

Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution."

Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves.

If you didn't have your own credibility, you had to convince those who did to run your stuff. The cost of this is that it's slower to break things, and some stuff gets missed.

Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms.

Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights).

The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)

[waterhouse]

> Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed

The key word is "allowed". YouTube should be allowed to do everything they have the right to do. They have the right to stop providing all free services (unless they have contractual obligations). They have the right to ban all creators whose names start with "K". They have the right to add a 10-second delay to all page loads. They have the right to put Goatse on their homepage.

However, if they do any of the above things, the rest of us have the right to be disappointed, to think YouTube sucks, and to tell everyone else about it.

So, if they demonstrate that they have no respect for the principle of freedom of speech, we have the right to call them cowardly, un-American, probably unfair in their implementation, counterproductive even assuming their goals, etc.

[heavyset_go]

> However, if they do any of the above things, the rest of us have the right to be disappointed, to think YouTube sucks, and to tell everyone else about it.

> So, if they demonstrate that they have no respect for the principle of freedom of speech, we have the right to call them cowardly, un-American, probably unfair in their implementation, counterproductive even assuming their goals, etc.*

They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

They want to fundamentally shift the liability for user created content online, effectively ensuring that hosting any speech becomes a massive liability for those without billions of dollars comb through user uploads for illegal content.

As a business owner, I don't want to be raided by the FBI in the middle of the night and then go to prison because someone thought it would be funny to upload illegal content to my servers.

[lliamander]

I am not a fan of repealing section 230. I think it'sactuallya pretty inspired piece of law for its time.

But it's original purpose was to remove civil liability for platforms for making an imperfect but good faith attempt to remove illegal content.

The farther we move away from the original motivating case, the less clear it is to me that Internet companies need or deserve the protection afforded to them under the auspices of section 230.

[waterhouse]

Well, Taibbi hasn't mentioned Section 230; I see only two other comments mentioning it. Also, I skimmed an article that says most people don't understand Section 230 (or the context around it—it provides immunity for certain things, and therefore you have to understand "immunity from what?"), so I would hesitate to say too much about it. It's entirely likely that there are some prominent partisans who claim to be in favor of free speech but don't have a principled stance on the subject (e.g. think flag-burning should be illegal), or who are as ignorant as I am on section 230 and less averse to recklessly advocating for political measures they don't understand.

At any rate, as I doubt you'll be surprised to hear, I am also not in favor of business owners getting raided by the FBI because users uploaded illegal content. That sounds like a mechanism for crushing small websites who can't afford their own legal department, thereby protecting large websites against competition.

[stale2002]

> They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

Politicians and citizens have the "right" to change the law.

That's how society works. If those companies don't like it, then they can pack up and move to a different country.

[darepublic]

You reference a totalitarian dystopia and yet you are salivating for widespread censorship to be applied. The great thing about the internet is the freedom of communication which broke the monopoly of mainstream media. If people like you have your way the internet will be as censored as cable tv used to be, in your blessed utopia of the 60s to 80s. Were you alive back then? Have you heard of the Vietnam war. It's not an exaggeration to say your ignorance and stupidity is staggering

[barryhoodlum]

You sound very emotional, maybe take a break?

[miohtama]

This is the best explanation of the dangers of mega publishing platforms I have seen on Hacker News.

[chordalkeyboard]

> Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution."

Why is it bad? before only a few people could lie to everyone and keep the majority in the dark because they lacked access to information that would expose the lies they were told. Now everyone's voice is amplified and the people who used to have this power are upset because people believe things they don't want them to believe.

> Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience.

This seems like a non sequitur. Historically its been hard to spread wild claims for most people because they didn't have a platform. What burden of proof are you referring to?

> And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves.

Isn't it more likely that they were reluctant to repeat stories unless it benefitted them? Yellow journalism predates the internet by almost 100 years.

> Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms.

