[HN Gopher] YouTube CEO receives freedom of expression award spo...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube CEO receives freedom of expression award sponsored by
YouTube itself
Author : the-dude
Score : 426 points
Date : 2021-04-20 19:36 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (marketresearchtelecast.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (marketresearchtelecast.com)
| cosmodisk wrote:
| We discussed and I decided that the most worthy person in this
| room is me and therefore I award myself with this amazing award.
| Look at me,you little people,look!
|
| At some point, she'll go home after a long day of executive
| meetings, crash on a sofa and there will be the award placed in
| the most prominent place in her home. She'll look at it, sight
| and say: 'well done me!'.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| The award website.
|
| https://www.freeexpressionawards.org/
| the-dude wrote:
| Featuring : Colin Powell!
|
| However, I searched but found nothing about the award for Susan
| Wojcicki, the YT CEO ( she is listed prominently on the site ).
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I assume that she just got a regular award.
| himinlomax wrote:
| Lying to the UN security council is protected speech!
| melff wrote:
| > YouTube CEO
|
| > freedom of expression
|
| is that a joke? this gotta be some kind of prank right?
| karmasimida wrote:
| This is ridiculous in too many ways. Don't know where to start.
| xbar wrote:
| Congratulations!
| mudil wrote:
| We live in the through the looking glass world, where things are
| also upside down. What's next? Google and Facebook receiving
| Defenders of the Privacy awards?
| bronson wrote:
| This appeared earlier on HN but got squelched:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26875971
| colpabar wrote:
| more discussion here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26875971
|
| notably, the title of that post was changed to omit the fact that
| it was sponsored by youtube.
| the-dude wrote:
| Are you sure about that? Currently it is consistent with the
| Youtube title, which is the HN etiquette ( don't editorialize
| titles ).
| ortusdux wrote:
| The last one linked directly to the video
| it wrote:
| Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_suspensions.
| If you search for "right", there are multiple matches. If you
| search for "left", there are none.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| What point are you trying to make?
| elastolin wrote:
| That YouTube doesn't support freedom of expresion, and it's
| extremely biased towards one end of the political spectrum.
| it wrote:
| YouTube is left biased and you can easily verify it.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| robbyking wrote:
| [Deleted]
| stirfish wrote:
| Copyright, but not copyleft. This confirms YouTube's bias
| towards proprietary software.
| swang wrote:
| lol did you count "human rights activist" in that?
|
| wow why are more right wing people being suspended. its like
| they promote really shitty things like white supremacy
| conspiracy theories
|
| there have been tons of minorities who have had their channels
| taken down, they just don't reach wikipedia level of notoriety
| fionnohGoDeo wrote:
| Things would look different if human left activism and copyleft
| infringements existed though.
| it wrote:
| My comment is still true without those.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Be more specific. Are you saying there are left-wing YouTubers
| who should be suspended who aren't? If so that's a decent
| conversation to have, misapplication of policy to suit
| political ends. But looking at that list, I'm not seeing the
| injustice here.
| AlphaOne1 wrote:
| I think left wing thinkers are not censored as much because
| they are not as successful on YouTube. My pet theory on why
| right leaning channels are more successful in terms of
| viewers on YouTube than left leaning is similar to what
| happened with talk radio. Currently, most conventional news
| media has a distinctly left leaning flavor to it. Left
| leaning thinkers (not liberal per se but what is currently
| the trendy left leaning thinking) has to compete with these
| conventional news organizations. There is a demand for
| alternative voices on the right which is why I think you see
| many more right wing thinkers on YouTube who are successful.
| My point is that if left wing thinkers were successful on
| YouTube to the extent of Crowder et al they would likely be
| censored as well as they would conflict with the narrative of
| traditional media. Not sure if this is correct but a glance
| at top YouTube channels include Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro, and
| Steven Crowder.
| grawprog wrote:
| As utterly brazen, shameless and just completely and utterly
| unself-aware as this is, look on the bright side. A quick glance
| at the like/dislike ratio and comments shows, most people are not
| impressed with that kind of bullshit.
|
| People aren't buying it and overwhelmingly seem to recognize what
| shitty hypocritical utterly bullshit behaviour youtube engages
| in.
