On the one hand I understand why YouTube does it. On the other hand, as a Russian citizen, I shudder to think what will happen if russian government asks YouTube the same thing in regards to our election results. Turns out, instead of playing hide and seek with different parties by blocking unwanted information on the internet, all a government has to do is notify YouTube/Facebook/whatever that the "truth is this and this and would you be so kind as to block any kind of misinformation for us, thank you". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Indeed, I don't know what the right answer is here. As a civilization, we're struggling to adapt to the sudden fundamental shift in how information flows. I see these things as experiments in ways to mitigate the negative externalities caused by the changes, which to me is a good thing. We should be trying stuff out to see what works. I just fear that we won't be able to understand the blast radius of these experiments and may end up causing something dreadful to happen.
This action is YouTube pushing back against government misinformation! Why would you think it's a sign that they're more likely to push government misinformation in the future?
Nothing is stopping the Russian government from doing that today, so I don't see why it matters.
I could say the same thing about your ask that YouTube allow a free-for-all on their platform but that's only because I'm witnessing the logical conclusion here in the US. We have to do something different or these events will repeat themselves.
While I do believe we are at a "benevolent dictator" stage of social media, what happened yesterday should be feared by every democratic nation and regardless of the "side" you are on it should be avoided at most costs.
It's quite literally the seeds to fracturing a society.
Slippery slope works in both directions. If the president is spreading misinformation on an election he just lost, and if everybody's OK with that, what happens when a more capable wannabe dictator comes next and spreads misinformation? We just let them seize the power?
> We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.
> We believe everyone should have easy, open access to information and that video is a powerful force for education, building understanding, and documenting world events, big and small.
> We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.
With the events that occurred in the past year, these statements are completely false.
The book "Fahrenheit 451" just called, it wants its dictatorial world back from the current society...
Why most people don't realize that censorship leads us to a very very dark futur?
In my opinion, everything would be so much better if we could educate kids and adult on "critical thinking" and "intelligence", instead of censoring everything that could be "fake" (for real or not) based on decision of the ruling cast of a country.
Why is it that free speech absolutists like you can’t see that the unfettered ability to spread mass disinformation has unambiguously led to a dark, dark present?
Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the benefits of commenting on a moderated forum where @dang has arbitrary power to delete posts and ban accounts. And it’s precisely because of his moderation on this privately-run publicly-available platform that we continue to enjoy relatively troll-free, level-headed adult discussions about difficult topics.
Maybe it is because we are literally fucking watching mass misinformation and delusion spread by nefarious actors lead to mobs trying to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power in a nation armed with nuclear weapons. The nostalgic claims that good information will chase out bad and that sunlight is the best disinfectant to treat misinformation have been shown to be complete bullshit. The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization.
At this point we know with absolute certainty that a lack of censorship (either direct or self-censorship due to societal costs) leads to a very, very dark place. Time to start exploring other options.
So how is free and fair debate supposed to work? We may not want the government to decide who to silence, somewhere in the debate people have to say "I think what you just said is abhorrent and I'd rather you didn't say it in my café".
Problem is, there are only a handful of cafés in the world that everyone frequents and so there's an onus on the people who run them to make a lot of decisions about who gets to say what. Add to that the cafés don't live off selling coffee or having debates, they sell adverts for other things, which complicates their incentives.
I think it's awful how all the social media firms have waited until now to grow a spine, but I'm not sure what the best course would have been.
Liberal ideals of open debate are not very popular among the educated and powerful in the US anymore.
I'm sort of ambivalent on them myself, but I do think it's worth pointing out that events have arguably destabilized in tandem with the increasing use of censorship by the social media firms. Open debate is, per liberal theory, supposed to reduce political acrimony and to serve as a 'relief valve' for public discontent that would otherwise be vented in violence and disorder. As censorship increases, you should expect more disorder and more political violence rather than less if free speech theory is correct. If free speech theory is wrong, then censorship should cool political passions and enable the state to recoup legitimacy.
Reality is more complex than that, but we should at least acknowledge that our constitutional system of government assumes that free and open debate will help to maintain a peaceful and orderly republic.
These don't feel like cafés, and I think that hits the issue. They seem to be more billboards on the side of a highway. They encourage engagement but not community. I have personally found it rewarding to step off Twitter/Facebook, and into a discord/slack with some friends, keep up regular periodic video calls, and engage in moderated communities like HN.
These "cafes" are small/tiny and have a stronger social construct. We know each other and are held accountable to each other. Not just pissing on the commons.
This is absolutely correct, and it would benefit society immensely if #2 is solved quickly. A free marketplace of ideas, no matter how blasphemous, must always exist. President Obama said it best at his speech to the UN when he discussed the infamous YouTube video released prior to Benghazi. The answer is always more speech.
this is a very insightful comment, i'm going to bookmark your post and set a calendar event one year from now to come back a re-read it. I think you're exactly right.
it's kind of heartbreaking how fractured everything is becoming. even outside of politics it feels like the places i found community are gone or dying, being replaced by walled gardens and personality fiefdoms. it never used to feel so lonely.