Perhaps. I'm not sure that I could hijack the credibility of (for example) Dr. Fauci by retweeting him. Its more likely that he could voluntarily lend me his credibility by retweeting me.

> Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights).

The argument is that they have become large and commonly used enough that they are akin to a public utility. This is an open question and I certainly don't have the answer. Think of it as if the interstate highway system was owned by Procter & Gamble and they began to limit access to the interstate for carriers who delivered their competitors' products, or refused to allow left-handed redheads to access the interstate. A lot of people would say that in that case it would be an appropriate use of the government's regulatory power to nationalize or break up the "P&G Interstate" for the public good. Other people would say that it was within their rights as property owners to decide who they sold roadway access to. You'd have a situation where people's interpretations of fundamental rights conflicted because of technological advancement.

> The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)

Consider that Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988.

[zucker42]

> The argument is that they have become large and commonly used enough that they are akin to a public utility.

While this is an interesting conversation, you don't even have to go this far. You can just argue that rebutting bad ideas is more effective than censoring them and a good video hosting platform should value open discourse, and so YouTube should try to be as content-neutral as possible. If you convince enough YouTube users that open discourse is more important than censoring perceived falsehoods, then it might make more sense for YouTube to commit itself to open discourse.

[xnyan]

Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube?

Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?

[chordalkeyboard]

> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies?

Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Should I be forced to pay for roads if they will be used to support activities I disapprove of? What if I passionately and sincerely disagree with what people are using the roadway access to facilitate? Should I be forced to subsidize activities that I reasonably believe are harmful to the environment? What if I can produce peer-reviewed academic evidence supporting my point of view? Should I be forced to hire a qualified individual at my company if I have an opening if I don't like their religious beliefs? What if their religious beliefs involve arranged marriage or female genital mutilation?

Hopefully the list of rhetorical questions serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that our society and our system of government already compels people to support things they oppose, including terrible lies, harm to people and the environment, and various forms of abuse. Yet we haven't chosen to abandon this form of government for anarchy. For this reason I am unmotivated by absolutist private property arguments when applied to this issue. Thank you for your excellent question as it draws attention to a central part of the issue.

> Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?

I don't have the answers here, I'm participating in the conversation with the aim of moving it forward. How does it work in practical terms to require that companies hire and serve people even when the owner doesn't like their religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? In theory we write laws on the basis of balancing the values we hold dear. In practice lobbyists donate money to lawmakers for influence and lawmakers compromise with each other on things that they think are going to be practical to enforce and get them re-elected or some other form of benefit. Perhaps not in that order.

[FlyMoreRockets]

> Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught?

Yes you should. An informed populace is the basis of democracy. If you choose to continue living in a democracy, you have to help pay for its upkeep.

[lliamander]

Government schools are pretty bad despite the ever increasing funding afforded to them, and the teachers unions wield enormous power. If we are going to fund anything, it should be the students directly (via vouchers or whatever) not the systems.

I hardly imagine that a government can really be held to account by its citizens if it also takes for itself the role of educate their children.

[chordalkeyboard]

> Yes you should.

Thank you. This is exactly the basis upon which we justify the proposal to force YouTube to host content that their shareholders would prefer not to host. Or the alternative formulation, this is the basis on which we justify prohibiting YouTube from censoring political speech that their shareholders disagree with.

[chii]

> force YouTube to host content that their shareholders would prefer not to host.

youtube isn't the gov't. Public schools and roads are funded by taxation.

If youtube is to host content that their shareholders don't want hosted, then youtube needs to be paid a portion of gov't taxes.

[FlyMoreRockets]

You missed the most important point. It bears repeating: an informed populace is the basis of democracy.

A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy.

[jasonlotito]

> This is exactly the basis upon...

That's not something legally recognized though. You can't say you base this on something when there is nothing equivalent. An education is one thing. It's something that's been recognized in court.

Now, if you want to claim that public sites like YouTube should be forced to host content they don't want to from people they don't want to do business with, you'll have to explain how that equates with your established rights in the US?