| ihsw wrote:
| Dislikes will not be possible in the future:
| https://nypost.com/2021/03/31/youtube-is-testing-removal-of-...
|
| Also, somewhat interestingly:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-disliked_YouTube_...
| grawprog wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised the comments have been allowed to
| remain on for this video. At this point, they're kinda damned
| if they do, damned if they don't. Turning off dislikes and
| comments on the video would prove their hypocrisy, but
| leaving it on shows just how much people hate it.
|
| I've never seen that list before...apparently people really
| hate cocomelon nursery rhymes...it shows up 11 times in that
| list.
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| > apparently people really hate cocomelon nursery
| rhymes...it shows up 11 times in that list.
|
| There's a really plausible explanation for huge dislike
| ratios on videos for children:
|
| Very young children don't understand the UI, they just
| randomly mash buttons.
|
| So a 50/50 like/dislike ratio would represent that
| randomness.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| "may not be possible."
| elliekelly wrote:
| I have nothing nice to say about any Google-owned company but
| is this really all that different from $city's Best $business
| or literally any other corporate "award" that's nothing more
| than thinly-veiled advertising? At least YouTube had the good
| sense to cut out the marketing middle man and just award it to
| themselves.
| grawprog wrote:
| Usually when that kind of corporate feelgood bullshit happens
| though, it's not publicized and isn't done in such an in your
| face, 'lol fuck you everybody' kind of way.
|
| Like literally describes while receiving the award how
| censorship and pandering to corporate advertisers is free
| speech.
|
| Also, typically, most of the time, the thousands of people
| directly negatively affected by the reason for the award
| aren't able to publicly display their disgust.
| junippor wrote:
| https://i.stack.imgur.com/VX6iE.jpg
| nfrankel wrote:
| Colin Powell, Mr "weapons of mass destruction" himself side-by-
| side with Jimmy Lai of Hong-Kong fame.
|
| I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
| varispeed wrote:
| That's the spirit. Yesterday I won the man of the living room
| award sponsored by myself.
| kobieyc wrote:
| This is real pravda stuff
| StandardFuture wrote:
| This is one of those moments in history that future humans look
| back on and wonder how people were "so much more ignorant,
| stupid, gullible, corrupt, etc. than we are today".
|
| Praising yourself for things that you did not actually do is
| analogous to how some ancient kings praised themselves for
| winning a battle that historians later realized they did not
| actually win. Like how did those kings really expect their people
| to just believe that? Because the king's fact checkers verified
| it, of course.
|
| The many self-generated mythologies of the Kim dynasty of North
| Korea is a great example of this phenomenon.
| proc0 wrote:
| So they're afraid people will think YT has no freedom of
| expression, I guess.
|
| Don't they realize this is just them broadcasting an insecurity?
| Nobody who is really XYZ goes around saying "hey everyone, I'm
| XYZ :D", it instantly reduces your cred.
|
| *:just to clarify, I neither agree nor disagree with the award, I
| think it's between really, some areas of YT have nice features,
| others need work.
| gryn wrote:
| next step: youtube to be renamed 'YouTube: The free democratic
| republic of the internet'
| young_unixer wrote:
| """ Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform
| would be "removing information that is problematic".
|
| "Anything that would go against World Health Organization
| recommendations would be a violation of our policy." """
|
| April 2020.
|
| https://www.verdict.co.uk/youtube-coronavirus-ban-who/
| justnotworthit wrote:
| No need to link to past censorship: She celebrated and promoted
| youtube's content restriction in her acceptance speach.
|
| Youtube unironically, whole-heartedly believes that "Censorship
| is Expression". Now the award makes sense. Add it to the "War
| is Peace" list.
| hn8788 wrote:
| Considering that last year the WHO said that healthy people
| don't need to wear masks, that seems ike a pretty stupid policy
| for YouTube to keep.
| thelean12 wrote:
| Why in the world are you still throwing that line out like it
| means anything?
|
| 1. The world was _desperately_ trying to get normal folks to
| stop buying up all the masks to save them for healthcare
| professionals.
