[ahthat]

Very sad. The internet was crafted and promoted in a spirit of radical social experimentation, where all kinds of ideas could be shared at light-speed all over the world, each man could have a mouthpiece, and we'd have access to the greatest library of unfiltered information ever devised.

These internet companies have ridden the crest of this wave of revolution in human thinking, many glorifying their interest in human revolutions along the way.

As private enterprises these companies have the right to police their platforms, but they betray the spirit that gave wind to this experiment in human Idea.

And now we are seeing the grand experiment failing.

The last 245 years have seen a great experiment in society and freedom, with the society to speak freely, and that the Market of Ideas might itself guide truth, arbitration by the few kept to a minimum. The Internet has been the culmination of this experiment. We are in danger of failing it today.

I say WE, because it is ultimately us today collectively, with however much influence we can afford to effect, many Americans and also citizens of the world, that hold within our power to determine for good or for ill the course of our time in the span of the generations. It is US: We are the ones who are fated to determine whether a world society can truly withstand free discourse or crumble utterly beneath it, that the individual of society today might have in his ability in the greater average to discern Truth where the matter is up to his faculties, and that this Truth may will out from the collective good minds and hearts of all men upon this Earth. This is the moment in history, let us not fail this chance to today together continue to craft the free societies of tomorrow with good faith in the heart of mankind. If enough of us do our part honestly, there is a good chance that the generations of tomorrow might look on this moment and say, "In this time, the goodness of humanity prevailed." WBS

[jcranmer]

> The last 245 years have seen a great experiment in society and freedom, with the society to speak freely, and that the Market of Ideas might itself guide truth, arbitration by the few kept to a minimum. The Internet has been the culmination of this experiment. We are in danger of failing it today.

Since that date seems to be calibrated to refer to the existence of the US, I am assuming that this means you believe that the US has been the leading paragon for tolerance of speech.

At which point, I have to ask... have you really never heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? If you're unfamiliar, this is US legislation that criminalized criticism of the US government (bonus points for being largely the same people to have written the First Amendment). Or have you not heard of Schenck v. US, which immortalized the popular refrain "shouting fire in a crowded theater"... upholding a prosecution for criticizing the draft in WWI.

The broad reading of the First Amendment to forbid really any inhibition of any form of speech actually doesn't really start until the 1930s.

[ahthat]

Indeed those are altogether terrible. Truly, utterly bad things have happened. The United States has not always been that paragon, for how could it? No one person is without fault, how could any country or people not have committed inexcusable actions? It' deplorable.

But today, where it is in my power, I'll take up the mantle of the good if I can, as well as I can, with the best arguments I can muster, to argue reasonably what I think is correct. Free speech, with its ups and downs, if its a thing we cherish today, let it be a thing we today cherish, and let us who cherish it do what we can to ensure that those who inherit the world we today create have greater access to the cherishable thing.

[tptacek]

The second paragraph of this comment works especially well if you read it aloud (maybe just in your head) in Mayor Quimby's voice. I'm serious, try it!

[tablespoon]

> Very sad. The internet was crafted and promoted in a spirit of radical social experimentation, where all kinds of ideas could be shared at light-speed all over the world, each man could have a mouthpiece, and we'd have access to the greatest library of unfiltered information ever devised.

"The greatest library of unfiltered information ever devised," is only a marginal improvement on the Library of Babel (e.g. an impressive but useless thing that causes its enthusiasts to go mad).

> These internet companies have ridden the crest of this wave of revolution in human thinking, many glorifying their interest in human revolutions along the way.

> As private enterprises these companies have the right to police their platforms, but they betray the spirit that gave wind to this experiment in human Idea.

> And now we are seeing the grand experiment failing.

That experiment is failing just as much due to its own internal contradictions as it is to any kind action by internet companies.

[zozbot234]

Meh. YouTube is only one site among millions. They're a profit-seeking business, not a charity. They're under no obligation to host Dan Bongino's video content, given that they have clear policies against posting health-related content that's widely discredited as misinformation.

[xiphias2]

A few years ago I would have agreed, but all the top sites (which means the best ones technically) share the banning information with eachother.

[ahthat]

I'm disinclined to think that a world in which we do not speak against the consolidation of the arbitration of truth to small groups of individuals is a good one, and its a particularly icy form of irony where such groups of individuals gained power on the back of the wave of freedom of information.

They're doing nothing illegal, I'll still speak out what I observe to be sad unfolding of events.

[throwawaysea]

The thing is social media, including YouTube, is the new public square. Exercising our fundamental civil liberties like free speech means exercising them on places like social media. Otherwise those rights are simply not as useful. Social media has a massive impact on our society, including on politics. If it doesn't have that impact, then why bother censoring someone at all? I also think platforms above some size simply should not be able to ban people in order to make Democracy work.

Another angle here is that social media companies are ultimately just plain old telecom companies. We regularly regulate private businesses and limit the ways in which they conduct business. Your electrical utility is not allowed to deny you service based on your political opinion. These companies shouldn't be able to do so either, as they are common carriers (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/16/conclusion-social-media...).

Additionally, social media is built on network effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). The larger the network, the stronger the service, but also the higher the barriers to entry. Businesses built on network effects inherently face limited competition and must be regulated since they do not face competition as much.

Finally, our government is already censoring speech by hiding their influence through these social media companies. Tech companies have an incentive to play nicely with the government, since they might otherwise face difficulties like anti-trust action. Glenn Greenwald had written extensively about this proxy censorship:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-in-a-five-hour-hea...

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...

[zozbot234]

Some social media companies could indeed have their "platform" components broken off from the rest and run in a 'fair and neutral' way, but not YouTube. The whole value of that "platform" is in the algorithmic content promotion and curation they do, and that promotion relies critically on "harmonious community" policies. Otherwise, they're not inherently different than Rumble.

[ahthat]

Indeed they do.

The problem is their betrayal of the spirit of the internet. We built the internet with a vision of optimism, but now that the vision is in danger. When things become difficult for only a moment, we abandon that spirit altogether. For shame. It'd be much better if their service didn't abandon it. The Internet has been the great social experiment of our time. I'll take any opportunity to speak out against actions that diminish free and open discourse.

[gremlinsinc]

yeah, you're right. Maybe we should socialize all internet companies. Capitalism has failed, no?/s (some, I'd love more socialism personally, or at least worker-owned co-ops or worker/content-producer in this instance)....

but I mean you need some censureship else you get child porn up there. which makes immutable blockchain horrible for video ...

I think though a more democratic org that all it's users can vote on bans, etc could be more fair...

[ahthat]

That's a good idea. I'm not for the socialization of internet companies. What Youtube and other companies are doing is not illegal and well within their rights as the law is currently.

But it is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of the promise of the internet as a forum of open discourse, and signifies a loss of faith in humankind's ability to discern truth, in humankind's ability to reason, for individual's to make up their own minds.

Indeed we need some censorship for things like what you described, it's a matter of what is reasonable, and what is reasonable is to be determined collectively in the discourses of society. Again, what Youtube and other companies are doing is not illegal, but it runs counter to every notion of what the open forum is meant to be. It's a sad sign. A line is being tiptoed across, and it is important that we openly argue the points and consequences.

[josephcsible]

> but I mean you need some censureship else you get child porn up there.

Nobody here objects to websites taking down illegal content. We're complaining about when they take down content that's perfectly legal.