More to the point: You'll have to explain why you want to take away my rights?

[glennpratt]

No, that would be the basis for the US to stand up its own video publishing platform. Forcing YouTube to host content it doesn't wish to is "un-American".

[oh_sigh]

A vast majority of the people who are too stupid to realize these questionable youtube videos are hoaxes(and therefore need to be protected from them) went to public school.

[Talanes]

A vast majority of the people who immediately recognize these YouTube videos are fake also went to public school. Something like ninety percent of America goes to public school, you can cite them as a vast majority for almost any American activity and probably be right.

[FlyMoreRockets]

Clearly, they are poorly informed. The obvious solution is that public education should be improved, rather than abolished.

[srcreigh]

This is a turning point for YouTube. YouTube was a medium of expression. In that sense your question is like "Why should the paper company allow ideas to be written on their paper that they disagree with?"

Of course YouTube does also take a editorial role. As both a platform and a publisher, we should allow them to stop giving recommendations for things that don't align politically.

By taking the more extreme step of taking down videos, they are balking on their self expressed purpose of being a platform for digital expression.

There are several people in my life who I completely disagree with politically. At the same time, I'm grateful that I can hear their perspective. YouTube is no longer supporting this dynamic.

I'm already seeing folks signing up for social networks that have less censorship, I think alternative video hosting platforms may increase too.

[spacebear]

Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US.

[FlyMoreRockets]

> Because YouTube has a practical monopoly on user-generated video in the US.

More specifically, YouTube has a practical monopoly on publishing and promoting user-generated video in the US.

Anybody can generate video and a great many do. Promoting your video to millions of viewers is a bit more challenging, though can clearly be done wihtout YouTube: https://www.lifewire.com/videos-that-went-viral-before-youtu...

This doesn't even get into the really early viral videos like the charcoal briquettes lit with liquid oxygen, or the massive viewership of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact way back in the day.

[zucker42]

He didn't say anything about YouTube being forced to do anything.

"YouTube is wrong to do this" and "the government ought to force YouTube to act differently" are two distinct arguments.

[waterhouse]

No, they should not be forced.

However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.

[FlyMoreRockets]

I think YouTube should be applauded for protecting democracy. Why do you think they should be shamed for doing this?

[chordalkeyboard]

Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people who question the integrity of elections. It sends the impression that there is something to hide. And people who suspect that the election was stolen will take this as confirmation of that suspicion. Since they won't be allowed to use that platform to raise their suspicions, no one will be able to respond to them to allay their suspicions. Then as time goes on confirmation bias will lead them to become entrenched in this belief. Eventually this belief (that the elections have been stolen) will lead to the perception of a loss of legitimacy for the government, and consequentially public servants will find it more difficult and dangerous to do their jobs.

[supercanuck]

>Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people

YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. The New York Times is not a danger to democracy because they refuse to publish my article on why the earth is flat.

[skrueger]

How is YouTube protecting democracy? It seems to me its action silences a group of people in a democracy.

[FlyMoreRockets]

> its action silences a group of people

Yes, a group of people attacking democracy.

[waterhouse]

Well, I could simply point to the entirety of Taibbi's article. Or even just the headline and sub-headline: "[It's] Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire. Silicon Valley couldn't have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters." Many of the points I might make, Taibbi did so in his article.

For the sake of novelty, I'll make a different point: I see one way in which YouTube may have promoted democracy: by making their odiousness more clear (and in a public, "everyone knows that everyone knows" way), they may have encouraged quicker production or adoption of alternative platforms. This seems unlikely, because websites like them have done lots of crappy stuff before, without usually causing much effect; but it is possible that this may be seen as enough of a "They've declared war on the entire right wing" to motivate a significant migration. Two partisan platforms is better than one, for democracy and just for competition. (Better yet would be either a platform that has made some kind of enforceable and very-painful-to-break commitment to neutrality, or some kind of decentralized system that no single company or party can decide to censor. We may get there eventually.)

