7 ms·

Silencing people and pretending it’s OK is not going to work. It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. The math doesn’t work out

Silencing people and pretending it’s OK is not going to work. It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. The math doesn’t work out long term.

tw04 5y ago
Rewind 100 years: what was your avenue for “being heard”? The radio and newspapers had no obligation to regurgitate your thoughts. Nobody is stopping him from touring the country to spread his message. Same as it always was. I personally post 0 on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube and I manage to get by in life just fine.
- dolni 5y ago
  Radios and newspapers also did not present themselves as a way for the average person to make themselves heard. But you are onto something here - the problem is that there is a massive disparity in the power of an individual's discourse versus a radio or newspaper. Now look at YouTube and Twitter. They amplify the voices of many average people, but only those who tow their political line. This makes it appear as though some ideas are more widely supported than they actually are. It's the same problem as with radio and newspapers, but it is exacerbated more than 1000 fold.
- repsilat 5y ago
  Sure, "no obligation", I think their critics agree with you there. This isn't a conversation about rights, it's a conversation about values. This action shows that Youtube doesn't strongly value being a neutral platform, and people are disappointed.
repsilat 5y ago
I don't know. I agree that refusing to do business with someone is a finite source of political power, but the cost is short-lived. The video gets taken down, but once the news cycle completes the creator will upload to Youtube next time around, and the positive economies to scale (network effects) make limited, repeated application of this power sustainable. I think it's counter-productive because of my politics, but I don't think it's ineffective or futile.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
roenxi 5y ago
> It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. This is true, but it is an important topic so here is another angle to consider: YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. They are going to get stuff really wrong from time to time, and eventually are going to censor important information - if they haven't already, it is hard to tell. Case in point, censors generally aren't bought in to hit stuff that is obviously wrong. Everyone knows that sort of content is garbage and only watches it for a laugh (think flat earthers). They are coming in for stuff where the available evidence makes it difficult to tell what is true or not (eg, ivermectin). They're going to make some horrible mistakes playing at that game, because by nature of what they are targeting, some of it is going to be factual content.
- kyle_martin1 5y ago
  Deciding what is right or wrong is the issue. YouTube isn’t transparent nor consistent about this. Social Media are publications due to their extreme efforts in curating content and speech topics. They need to be regulated as such.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. I thought Facebook & Google were outsourcing the censoring to low budget contracting firms in poorer states, so they could keep the spend at a minimum?
zuminator 5y ago
Deplatforming isn't the same as silencing. At no point in history before the 21st century did the average person think that they had a right to have their speech carried to the entire human race. We have a basic right to generally not be prevented from speaking, yes. (A right which does not extend to defamation, fraud, violent threats and other grossly harmful things) But have we ever had a basic human right to oblige any information channel of our choosing to carry our speech? Regardless of the import of our words? No. And -- if I am similarly deplatformed for harmful speech, that's a good thing. Bad personal consequences are a just outcome of bad personal behavior, made more just if the same applies to everyone, friends and foes alike. It's an intrinsic aspect of the social contract. As always, I invite people to look at Usenet as an example of what happens when a platform carries everything. People stopped going there because after the advent of bots, it was completely overrun with V1AGR4 ads. Try getting your speech heard when there's 99.999% noise to signal. It's silencing of a different sort.
- kyle_martin1 5y ago
  "Deplatforming" is just a roundabout way of saying "you're not welcome here because we don't agree with your speech". YouTube's criteria of what is and is not harmful is the issue.
Abroszka 5y ago
In Europe, in many places it's illegal to deny the holocaust. Sometimes it's more important to remember what happened than our right to free speech.
robbrown451 5y ago
Well we have some serious short term issues. To me, the internet is to the First Amendment as nuclear weapons are to the Second. Neither were anticipated when the Bill of Rights was written. In the 18th century, no one knew people might invent weapons that could kill on such a scale and at such distance. No one knew people could make a beheading video and instantly share it with millions. No one anticipated algorithms that could amplify the worst human impulses to such a degree. I'd love to see these problems solved in a better way. Here at Hacker New we have a half decent algorithm for promoting quality content based on upvotes and downvotes and flags and karma and such. When that fails, we have Dang's good judgement as a backup. That's censorship too, and it makes this a better place. It's not perfect, but if you were to take the approach of "any censorship is wrong" approach, Hacker News wouldn't be very pleasant. YouTube is at a much larger scale, but they have a right to do something. Presumably you are ok with them disallowing beheading videos. What about videos encouraging suicide and providing "help"? What about videos telling people how to make chemical weapons? What about videos planning government overthrows? Where do you draw the line? I don't necessarily have a long term solution, but I support them taking some short term measures.