|
| 2. Society didn't figure out the homemade mask trend for a
| while, nor did we figure out whether or not homemade masks
| would even work against covid for a while given all the
| factors, including people touching their face with the mask
| or feeling more empowered to interact with people with masks
| on.
|
| 3. At the time, it wasn't known how widespread covid was for
| the general public. Healthcare providers were _massively_
| more at risk and were reusing N95s for months.
|
| Could the orgs have done better with their messaging? Sure.
| But fuck off with this line. It's straight up disinformation
| to suggest that this is a reason not to trust the CDC or WHO
| or whatever.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Let me get this straight: you support Youtube's decision to
| censor accurate criticism of WHO guidelines, because you
| think spreading lies and disinformation served a useful
| purpose? That's despicable.
| thelean12 wrote:
| What are you even saying?
|
| Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of
| whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO
| guidelines?
|
| Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete
| bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few
| bits of fair criticism?
|
| Both options are completely absurd.
| young_unixer wrote:
| Not to mention the contradiction between the CDC and the WHO
| regarding asymptomatic spread.
| 988747 wrote:
| That recommendation turns out to be pretty good advice:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-
| facema...
| thelean12 wrote:
| Do you just look for headlines that confirm what you want
| to be true?
|
| "The findings are consistent with previous research. Health
| experts have long said a mask provides only limited
| protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically
| reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even
| when showing no symptoms."
|
| Whether or not someone is "healthy" is completely
| irrelevant when you count that last part, "even when
| showing no symptoms".
|
| It's not good advice.
| f430 wrote:
| you cannot make this up
| turminal wrote:
| Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/250/ in a way.
| vq wrote:
| http://www.viruscomix.com/page482.html popped into my mind.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Snopes? ok lol
|
| https://archive.md/Wy4GT
|
| https://archive.md/wrEXO
|
| https://archive.is/AqkNf
|
| http://archive.is/HNgc9
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| What a bizarre, two faced world we live in. On one level, the
| fact that an organization exists to give a "freedom of
| expression" award is peculiar in-and-of-itself. But that same
| organization which claims to champion freedom of expression
| doesn't actually do anything to advance the cause of free speech
| on platforms. In fact, it is awarding a CEO of a platform that
| expressly forbids the discussion of anything related to
| _possible_ fraud or lack of integrity in the 2020 election. You
| can 't even talk about it. So on the one hand, they believe
| YouTube "protect freedoms "in all possible ways" while also
| "noted that there must be certain limits". How can a
| contradiction be so blatant?
|
| Ultimately, what is the point of this? Is it some kind of
| Potemkin award meant to normalize censorship _as_ free
| expression? Is it some silly thing apologists of YouTube can
| point to when YouTube is criticized as restricting free speech?
|
| Edit: Even if you despise the people who think the election was
| stolen, preventing those people from discussing it on your
| platform directly contradicts the principle of free expression.
| lrvick wrote:
| Am I the only one that finds it particularly scummy she selected
| a famous blind woman to introduce her sham award?
|
| This feels begging for fan and sympathy likes, though it does not
| appear to be working.
| itronitron wrote:
| Maybe subconsciously she knows that she should be embarrassed
| at receiving the award and doesn't want to be seen receiving
| it.
| devmor wrote:
| I have decided to award myself with the Best At Irony Award.
| williesleg wrote:
| I just gave her the shithead of the year award, she can put that
| on her CV
| nix23 wrote:
| >His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji
| Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of
| the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British
| Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular
| libeclipse wrote:
| https://twitter.com/GordonDimmack/status/1384067464368033800
| the-dude wrote:
| At 22:45CET this submission dropped from #1 to #26.
| teddyh wrote:
| In the other thread about this topic here on HN1, more than one
| commenter said that they didn't comment or downvote this on
| YouTube since it they were afraid it could affect their Google
| account. I commented this on one of them:
|
| This right here. Many people say things like "Google would
| never...", and they might be right. But that's not what matters,
| what matters is people's _beliefs_ about what Google would do.
