[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.

[stale2002]

> then youtube needs to be paid a portion of gov't taxes.

No actually. The way society works is we can just force them to do it, via the law.

It is our right as citizens to change the law.

[chordalkeyboard]

I think its entirely reasonable for YouTube to be compensated if the polity concludes that they maintain a useful public service by providing a place for people to share videos and they adhere to reasonable objective guidelines on what content to permit and remove.

[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.

[chordalkeyboard]

> A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy.

who is to be trusted with the authority to decide what counts as misinformation? Is it possible that a gatekeeper of information would find it easier to misinform the populace than a prominent person who had to contend with other dissenting voices?

[chipotle_coyote]

It feels to me like both sides in this debate want to argue "of course it's patently obvious that I'm right". But services like YouTube and Facebook have no real historical precedents in terms of audience reach, and it's hard to think of a more rock-and-a-hard-place situation than choosing between "force a private company to treat their property like a public square no matter the cost to society" and "allow a private company to dictate what's allowed in a de facto public square."

So, yes, of course it's possible a gatekeeper would find it easier to misinform the populace. Over the long term, it's almost guaranteed. Yet it's also possible -- in fact, one can argue the probability is essentially 1.0 -- that refusing to have any gates will also misinform the populace. If we're looking for a blanket rule that will cover all possible situations in this new information reality, we're probably looking in vain.

[jasonlotito]

The burden of proof lies with those who want to deny me rights, not those of us who want to maintain those rights. FB and YouTube has a right to remove content they don't want to host, just like me. If you want to take away my rights, you'd better come up with something really really good.

[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?

[chordalkeyboard]

> That's not something legally recognized though.

We're having a discussion about what the law should be, not what the law is.

> You can't say you base this on something when there is nothing equivalent.

The above discussion demonstrates that our society already limits property rights in the service of an informed populace, which is relevant to the issue at hand.

> An education is one thing. It's something that's been recognized in court.

Courts have recognized ballot fraud in the past as well, its not some outlandish theory. Its why people are supposed to maintain chain of custody of the ballots.

> you'll have to explain how that equates with your established rights in the US?

Corporations are chartered by the government in exchange for certain privileges and limitations. We already infringe on property rights because an informed population is a public good. QED there is a precedent for requiring a public corporation to host certain kinds of content. For example, foods are required to meet labeling requirements.

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

The right to remove content is potentially dangerous to democracy. See recent events, where a bunch of trump supporters are ever more convinced that an election was stolen because people keep claiming there was no evidence and YouTube has a policy where they state they won't allow anyone to post the evidence that the Biden camp says doesn't exist.

> my rights?

As a GOOG shareholder, you exchanged certain rights for other privileges when the government chartered your corporation and allowed it to traded on the public market while limiting your liability for criminal acts that might be performed by Google employees. In a sense you are taking the benefit of profit and legally protected from liability for the actions that might generate that profit. That arrangement comes at a cost of increased regulation by the government.

[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".

[chordalkeyboard]

Is forcing Jeff Bezos to hire qualified black people and women un-American?

> that would be the basis for the US to stand up its own video publishing platform.

Why not just nationalize YouTube? As a corporation, Google already enjoys special privileges enshrined by law. Lets not pretend to be private property absolutists when the government already limits the liability of shareholders for the actions that bring them profit.

[glennpratt]

Black people and women are humans with equal rights. I believe this is basic humanist morality, but also they are a protected class before the law that can't be discriminated against in many cases. A false video is just a false video. Being a liar is not a protected class.

Why not nationalize YouTube is irrelevant to the conversation, but the end result would be the same. The government would then be providing a self publishing platform.