Silencing people and pretending it’s OK is not going to work. It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. The math doesn’t work out long term.

tw04 5y ago

Rewind 100 years: what was your avenue for “being heard”? The radio and newspapers had no obligation to regurgitate your thoughts. Nobody is stopping him from touring the country to spread his message. Same as it always was. I personally post 0 on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube and I manage to get by in life just fine.

dolni 5y ago
Radios and newspapers also did not present themselves as a way for the average person to make themselves heard. But you are onto something here - the problem is that there is a massive disparity in the power of an individual's discourse versus a radio or newspaper. Now look at YouTube and Twitter. They amplify the voices of many average people, but only those who tow their political line. This makes it appear as though some ideas are more widely supported than they actually are. It's the same problem as with radio and newspapers, but it is exacerbated more than 1000 fold.
repsilat 5y ago
Sure, "no obligation", I think their critics agree with you there. This isn't a conversation about rights, it's a conversation about values. This action shows that Youtube doesn't strongly value being a neutral platform, and people are disappointed.

repsilat 5y ago

I don't know. I agree that refusing to do business with someone is a finite source of political power, but the cost is short-lived. The video gets taken down, but once the news cycle completes the creator will upload to Youtube next time around, and the positive economies to scale (network effects) make limited, repeated application of this power sustainable. I think it's counter-productive because of my politics, but I don't think it's ineffective or futile.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 5y ago

> It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. This is true, but it is an important topic so here is another angle to consider: YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. They are going to get stuff really wrong from time to time, and eventually are going to censor important information - if they haven't already, it is hard to tell. Case in point, censors generally aren't bought in to hit stuff that is obviously wrong. Everyone knows that sort of content is garbage and only watches it for a laugh (think flat earthers). They are coming in for stuff where the available evidence makes it difficult to tell what is true or not (eg, ivermectin). They're going to make some horrible mistakes playing at that game, because by nature of what they are targeting, some of it is going to be factual content.

kyle_martin1 5y ago
Deciding what is right or wrong is the issue. YouTube isn’t transparent nor consistent about this. Social Media are publications due to their extreme efforts in curating content and speech topics. They need to be regulated as such.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. I thought Facebook & Google were outsourcing the censoring to low budget contracting firms in poorer states, so they could keep the spend at a minimum?

zuminator 5y ago

Deplatforming isn't the same as silencing. At no point in history before the 21st century did the average person think that they had a right to have their speech carried to the entire human race. We have a basic right to generally not be prevented from speaking, yes. (A right which does not extend to defamation, fraud, violent threats and other grossly harmful things) But have we ever had a basic human right to oblige any information channel of our choosing to carry our speech? Regardless of the import of our words? No. And -- if I am similarly deplatformed for harmful speech, that's a good thing. Bad personal consequences are a just outcome of bad personal behavior, made more just if the same applies to everyone, friends and foes alike. It's an intrinsic aspect of the social contract. As always, I invite people to look at Usenet as an example of what happens when a platform carries everything. People stopped going there because after the advent of bots, it was completely overrun with V1AGR4 ads. Try getting your speech heard when there's 99.999% noise to signal. It's silencing of a different sort.

kyle_martin1 5y ago
"Deplatforming" is just a roundabout way of saying "you're not welcome here because we don't agree with your speech". YouTube's criteria of what is and is not harmful is the issue.

Abroszka 5y ago

In Europe, in many places it's illegal to deny the holocaust. Sometimes it's more important to remember what happened than our right to free speech.

robbrown451 5y ago

Well we have some serious short term issues. To me, the internet is to the First Amendment as nuclear weapons are to the Second. Neither were anticipated when the Bill of Rights was written. In the 18th century, no one knew people might invent weapons that could kill on such a scale and at such distance. No one knew people could make a beheading video and instantly share it with millions. No one anticipated algorithms that could amplify the worst human impulses to such a degree. I'd love to see these problems solved in a better way. Here at Hacker New we have a half decent algorithm for promoting quality content based on upvotes and downvotes and flags and karma and such. When that fails, we have Dang's good judgement as a backup. That's censorship too, and it makes this a better place. It's not perfect, but if you were to take the approach of "any censorship is wrong" approach, Hacker News wouldn't be very pleasant. YouTube is at a much larger scale, but they have a right to do something. Presumably you are ok with them disallowing beheading videos. What about videos encouraging suicide and providing "help"? What about videos telling people how to make chemical weapons? What about videos planning government overthrows? Where do you draw the line? I don't necessarily have a long term solution, but I support them taking some short term measures.