| And _this_ is why Google should have absolutely _no_ influence
| over your web browser, your programming language, etc. Again,
| that's _perceived_ influence, not actual influence. The fear
| exists regardless.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26875971
| calebm wrote:
| "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and
| not your own lips." (Proverbs 27:2)
| throwawaysea wrote:
| From Reclaim The Net's article on this award
| (https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-ceo-freedom-of-
| expression-...):
|
| > One week before receiving this award, Wojcicki appeared at the
| World Economic Forum's Global Technology Governance Summit 2021
| to discuss how YouTube has ramped up its censorship and called
| for global coalitions to address content that's "legal but could
| be harmful."
|
| Some recent examples of YouTube's support for free expression:
|
| 1. YouTube's policies block ad targeting on Black Lives Matter
| videos https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/youtubes-
| policie...
|
| 2. Scientists From Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton Talked COVID
| With DeSantis. YouTube Deleted It https://pjmedia.com/news-and-
| politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/1...
|
| 3. YouTube Is Wiping Trump's CPAC Speech -- Unless The Videos
| Discredit It https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/05/youtube-is-
| wiping-trump...
|
| 3b. Bonus round: misleading/gaslighting fact check trying to
| claim that YouTube was not censoring CPAC speeches:
| https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-youtube-ban-all-copi...
|
| She definitely seems deserving of recognition for defending the
| freedom of expression /s
| duxup wrote:
| YouTube certainly allows for a heck of a lot of expression that
| could reach a lot of people...
|
| As for industry awards I worked at a company that were members of
| a number of industry award groups. When we were acquired by
| another company maybe half a floor of people were left in what
| was a five floor building.
|
| I and some others gathered up all the awards scattered across the
| building (there were a lot) and decorated our desks with them. To
| their credit when the acquiring company's CEO showed up, he
| thought it was pretty hilarious.
|
| For the record, as long as I worked there I held the record for
| the most "President's Club" awards held by any given employee...
| at least if you count the trophies at my desk.
| [deleted]
| Zealotux wrote:
| This is Galvin Belson level of narcissism.
| the-dude wrote:
| At 23:07CET, this submission dropped to #31, and off the
| frontpage. Finally!
| okprod wrote:
| Almost like airtags to find airtags
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| The lack of self-awareness from tech elites is somehow still
| astonishing.
| rickspencer3 wrote:
| I remember about 20 years ago, I was working at Microsoft, and
| Visual Source Safe won the best code Source Code Repository from
| Visual Source Safe Magazine. Quite the surprising outcome.
| Krisjohn wrote:
| The First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding
| Achievement in the Field of Excellence was comedy, not a
| suggestion.
| [deleted]
| mdeck_ wrote:
| https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/510/176/e33...
| toptal wrote:
| This must be some sort of objective measure of society entering
| into a new era.
| Y_Y wrote:
| The Cretinaceous.
| tgragnato wrote:
| We got a movie about that! Idiocracy (2006)... I'm a huge fan
| kobieyc wrote:
| This film wins my prize for "most accurate prediction of
| the future".
| asdff wrote:
| The older I get the more horrified I am about how well this
| movie is starting to parallel life.
| fullshark wrote:
| The post shame era
| not2personal wrote:
| Clown world man, it's just clowns all the way down.
| culturthrowaway wrote:
| North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has been granted the title of
| marshal, state media reported Wednesday, cementing his status as
| the authoritarian nation's top military official as he makes key
| changes to the million-man force.
|
| The decision to award Kim, who already serves as supreme
| commander of the Korean People's Army, was made Tuesday by the
| nation's top military, government and political officials, state
| media said in a special bulletin.
|
| The formal move to bestow the title of marshal to Kim comes seven
| months into his rule and follows several days of reshuffling at
| the highest levels of the military.
| culturthrowaway wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/search?q=youtube+shadowban
|
| https://old.reddit.com/search?q=youtube+ban
|
| Far from exhaustive, I'm sure this happens quietly to many more
| small creators who've crossed the wrong invisible line, asked
| the wrong good-faith question, or gotten too close to a banned
| subject even while covering something else entirely.
|
| But it should be clear even from what little's made it to be
| documented that what YouTube will suppress has already quietly
| dipped pretty deep into your personal overton window, if you
| ever even pretended to care about real free expression.
| [deleted]
| mikaeluman wrote:
| This award would have made sense when YouTube really took off.
