[makeitdouble]

> trust platforms

Framing it in terms of trust is already problematic.

We don't trust the NYTimes or Washington Post, they are a source of information that needs to be taken with shovels of salt and require additional research to get to anything trustworthy. And we always understood that was their role.

We don't trust supermarkets or retailers to give us important pricing information, we do the research to get anything actionable.

Why is trust involved for YouTube ?

[hsbauauvhabzb]

Because unlike NYT or Washington post, anybody can upload a video in seconds, which implies a reasonable level of freedom of speech.

[throwaway290]

How is freedom of speech lead to trust? it's more the opposite, when it's free for all anyone can lie and have their lie amplified.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

Because in order for freedom of speech you also need freedom for people to say dumb and abhorrent things. There are some clear bad things like hate speech, and Grey things like Covid conspiracies, maybe they should be banned, but removal of w11 bypasses sends a clear message that google is the lapdog for other big businesses.

[throwaway290]

exactly.

and it is why total freedom of speech on a platform does not mean we can trust it. maybe even the opposite because people who tell a lie are more motivated (money or whatever)

I am not justifying w11 video removal I'm just saying thinking youtube trustworthy because it's open to everybody is a mistake

[oddmiral]

Lies and other harmful speech are against freedom of speech.

[throwaway290]

That's an interesting way of looking at things. Now we just need to have some sort of arbiter who decides what is harmful and what is true eh?

[oddmiral]

Why not just a quick duel?

[throwaway290]

I'll go arm the icbm