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?
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".
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.
> 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.
Okay, what about if I decide that your post leans too socialist, and contains dangerous anti-freedom misinformation? Would you be open to being silenced then? If the boot is on the other foot, do you have an issue? To make it more plain: if the other team gets into power, and starts using these laws against you, would you then start to see the benefit in having a basic standard of human right to speak freely?
> 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.
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.