|
| Lately YouTube has engaged in unpersoning - deleting people from
| the social consciousness. Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones come to
| mind. Others have their accounts and videos merely suspended or
| demonetized for inane reasons, e.g Louder with Crowder.
|
| Even doctors merely expressing opinions contrary to WHO
| officialdom get taken off.
|
| This process has happened very quickly over the past few years
| and is the reason why alternatives are set to prosper.
|
| Awarding this CEO merely means the award is not to be taken
| seriously.
| elmomle wrote:
| Yeah, the underlying concern is about the propagation of
| "alternative stories", which tend to spread because of well-
| documented behavioral feedback loops with such stories in
| social media ("controversial" takes get more engagement,
| incentivizing more sharing!).
|
| The actual solution is to legislatively neuter the algorithms
| that power social media. It's harder to do so we're doing the
| awful, dangerous, strategically-unwise thing (censoring)
| instead.
| zarkov99 wrote:
| The problem is that they get it wrong, all the time, and
| always in the same direction. I think the solution is complex
| and includes at least 3 things: 1)treat it as a public health
| problem, that is have campaigns, just like we did for
| cigarettes, explaining how toxic online content can be 2)
| mandate that platforms cannot censor content that is not
| illegal, but also must provide tools so that users can
| protect themselves, if they wish, from content they are
| offended by. 3) and most importantly, start the hard work of
| building trustworthy institutions. We would not be in this
| predicament it it was not plainly obvious that our
| institutions especially media, have rotted beyond redemption.
| joering2 wrote:
| The biggest problem with starting YouTube competitor is
| bandwidth you have to pay for. Even Google has physical servers
| located inside ISPs all around the world with the newest
| version of their videos to save on transfer. But so does
| Netflix!
|
| I am surprised we haven't seen NetFlix take on video social
| network. A YouFlix if you will...
| butt_hugger wrote:
| > Lately YouTube has engaged in unpersoning - deleting people
| from the social consciousness. Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones
| come to mind. Others have their accounts and videos merely
| suspended or demonetized for inane reasons, e.g Louder with
| Crowder.
|
| Is it a coincidence that the two people you cited are Nazis?
| throwaway1959 wrote:
| As a CEO of youtube, she is free to express her views freely on
| youtube, by censoring opinions of other people that she does not
| agree with.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Almost as good as when Blythe Masters tried to be a regulator
| and a perpetrator (or manager thereof) at the same time.
|
| On Second Thought, JPMorgan Executive Won't Advise Commodities
| Regulator
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-07/jpmorgans...
| [deleted]
| libeclipse wrote:
| Freedom of expression includes the right to supress the views
| of others! /s
| anm89 wrote:
| Right. This is actually how it works. Many of us support
| this.
| melff wrote:
| only if the wiews of others are HaTEfuL!!1!11! we must censor
| hAteFUl11!1!!1 content because members of ProTEcTeD gROupS
| are not mentally fit to deal with other people's opinions
| _cough_ I mean because this kind of content is violent and
| harmful.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The right to not be forced to spread the views of others :)
| kobieyc wrote:
| I think there is more nuance to this. The problem is that
| YouTube literally claim "Our mission is to give everyone a
| voice and show them the world." not the selectively
| suppress the views of certain groups. So I think it's
| closer to false advertising.
| modeitsch wrote:
| This is how the entire world of big tech works
| [deleted]
| hintymad wrote:
| I always wonder what makes YouTube/Twitter, in particular its
| so-called reviewers or fact-checkers, think that they are on
| the right side of the history? They are not necessarily better
| informed, they are not necessarily better educated, and they
| are not necessarily better at research, they are not
| necessarily better at interpreting stats. In fact, I question
| if many of them understand scientific research at all. Yet they
| had no problem banning a person for citing a research from
| Stanford that questions the effectiveness of masks. Yet they
| had no problem declaring Florida's governor was spreading
| misinformation in a round-table discussion. Yet they had no
| problem shutting down anyone a year ago who supported wearing
| mask or staying at home, and shutting down anyone now who
| claims the opposite now.