[cambalache]

"Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. It is a symptomatic fact that the decadence of capitalism coincides with the decadence of socialism. ... Corporative solutions can be applied anywhere"

[brandonmenc]

> Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies?

No.

> If so, why? If not, why should YouTube?

Because I am a person and YouTube is not.

[rhino369]

Just look early 2020 for an example.

Should Youtube have taken down videos saying face masks were effective given the CDC said they weren't?

Should Youtube have taken down videos about Li Wenliang. After all, there was no new SARS problem, according to china?

[fennecfoxen]

> This is all the result of confusing 1st amendment rights with the right to access the audience that gathers at a particular URL.

No one is confused. The article mentions neither the First Amendment nor the Constitution. It only calls the matter "un-American." This phrase is clearly a value statement, not some neutral and dispassionate assessment.

The line you draw to separate the government from the private sector is quite useful in other contexts, but does not affect the matter before us today. After all, in a democracy (which the Constitution aspires to be) the ideal of free speech itself must proceed from shared cultural values; if those values change enough, we might also expect the First Amendment to be repealed anyway.

Of course YouTube of course is not required to represent these purportedly-American values; just as surely, it may be criticized as "un-American" by those promulgating such values. A much more interesting argument would assess the extent to which the values in question are, in fact, American, whether YouTube's choices are more representative (surely there's a case for this) or simply more desirable (I note many here agree with them) -- and whether American (or "American") values can coexist with these YouTube values.

[zucker42]

The words "free speech" and "1st amendment" are never used in the article. "Free press" is used only in passing. As far as I can tell, your mention of the 1st amendment is a complete non sequitur, and you are the only one doing the confusing.

The question is whether what YouTube is doing is good for society, and Matt Taibbi says no. He's criticizing YouTube for doing something he thinks is bad, since public criticism is sometimes effective at altering corporate actions. It's pretty annoying that so many people try to sidestep this topic by saying that the first amendment does not prevent private censorship. Pretty much everyone agrees with that.

And denigrating people you disagree with is unnecessarily inflammatory.

[belorn]

Is it legal in the US to encourage people to jump in front of a train?

If the answer is no then telling people to drink rat poison is illegal. The legal system has the power to punish the uploader, and youtube can remove it just as it do with copyright infringements.

If the answer is yes then I would suggest to change the law. Pushing people to drink rat poison sound awful close to harassment, which is just the kind of speech which the 1st amendment do not protect.

[1cvmask]

What if politicians do stunts and tell you to drink water poisoned with lead like in Flint, Michigan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ZynkD3N_k

Should we censor them? Or perhaps just put up a warning sign that not everything on the Internet - like the physical world - is worth believing? Where do the guardrails end and censorship begin?

[belorn]

If you have a law and a politician seems to be breaking it, then the usual answer is to have a prosecutor to look into it.

Politician also have what is called a position of trust, so in addition to legal enforcement there could also be a vote at that political level to remove said politician.

In addition, I would imagine that encouraging people to drink water poisoned with lead can put that politician in legal liability if anyone got sick.

I will add that the US has a odd legal system which potentially give the president permission to ignore laws. The best way to fix that is to remove that exclusive protection, and if its a constitutional problem, fix the constitution.

[tick_tock_tick]

> Is it legal in the US to encourage people to jump in front of a train?

Yes

[toomuchtodo]

Some judicial venues say no:

“A Massachusetts woman [Michelle Carter] who sent her suicidal boyfriend a barrage of text messages urging him to kill himself was jailed Monday on an involuntary manslaughter conviction nearly five years after he died in a truck filled with toxic gas.”

She appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and the conviction was upheld (unanimously).

https://apnews.com/article/320866bd419a49c8a82b55e39390f2c8

[dathinab]

> What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you should be allowed an audience

He should, it's the basis of democracy. Sure rat poison is a bad example, but thinks are much less clear cut if we speak about other things, including covid19. So putting up warnings about this problems (potential more then just a subtle note at the side) is reasonable removing it is much less so (as long as they don't e.g. tell people to go on the street and kill all politicans or similar bs.).

I mean you start with removing 100% clear bs. misinformation.

Then you remove misinformation which contains some truth (it's still misinformation).

And before you notice unpleasant opinions are removed to (like e.g. the CIA having had similarities to a terrorist organization in the past, factual right but misguiding).

EDIT: Oh and if you tell people to dink rat poison and they do you should be held responsible for tricking people into killing them-self, still that's not the same as censoring the content. ------------

An example from Germany is that there is a very mixed movement called Querdenker. It clearly contains right radicals, nazies, covid denies, q-anon believers etc. BUT a non small part of the core movement are neither of this but people which believe in covid, believe it's bad. But also believe that the decisions done by the German government do more harm then good. But they get frequently denounced and grouped with all the problematic groups from before. Which has all kinds of problematic consequences (including making this people being more susceptible to manipulation from the problematic groups). Now removing (some of) the information sources of this people instead of adding information enlighten them about what is wrong with the information is only making it only worse. Furthermore you can't censor them as this will just push them to other information platforms and if you continue to censor again and again you will end up with a censorship system no less powerfull then chinas... which I believe no one would want in a democracy. So I believe we will have to learn how to handle such information _without_ censoring information we believe is wrong/misguiding.

[dragontamer]

> He should, it's the basis of democracy.

Do you support the election that happened on November 3rd 2020? Then you must support the results of the election, whether you like the election results, or not.

THAT is the basis of Democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based on the votes. If you do not respect the votes, then Democracy falls apart. You literally cannot have a Democracy without votes (while we had a Democracy through WW2 despite the "Office of Censorship").

We have a very, very large group of people who are now using free speech to destroy our trust in the election. We are now left with a decision: Free Speech vs Election.

My gut says that elections are more important than free speech. Historically, we have had times without any free speech what-so-ever (WWII / Office of Censorship). Its a luxury we can do without in times of crisis.

We cannot afford to lose faith in the election process. Period.

[Talanes]

Do you honestly believe that Government reduction in free speech would lead to a net gain in people's trust in the process?

[dragontamer]

Do you honestly believe that these lies that a huge number of people believe in are having a positive or neutral effect on the trust of our elections?

If it's neither positive nor neutral, then the only effect it could have is negative.

[Talanes]

And yet the solution to a negative can still itself be the cause of equal or greater negatives. Hence why I was asking if you believe it is a NET gain. Because the Government cracking down on speech, even obvious lies, will erode some people's trust in the system as well.

[dragontamer]

> And yet the solution to a negative can still itself be the cause of equal or greater negatives.

Cracking down on anti-election rhetoric is an obvious net positive, and needs no further explanation.

> Because the Government cracking down on speech, even obvious lies, will erode some people's trust in the system as well.

Too late for that. Dozens of millions of Americans have lost faith in the 2020 election. The only concern from my perspective is to stop the obvious bleeding: we must stop the false anti-election rhetoric before it poisons the minds of even more.

The lies are winning right now. Be it masks, election fraud, mail-in ballots, or whatever. My sister's father in law believes that COVID is a hoax, I have coworkers who don't think masks help and my mom thinks Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I've seen enough lies, and I've lost faith that these people can have their vision cleared with the truth. My sister thinks the vaccine may hurt more than it may help and is avoiding the vaccine.

Its clear that misinformation is running amok and nothing is stopping it. The naive "debate with them" perspective goes literally no where, have you ever tried?

[rStar]

"We cannot afford to lose faith in the election process. Period." Half the country doesn't vote, because they've lost faith in the election process.

