I personally don't buy this "free speech" speech, since free speech applies to the government, not to a public entity.
Youtube is free to make any rules they want and to enforce them however they want. They don't owe you anything and you can stop using it at any point in time (which I actually encourage you to do - but for a completely different set of reasons). You watch content, they show you ads and get money for the ads. That's it. You don't like the content or the lack of content you are free to, again, move to another site/platform/social network/etc.
It's amazing to me how much people are willing to entertain this charade that was started after the elections. It's also amazing to see the mental gymnastics involved to explain some of the things that were done and/or said. This is not 4D chess.
Youtube should get to do what they want as long as they operate withing the laws of the countries they are running their service within. I still have not seen the law that was broken here.
Sure, making stuff up takes very little effort, and refuting it properly takes more. Makes sense.
But what if it’s not as simple as “this side is making everything up, and the other side is 100% honest”.
You could easily turn that argument around and say that the right is going to great lengths to have their evidence investigated, while the left is just trying to make it go away. Surely “energy expended” is not a great metric for judging bullshit.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not making a “free speech” argument. Of course YouTube is free to curate whatever they want to, and competitors are free to provide alternatives for users that want that. THAT is free speech.
My argument was not “YouTube can’t legally do this”, it was more trying to appeal to this notion some folks have that a topic of discussion merely existing is dangerous, and that somehow removing all of that discussion will eliminate that danger.
It also removes any possibility of the side removing the discussion from ever having to assess the validity of their facts, which logically and naturally means the other side will never have to assess and defend the validity of their argument either. Hello tribalism.
You don’t disprove flat earthers by telling them they aren’t allowed to ever talk about the shape of the earth, because naturally people will come up with the idea on their own, time and again, and forbidding it only lends itself to greater conviction.
Instead, sufficiently convince a large enough group of people through reason and evidence that the Earth is round, and those few people who willingly ignore the evidence will be too small and too fringe to be dangerous.
The danger is not in asking questions, the danger is in forbidding questions.
hey, thanks for your well articulated noninflammatory comment.
I agree with you on some points but as always there is a lot of nuance to things.
> But what if it’s not as simple as “this side is making everything up, and the other side is 100% honest”.
I don't think there are many absolute truths. Even in science, things that we thought were true change - all the time. It's not about being 100% correct. As far as honesty goes there is always an agenda.
> You could easily turn that argument around and say that the right is going to great lengths to have their evidence investigated, while the left is just trying to make it go away. Surely “energy expended” is not a great metric for judging bullshit.
I disagree. I don't see this as a right or a left issue. I see it as working with each other for an outcome that makes everyone's lives better. Energy expended is a great metric. Can you explain why all Americans had to pay attention all day, every day, to what I would describe as at best a clown? Why not put the American people ahead and do the right thing? Why did we turn an institution that is supposed to be one of the foundations of this country into a reality show?
There is a time and a place to investigate and ask questions and a time and a place to just, you know, accept reality. There was ample time to do this before the elections. Before judging if youtube could of, should of, let's ask ourselves what are the possible outcomes here? You either damage out democracy and freedom or you damage our democracy and freedom. Great choices.
> Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not making a “free speech” argument. Of course YouTube is free to curate whatever they want to, and competitors are free to provide alternatives for users that want that. THAT is free speech.
My argument was not “YouTube can’t legally do this”, it was more trying to appeal to this notion some folks have that a topic of discussion merely existing is dangerous, and that somehow removing all of that discussion will eliminate that danger.
You are free to discuss whatever you want. We are all free to talk about what we think happened, what should have happened, what is wrong with x and y. The fundamental problem is that when you come into my house and start arguing with me I have the right to kick you out. My house, my rules. Swap my house with youtube. That's all. I didn't attach any moral value of good or wrong to what they did. Content is moderated and "censored" all day, every day and nobody bats an eyelid. But because it's Google (ie BigTech) w/ youtube let's climb on our moral high horse and talk principles.
> Hello tribalism.
You know this but I'll point it out anyway. If you think that all people have the same experience when they google for something or when they watch youtube you're in for a shock. The same machines that censor you, learn what you like and surface content that is similar. We are all already in a bubble.
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/01/28/bullshit-a...
I personally don't buy this "free speech" speech, since free speech applies to the government, not to a public entity.
Youtube is free to make any rules they want and to enforce them however they want. They don't owe you anything and you can stop using it at any point in time (which I actually encourage you to do - but for a completely different set of reasons). You watch content, they show you ads and get money for the ads. That's it. You don't like the content or the lack of content you are free to, again, move to another site/platform/social network/etc.
It's amazing to me how much people are willing to entertain this charade that was started after the elections. It's also amazing to see the mental gymnastics involved to explain some of the things that were done and/or said. This is not 4D chess.
Youtube should get to do what they want as long as they operate withing the laws of the countries they are running their service within. I still have not seen the law that was broken here.