|
| In fact, YouTube, according to BBC, bans any coronavirus-
| related content that directly contradicts World Health
| Organization (WHO) advice. Yet isn't it true that WHO gave
| really bad advice in the early days of Covid-19? Isn't true
| that Taiwan ignored WHO's advice and implemented strict
| containment policy to a great success? Isn't Thailand
| representative harshly criticized WHO for their dubious
| corroboration with Chinese government? What makes YouTube think
| that they possess moral superiority over other people?
| zarkov99 wrote:
| I think the reviewers are mostly low on the tech totem pole
| young people, as ignorant of history or anything outside of
| their neighborhoods as they are certain about their virtue.
| You know, as young people have always been. That they get to
| police what everybody else can say is a serious problem.
| linuxftw wrote:
| They know they're frauds pushing a political agenda, and they
| know if they and their conspirators repeat the same lies over
| and over, the masses will believe them.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| That's a rather cynical view. In my experience, people who
| make false statements with confidence often believe their
| own bullshit.
| samstave wrote:
| Came to say the same thing!
| throwaway122378 wrote:
| Worse than her censorship is our (me included) refusal to
| collectively stand up to this behavior
| fossuser wrote:
| You're being snarky, but this is essentially true (as I
| understand it).
|
| In the US, outside of a few legally protected characteristics,
| a company is free to exercise its speech to choose not to
| provide service to customers it does not wish to.
|
| The government forcing companies to provide service would be a
| violation of their speech rights.
|
| Some companies go out of their way to try to be better than
| that because they recognize the influence they have on public
| access to platforms. (Zuckerberg cares a lot about this:
| https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-
| and-f...), but ultimately all of that is above and beyond what
| the legal expectations are.
|
| In FB's case it wasn't so much a policy change that lead to
| them shutting down Trump's account, but that USG's position as
| a rule of law nation was in question after 1/6 and it no longer
| met their own policy requirements that give elected politicians
| in rule of law democracies a special pass to violate their
| moderation rules.
|
| The irony is this is a variant of the same argument made in the
| gay cake case, but with the political partisanship reversed.
| The notable difference in that case is that sexual orientation
| is a protected characteristic.
| Spivak wrote:
| It's basically an application of freedom vs liberty. You are
| less free as a result of having to follow the rules of the
| road but have greater liberty by being able to travel safely
| and efficiently.
|
| This balance is governance's equivalent of "three hard
| problems."
|
| When it comes to platform moderation it seems like HN at
| large overwhelmingly holds the opinion that for speech
| liberty is maximized with freedom. Which might be right but
| for me personally I've experienced the reality not being able
| myself on the internet because of all the hate I've received.
| The solution has been for my whole life has boiled down to
| "just pretend to be a straight white cis American man" to the
| point of having to use a voice-changer to play videogames
| online. Like it does work and solves the immediate problem.
| But the truth is also that it has gotten a lot better in
| recent years. We're finally out of the "there are no girls on
| the internet" dark ages and I don't know if the ends justify
| the means but something is working.
| mellosouls wrote:
| _The irony is this is a variant of the same argument made in
| the gay cake case, but with the political partisanship
| reversed. The notable difference in that case is that sexual
| orientation is a protected characteristic._
|
| The other far more notable difference is the baker didn't own
| all the cake shops.
| fossuser wrote:
| Eh I don't buy this.
|
| FB isn't the internet and there are a lot of social media
| companies with social media apps.
|
| The protected characteristic is the relevant bit.
| t-writescode wrote:
| And the "gay cake case" would also be closer to not just
| providing cork board space for people to stick pins and
| messages in; but also to require the engineers or CEO
| herself to write down the words that they put on the
| bulletin board, after they're orated to her.
| ng12 wrote:
| The debate is not whether there is a legal requirement for
| YouTube to provide freedom of speech (categorically, there is
| not) but whether that is harmful to society. The concept of
| freedom of expression extends beyond the bound of US law.
| waterhouse wrote:
| Exactly. It makes me uneasy to see all these people who
| seem to have no idea that freedom of speech is or could be
| anything other than a particular law. (That there are
| benefits to having an unrestricted exchange of ideas in
| public, and that censoring some ideas is a slippery slope
| to censoring others.) If that law didn't exist, would it
| occur to them to create it?