[staticman2]

"Oh and if you tell people to dink rat poison and they do you should be held responsible for tricking people into killing them-self,"

So in your mind Google should assist people in tricking others into drinking rat poison by boosting the signal of their videos by hosting them on one of the world's most popular web sites, essentially making Google employees an accessory to murder, because the "basis of democracy" is assisting bad actors in tricking people into doing things like drinking rat poison.

That's certainly an interesting take.

In my view, you host someone's web site where they trick people into drinking rat poison, that makes you morally culpable. If you have human decency, you try to avoid doing things like that.

[claudiawerner]

>And before you notice unpleasant opinions are removed to (like e.g. the CIA having had similarities to a terrorist organization in the past, factual right but misguiding).

This is a slippery slope, and I'm not sure that it's justified theoretically. It's not as though this is precedent-setting - all platforms have excluded swathes of content for a very long time.

[8note]

Is Germany post WW2 better or worse the the US South post civil war though?

[old-gregg]

> What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you

No. That is not what Taibbi is saying. He articulated his point extremely well, he doesn't need your help with convoluted interpretations. You twisted his words sideways and upside down, then built irrelevant conclusions on top of your own nonsense, and diverted the discussion from the PROBLEM the original article was written about to your own misguided statement which bears no resemblance to Matt's argument.

> HN is no longer on board critical thinking

Indeed, otherwise your comment wouldn't be on top.

[daveidol]

I must say though that there is a difference between putting a disclaimer next to a video to provide facts/context vs outright banning it from being posted.

Yes, it's not directly an issue of the first amendment, but it's still a topic with discussing since sites like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook constitute a lot of where discourse takes place these days.

[octokatt]

I'm guessing there's a lot more deliberate troll farming hitting HN, and threads like this (and how far up this incoherent rant of a post went up the list) lend credit to that.

[dboreham]

Certainly feels like that's the case. However, there are also a large number of nutty people in the US and some of them may be posting here.

[lawnchair_larry]

There isn’t.

[lliamander]

In case you didn't know, Warfarin, a heart medication, is also used as a rat poison.

A guy telling people they should drink genuinely harmful poison is of course bad, but by analogy I would say many of us are concerned that YouTube's current trajectory would result in banning important information about the health benefits of Warfarin in their crude attempt to stop the people from taking the bad sorts of rat poison.

[wkjenjkwenf]

Not a single word in the article hints towards the 1st amendment. I suggest reading the article before acting all high-and-mighty about your "common sense."

[CharlesW]

Yes. I'm heartened to see that someone in this thread understands what rights the First Amendment actually guarantees.

[falcrist]

People constantly conflate "freedom of speech" with the protection granted by the first amendment.

That's right up to and including Randal Munroe, who said "The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say"

That's not freedom of speech, that's the first amendment protections of freedom of speech... and it doesn't even adequately describe the protections. There are other things the government isn't allowed to do besides arrest you. They can't force you to say something, either. They can't prohibit certain opinions from being expressed in government owned or regulated channels.

And freedom of speech can be infringed on or limited by other entities than the government.

A better description would be "principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction." This means that if you're forced into silence by threat of retaliation from, say, a religious sect or political group in your area, it's still infringing on your freedom of speech even if they aren't part of the government.

[amanaplanacanal]

Where is the line though? If I disagree with what you say am I allowed to call you an idiot? Am I allowed to no longer associate with you? Those could both be considered retaliation or sanction.

And am I required to publish your words even though I disagree with them? That would seem to infringe my freedom of speech.

[falcrist]

You HAVE to make those determinations on a case-by-case basis.

Like all freedoms, the freedom of speech is slippery, difficult to define, and has fuzzy boundaries. It can never be absolute, because that would immediately raise contradictions. Where does your freedom end and mine begin?

In this particular case, how big does a company need to be before we start forcing it to host content that it doesn't want to host? When is it ok to force someone to provide a universal platform... to tie their hands so they can't moderate as they see fit?

