[waterhouse]

I see. Then I think you're misunderstanding the position of those you're arguing against. Well, I don't know exactly what throwaway1959 believes, but he criticized Youtube's CEO for "censoring opinions of other people that she does not agree with". He did not say that the government should do anything about it; that was something you mentioned.

I don't know if this is a common misconception or if something else is going on, but it's fairly common for one person to say it's bad for a company to suppress free speech, and someone else to reply that it's not illegal for the company to do that, as if that were a counterargument. Is it believed that saying something is bad = saying it should be illegal? Not only is that a bad policy, it contradicts the ideal of freedom of speech itself: that bad speech should be allowed. I don't understand how someone could believe a free speech advocate would think that (other than by understanding them poorly or having a low opinion of their logical consistency).

For illustration, here's an entire article titled "The YouTube Ban Is Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire", 2300 words—none of which says that Youtube's actions are illegal, or should be, or even mentions the First Amendment. I think this is the position of free speech advocates generally: that suppressing free speech is bad and that those who do it should be criticized and shamed but not punished (unless it's the government, in which case it may be illegal). https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american...

[gonehome]

I think I understand the position, but the implication is often that it should not be allowed or that it is bad.

The core idea is I think YouTube should have the power to moderate their platform and that that is a form of legally protected speech (a private company deciding how to run itself).

People can disagree with YouTube's policies or moderation, but that's a personal opinion about their policies with regard to what they allow on their platform. I don't think it's that big of a deal for them to block stuff that makes the platform a worse place to be and they have the power to determine what that is.

If they block stuff I find interesting, for example if they blocked videos about cryptocurrencies, I would think that's a dumb rule and I wouldn't want to support them on that, but they should have the ability to make that decision. If they blocked critical videos about China I would think that's unethical and wrong. Their ability to Block/moderate in general though? That's a tool they should have and should use.

Private companies setting policy on what's allowed on their platforms is exercising a form of speech. I don't think private companies should be forced to allow any speech from any users or that that is even desirable. Communities without moderation suck.

The government should not compel speech - compelling companies to provide services is a form of violating free speech. I find this more objectionable than YouTube blocking stuff that violates their ToS.

I also think "censoring opinions of people that she does not agree with" is misleading enough to be false. Banning people like Steve Bannon or Alex Jones is not some sort of ban of good faith intellectual disagreement - it's just banning trolls.

[adamcstephens]

This presumed that private corporations have rights. I’d posit that they do not. They are legal, government created entities, which is different than the individual persons the Bill of Rights was written for. Furthermore, why would we want to grant the power to limit speech to private corporations when we don’t allow governments to do so? The latter is a democratically elected group while the former is almost the complete opposite.

These corporations are as big as governments, but y’all want to give them the rights of individuals. Only they’re run like top-down oligarchies with little to no accountability for their actions.

[waterhouse]

Well, we agree that the company should be allowed to set whatever policies they want, ban whoever they want, etc., and that it would violate their rights—arguably speech rights—for the government to compel them to unban anyone in particular (unless they signed a contract and the banning violated that contract, but I'm sure they have all the necessary CYA clauses in anything they sign).

That said...

> I think I understand the position, but the implication is often that it should not be allowed or that it is bad.

I just said that "it should not be allowed" and "it is bad" are very different things, and I think it's important to maintain that distinction. It's not entirely clear to me whether you do. (If you do, then I think you'd agree that it's a rather uncharitable assumption to make of one's interlocutor that his criticism was meant to imply "and the law should stop them" when it could just as easily have meant "they suck and I want everyone to know that".)

Here's an incomplete list of things that are bad but that the law should never disallow: mediocre parenting, getting unhealthily fat, insulting strangers for no reason, getting into a romantic relationship with someone you know wants something long-term and planning to dump them soon, cutting corners in products, making bloated websites, supporting political causes I don't like, encouraging people to invest in programming languages I don't like, etc.

There are pragmatic reasons to not disallow those things. In many cases, enforcement would necessarily be (a) very subjective, and therefore open to abuse, (b) require a very powerful police state, and/or (c) create a slippery slope of "Well, if we already disallow that, then surely also ..." that tends toward totalitarianism. (I suspect those who think "bad" = "should be disallowed" will end up convincing themselves either that a lot of these things should be outlawed, and become totalitarian morality police, or that a lot of these things aren't really bad, and become amoral. I suspect that this actually happens to some degree, but that the damage is limited because many people don't think very much about their beliefs.)

However, if that's your only defense against such policies, then you're vulnerable to special pleading. "This particular description of 'bad behavior' sounds objective, and at least the first step towards policing it doesn't require any significant police state growth, and of course we have no intention of extending the policy further [or of getting replaced in the next election by those who would]." If you're not as sophisticated as your opponent, or less prepared on a particular issue, or if your audience finds the concept of police state growth laughable rather than scary, then you may be caught flat-footed in a debate.

Instead, we have a conception of legal property rights and what counts as "violence" that more or less decides all these issues. Legal encroachments on these rights are bad, and at the very least they require extremely rigorous justification, which should be rarely achieved in practice. I think this is the only stance that is likely to hold up long-term against special pleading; though I think the majority of people aren't properly educated about the merits of this stance, and they tend to elect politicians that cheerfully grab power to fight the villains of the quarter (Terrorists! Copyright pirates! Child abusers! Insurrectionists! Rioters!).

> If they blocked critical videos about China I would think that's unethical and wrong.

I agree, but do you think that should be illegal? (I don't.) And if not, then what recourse do people have? Publicly complaining about it to try to change Youtube's mind seems like an obvious thing to try; beyond that, make or join an alternative to Youtube and try to convince others to do so. This is difficult to make work, partly due to network effects.

I do suspect that there are legal barriers to entry (that strengthen the network effects) that should not exist. For example, what if I made a Mytube, which did its best to interoperate with Youtube? E.g. it would show the like counts and comments of Youtube users, and if you commented on Mytube then it would show up on Youtube. Users could have a unified client that would see everything on Youtube as well as Mytube, and for the most part not notice or care which website stuff was actually stored on. I suspect Youtube would claim that using the unified client violated their terms of service; I think this is where we might say that the website cannot make a legally enforceable distinction between a user clicking buttons on a browser to send HTTP requests to their website, and a user clicking buttons on a unified client to send HTTP requests to their website, and that while they can try to detect when the unified client renders their webpage in an embedded browser and scrapes the DOM for the like counts and such, it's a cat-and-mouse game they might not win.

But if that's impossible, then making very strong public criticism seems like the main tool that disgruntled users have against a monopolistic platform. Do you have other suggestions?

[gonehome]

I think we are largely (maybe entirely?) in agreement.

Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts/argument.