| zarkov99 wrote:
| I don't think the analogy holds. A mom and pop shop should be
| given more latitude on who they serve than a communication
| platform monopoly.
| ardit33 wrote:
| "The government forcing companies to provide service would be
| a violation of their speech rights."
|
| -- True, but the government can institute a bill of rights
| for digital platforms, and make it mandatory for companies
| that want to have section 230 protection.
|
| Youtube will be free to choose between following the bill of
| rights, or becoming a regulated media like the TV, or being
| prone to defamation lawsuits and be responsible for its
| content.
|
| What that bill of rights would look like? That's a different
| story... but google, or any tech company, having the power to
| just delete your gmail/email account, and erase all your
| stored data at will it is kinda scary.
|
| There should be a happy medium. We do this for evictions
| already (i.e. there is a process for the eviction, we should
| do something lightweight for the digital space as well). Eg,
| if google has determined you have abused on your email, you
| will have 30 days to retrieve your data, and contacts and
| transfer them somewhere else. Losing access altogether is
| very disruptive.
| Aunche wrote:
| > the government can institute a bill of rights for digital
| platforms, and make it mandatory for companies that want to
| have section 230 protection.
|
| Social Media companies actually want this as well because
| then they can just deflect all unpopular decisions to this
| bill of rights. That's why Facebook spent $700 million to
| create their own content moderation "supreme court."
|
| Congress had every opportunity to explore this issue
| further during the Congressional hearings about section
| 230. Unfortunately, they were more interested in whining
| about why this specific issue should be censored or why
| this specific issue should not be censored.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > Some companies go out of their way to try to be better than
| that because they recognize the influence they have on public
| access to platforms.
|
| If they have that amount of public influence they should be
| broken up, or heavily regulated as public utilities, so that
| they uphold freedom of speech online in the new digital
| public town square.
| leereeves wrote:
| > a company is free to exercise its speech
|
| It wasn't always like that. We used to have rules like common
| carrier restricting the phone company, the fairness doctrine
| restricting television networks, and campaign finance rules
| restricting other media.
|
| We truly live in the golden age of corporate power.
| bogwog wrote:
| > the fairness doctrine restricting television networks
|
| We seriously need that one back
| [deleted]
| andrewstuart wrote:
| The sense of entitlement is sadly so expected these days.
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| My current theory is ' tragedy of the commons ' applied to
| debt.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Please explain that.
|
| And please explain what's going on with those quotes.
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| The quotes are just to indicate its the general concept of
| tragedy of the commons.
|
| The parent comment reads as if they are appalled by a
| decline in virtue these days. And looking at America
| through the lens of the internet I tend to agree that
| things are not that great for the median person.
|
| Mass consumer debt is a recent invention. I call it a
| tragedy of the common because every lender wanted to get in
| on it ( Its very profitable after all ). Having a saturated
| pool drives lenders not to compete on price, but on their
| ability to enlarge the pool of people to lend money to.
|
| I don't believe people are naturally entitled, but (money)
| stress shortcircuits the brain. It allows people to do
| things that they know suck for other people. ( And it makes
| them dumber overall, but that's another discussion entirely
| )
|
| And i know, one sentence isn't going to cover the infinity
| complex situation. But i feel that push to normalize
| consumer debt but the US on an inevitable path of
| normalizing individual greed. That what andrewstuart
| noticed.
| fullshark wrote:
| I don't see how any of these things are connected
| spamizbad wrote:
| The citizenry support this stance. The cult of personality
| around people like Trump on the right, even center-left has a
| catch phrase "<center/left politician> doesn't owe you
| anything!" -- uh no, they do: they are public servants!
| darig wrote:
| Then why is it called the "Do Nothing Congress"?
| rajacombinator wrote:
| Giving yourself awards is kinda awesome. We need more of this.
| Silicon Valley has been a bit boring lately.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I'd be curious to see how Musk or Jobs executed on that idea.
| ofou wrote:
| 15 likes vs 15.000 DISLIKE, the ratio speak by itself.
|
| https://youtu.be/xDcvPf78g1k
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-20 23:02 UTC)