[rosndo]

>discussing interrogation techniques

Spreading misinformation about interrogation techniques in a sort-of educational format.

> How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read.

We can, of course. I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute, and this is a fairly reasonable thing to choose not to distribute.

[sennight]

> I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute...

Sort of like a publisher, right? Well that sounds totally reasonable for a publisher to... oh. Might wanna rethink that one - it would be a shame to lose that sweet sweet platform protection.

[rosndo]

In a hypothetical world where you’re right, why would that not kill sites like HN? And if it would, is that a good outcome?

[effingwewt]

How is a very real situation at all hypothetical? Because it goes against the narrative you're screaming?

Pick one. You are a publisher or a platform. The days of companies having their cake and eating it too need to be over.

Also, HN's an aggregator, at least come with legit comparisons if you want to even try and make a salient point, for once.

And if getting rid of HN meant all of this shit would end, I'd forget it existed. Youtube made itself a lynch-pin of society by begging us to join and host our videos in the beginning, then they got so big they felt they didn't need us, and the censor waves began.

Now they've taken away dislike counts solely to appease companies buying ads on their platform.

I absolutely love how you are all for censorship of videos on YouTube, but you seem to abhor the thought of HN going away.

You are willing to silence people whom you disagree with, but heaven forbid they come for the platform you happen to use :)

[rosndo]

What you’re suggesting is not in line with current legislation, it’s just mere fantasy.

But if we lived in a world where your fantasy came true, how could any moderated discussion board exist?

> I absolutely love how you are all for censorship of videos on YouTube, but you seem to abhor the thought of HN going away.

These two are the same. HN wouldn’t exist without all the hours put into censorship by dang.

[sennight]

Current legislation is selectively enforced - pointing to a lack of enforcement only weakens your position. There are a lot of major distinguishing differences between HN and Youtube, but one of the most obvious is the way HN has a narrowly tailored scope - it is a platform for a very specific kind of content. You have the direct opposite (originally) for Youtube - unbound scope with narrowly defined no-go zone (illegal and copywrite protected material).

[rosndo]

This isn’t about selective enforcement, the current legislation simply does not work the way you would like it to work.

> You have the direct opposite (originally) for Youtube - unbound scope with narrowly defined no-go zone (illegal and copywrite protected material).

This isn’t true, youtube has a far bigger no-go zone than you suggest.

[throwaway73838]

What if I deem your comment to be misinformation because it could lead to people developing capitalistic tendencies? Would you have a problem then?

[joshuamorton]

You can deem whatever you want. You don't run HN, so its not really relevant.

[throwaway73838]

But if I did run HN and had you de-platformed - would you be singing the same tune? You cheer for authoritarianism now, but what happens if the narrative shifts against you?

[joshuamorton]

I mean, I have been told by HN that some of my comments weren't appropriate and I needed to stop making them and I did. So empirically the answer here is "yes".

[throwaway73838]

What about if I decided to remove your access to the internet in case you continue to espouse your pro-capitalist thinking? Would you have an issue then?

If I am reading your comments correctly, it seems that you would have no issue with being silenced by an authority, regardless of the justification used or its validity, per se. I don’t think this is an intellectually honest position to hold.

[joshuamorton]

> What about if I decided to remove your access to the internet in case you continue to espouse your pro-capitalist thinking? Would you have an issue then?

Who are you in this case? The government? (Also as an aside "pro-capitalist" being applied to me of all people is a good one. I'm taking a pro-free-expression opinion here, not a particularly capitalist one).

> it seems that you would have no issue with being silenced by an authority, regardless of the justification used or its validity,

Depends on the authority and what you mean by "issue". Governments, no. That's problematic. Issue? I take issue with many things I ultimately believe people should be allowed to do.

[effingwewt]

You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant?

For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken.

You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful.

[joshuamorton]

> You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful.

I'm a different person. I don't have an axe to grind. I'm not dictating anything misinformation or not. Neither was the other person.

> For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken

Then why would we be talking about videos YouTube removed for being misinformation?

> You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant?

I believe the statement made was "YouTube has the right to choose what they distribute". You also have that right. So do I. I don't need to run YouTube (or HN) to believe they have those rights. You or I can deem whatever we wish, and you'd be correct: it isn't relevant.

[effingwewt]

You are indeed a different person, my apologies.

We are discussing a video being removed, the other poster was the one acreaming about it being misinformative. They have no idea why or even what videos were stricken, they were simply gloating.

This is beyond a platform having the right or not, they can indeed choose what to host. Byt once you start labeling videos as misinformation or censoring and removing them, you male yourself the arbiter of truth.

I personally do not want an ad company deciding anything for me, not ever.

A label would be one thing, but removing videos on a whim (which happens every single day- reasons are almost never given, and the rules arw arbitrary).

Also, comparing a person to a huge public square (youtube is very much an online public square) is very disingenuous. If I choose not to believe something (my version of 'allowing something on my platform or not), it wouldn't effectively silence that person, as it does when videos and channels are nixed.