Do I have a right to stand on your stage and shout whatever I want at your audience? Do you have a right to buy every stage and then exclude and censor people like me?

[chordalkeyboard]

first amendment != freedom of speech

[grbgecllctr]

I'm struggling to understand the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies argument. Are you saying that Google, under its own volition, independently of the democratic party decided it was their ethical or patriotic duty to take this action? This is the company that built the platform that amplifies crazy ideas (many crazier than this) to hundreds a millions of people for profit. It's also well know that there's a revolving door between google and democrat administrations and campaigns. Or are you acknowledging that google and the DNC have a symbiotic relationship and that this is a valid loophole that the government can use to censor people?

[blueblob]

You bring up the Democratic Party as if everyone who disagrees with you must always be a part of the exact opposition and you come across as a conspiracy theorist because of it. It really doesn't seem to be the world's most unsurprising thing that among two possible conclusions people could be on opposite sides without being brainwashed. It's almost like the binomial distribution exists for something like this.

[Talanes]

You can't just say "It's well known" and then throw out some new conspiracy theory that I've never seen before.

You're not even to the "most people are familiar with your theory" part yet, much less the "I can act like everyone else thinks this is true, but won't admit it" part. Build up your brand a little first.

[justinzollars]

> Looking at the comments here I have to conclude that HN is no longer on board critical thinking much less common sense.

The book burners are running the show. And the complaints you see on hackernews are just people with no power or influence complaining about the censorship you support. Seems like a decision was already made by people much more powerful than us, and this is the path we are on. Free speech and freedom of the press are over. America is done. Nothing special about this place anymore.

[amanaplanacanal]

> Free speech and freedom of the press are over. America is done. Nothing special about this place anymore.

Given that you can still say and print pretty much anything you want, I'd say this is a little over the top.

[justwalt]

I think this opinion is short sighted, because it assumes that we can trust Youtube (or other governing body) to rightfully and honestly decide which content is worth deplatforming. Isn't this idea central to the concept of freedom of speech?

[cratermoon]

"They recast what reason does — winnowing wheat from chaff — as an act of censorship."

https://logicmag.io/play/u-mad/

[thorough]

I think the conversation is just a little more sophisticated than you imagine it to be.

And you can be generally in favor of free speech (!= the First Amendment) without accepting its more extreme interpretations. I mean, I'm guessing that you personally are too if you are like most people. For example, most of us would think that YT shouldn't censor either of two people saying (respectively) "Trump was elected in 2016 as a result of Russian disinformation" and "Trump was not elected in 2016 as a result of Russian disinformation."

The interesting question here is, "What speech should a privately-owned forum allow that its owners disagree with?"

[seppin]

> Taibbi

Also this guy is not the same author some might have known a few years ago, he himself has been relegated to the regressive left Glenn Greenwald corner of the internet. Take his narrative with the proper grain of salt.

[zucker42]

Why do you consider them part of the "regressive left"? Is it because you think they've behaved unethically, or are they hopelessly biased, or do you just disagree with them, or some other reason?

[seppin]

They consider Trump less a threat than mainstream democratic politicians, who they consider to be "traitors".

That's why they are all appearing on right wing media, a shared enemy.

[zucker42]

First, I looked up the term "regressive left" and you might want to know your use of the term doesn't match its general usage, which might make it confusing.

Secondly, I think you're doing yourself a disservice if you dismiss these voices and are critical of them but not the mainstream pro-Democrat press. Ryan Taibbi, for example, clearly dislikes Trump, but also thinks the Democrats aren't responding to him well[1], which is an interesting perspective to understand if you are anti-Trump. If you are a liberal who fails to incorporate or understand even the criticisms of people who are close to being your allies, you may be less equipped to properly combat Trumpism.

Basically, it sounds to me like you are advocating ignoring these people because you disagree with them, which doesn't strike me as the best way to rigorously improve one's political perspective.

[1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-trump-era-sucks-and-needs-...

