| > 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. |
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.