[brandonmenc]

> he himself has been relegated to the regressive left Glenn Greenwald corner of the internet.

"Excommunicated" is the word you're looking for.

[ThoreauBred]

Justice Scalia, an originalist conservative wrote that none of our Constitutional rights are unlimited.

He should be allowed to speak.

No one is obliged to listen.

Free agency supersedes speech. How is expecting anyone else to sit still any less fascist?

Common sense changes in time. It was perfectly common sense 13 colonies belonged to England.

It was perfectly common sense God created reality.

John Stuart Mill covered this in his writing about town drunks; cannot stop biology.

Emit whatever syntax sure. Being owed others to bend their agency to listen or act in accordance with the speech is nonsense.

[Analemma_]

I remember the days on forums when people screaming "YOU'RE VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!11" after the admin banned them were treated as the laughable jokes they were. Now there are supposedly serious political thinkers subscribing to this same idea: that the Constitution forces private parties to do business with you against their will. It's a serious lack of civic knowledge.

[d1zzy]

I would argue that the right of business to not do business with anyone they don't want to is very much American (regardless if it's right or wrong).

[bird_monster]

I posted below, but yes, agreed, a private business managing itself however it deems appropriate is one of the most american things it can do.

[8note]

Pretty American,though now it's illegal to keep black people our of your store

[lukifer]

It's worth reading Barry Goldwater's opposition [0] to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite him claiming to be "unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed, or on any other basis". His stance was exactly what you describe: that government did not have a right to force private parties to conduct business against their will.

There's a good-faith debate to be had about positive rights vs. negative rights; or the potential backlash from forcing individuals to do the right thing; or the usual right-libertarian arguments about the sanctity of property rights. But I'll bet dollars to donuts, that the vast majority of those cheering for tech media giants booting out those with verboten views, based on private property rights, would also be horrified at the idea of even questioning the CRA under the same logic.

[0] https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla...

[triceratops]

You are aware of the difference between "what you are" and "what you say" are you not? CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of "what you are". So it's not really the same thing at all.

[lukifer]

I'm not claiming it's a fully apt comparison; rather, that if one supports a principle of "it is entirely out of scope for government to force private businesses to transact against their will", with no other qualifiers, that would necessarily preclude the CRA as well.

It's a different stance to say "the government is allowed to force transactions where one party is unwilling, but only where the unwillingness is related to identity rather than actions". (Though even that distinction can blur: a religious person banned for sharing "my faith teaches that life begins at conception" could hardly be blamed for interpreting the act as being based on their protected-class religious identity, rather than their speech as such.)

[JPKab]

Looking at your comment, I have to conclude that you think you are smarter than 95% of the population and that they need to be treated like children.

You aren't dumb enough to drink rat poison if you see a video telling you to do so, and therefore don't need this protection, but not others. No sir, the little people are too dumb, and need to be protected, guided, and fed a diet of information curated by people like you. The paternalism is as disgusting as it is arrogant.

Your kind of thinking is what created the War on Drugs. And you aren't even self-aware enough to realize it.

[galgalesh]

The first amendment right only bans the government from infringing on free speech. It doesn't say anything about private corporations. There are many practices by US companies concerning free speech that would be illegal in European countries.

Many European countries recognize freedom of speech as a basic right that everyone needs to respect; Neither the government, companies nor individuals can infringe on this. However, these freedom of speech laws often exclude certain kinds of speech and governments have some power in defining these exclusions.

This distinction is what makes censorship such a big issue in the US. When censorship is dictated by an elected government, the people have some power over it. When censorship is dictated by a private company the size of Google, people have very little power over it.

The US constitution seems to be mainly about limiting the power of government, not about protecting people and society. As a result, companies have a lot more power and you get unaccountable decisions about what should be censored and what not.

Don't get me wrong, I think censorship is necessary, but you have to admit that there is a real danger when companies are in charge of it.