In order to be a free country there must be freedom, even if you don't like what other people say. This is a dangerous precedent.
We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said.
Having a free press and allowing citizens to be heard becomes crucial to a functioning democracy.
That being said, I'm also in favor of letting companies have freedom to run their companies as they see fit as long as it is legal and moral. But this decision by YouTube saddens me.
If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.
Either there are consequences for your lies and misinformation or truth is doomed and freedom will follow soon after.
> If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.
This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. This event was not a response to censorship, it was a response to an subset of the population being fed a steady diet of outrage and misinformation and then putting on your surprised pikachu face when they get upset that their candidate lost an election. These people had the ability to be heard and debate and participate, they just are not willing to accept the consequences of that participation or to acknowledge that their candidate lost.
Thus driving that content to other sites where no differing opinions will be found to moderate the extreme positions on either side, thus assuring further polarization. The posturing and virtue signaling is idiotic.
I'm actually somewhat surprised at HN's response. I've seen so many outcrys because platforms like YouTube are causing the collapse of civilization because they're allowing misinformation to spread so freely.
I understand, truly, the value of free speech. And I understand that censorship is an incredibly dangerous road.
But yesterday, a mob breached the Capitol attempting to stop the peaceful transition of power. In no small part because of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
The people running these companies, I believe, have a moral responsibility to act.
Presidents have been literally assassinated long before the Internet. The county when to civil war without electricity. Yellow journalism was the original “fake news” and there was no utopia when everyone “agreed on the facts”.
Let’s not pretend the Internet has enabled something particularly nefarious here.
By pressing these companies to be the arbiters of free speech, you’re exacerbating the problem. These thoughts and people don’t go away, they just move to other platforms.
When people who get censored on all media platforms, ridiculed, ignored, and aren't allowed a day in court to even present their evidence. They're going to feel like the game is rigged.
I don't think it was a good idea to go inside the capital and it will cause very negative and counterproductive blowback.
Media coverage of this will be biased, compare it to the "mostly peaceful" protests happening all summer. It will be used as an excuse to further censorship and sideline sympathizers. The reaction will increase polarization and decrease our ability to communicate.
I'm not saying election fraud happened but I completely understand their frustration.
To take that position in good faith you’d have to support the censorship of political movements every time a government building was breached and/or vandalized by their protestors.
I’d put more of the blame on mainstream media which was basically gaslighting anybody who wanted to rest assured that the election results are accurate.
Calls were made too early too many times over the course of the last couple of months, eroding the trust of the 99% of the completely normal Trump supporters out there.
Even if the Democrats are 100% sure the election is totally squeaky clean there should be no problem to go over it with a fine tooth comb so that everyone can be certain. Instead any attempt at transparency was ridiculed from the beginning with lots of goal post moving to follow about just how much discrepancies there actually were.
Some law changes right before the election also don’t really make sense (like waiving the need to verify signatures and in fact making it impossible to do after the fact by destroying envelopes) and instead if bringing clarity to the situation, mainstream media ridiculed anyone who had doubts about this as being crazy.
The amount of virtue signaling and back peddaling by facebook, youtube, and twitter now that the results are certified is disgusting.
They profited for years off of this bile and misinformation and now that the tide is starting to turn they want to pretend like they weren't a huge part of the problem.
Google has a pending antitrust case heading for it. No secret Big Tech has been spending Billions trying to influence this election.
With that said.
DCPD failed to inform FPS\SS of the protesters breaking through 5 barricades and into a building designed to withstand seige until the protesters were almost in the chambers forcing them to flee. The factual narrative here is there was a compromise of congressional security and trust in DCPD.
How we end up, instead, getting the hyper-critical over-the-top insurrection narrative from every MSM company and all the heavy-handed fallout of that narrative without even evidence of busted doors I just don't know, but 4 dead and a handfull injured doesn't even amount to a weekend in Chicago.
I bet the credit cards, payment processors, and domain registrars all move against Parler within 365 days of Biden's inauguration.
Unfortunately the conventional financial system and regular internet are under the US Liberal control. Their approved narrative dictates who is allowed to use said infrastructure.
This is the logical consequence of doing something because you can, while not asking yourself "should you."
We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's high time (in the US and likely EU) we take a long look at Social Media practices and regulate them.
Today Youtube has almost a monopoly on video content on the Internet. If you have a monopoly the priority of power is controlling it and censor "dangeorus information".
From now on it will be impossible for anyone to post anything substantial in youtube that goes against status quo or that offends anyone, specially those in charge.
A new window of opportunity has been opened for a new service that provides uncensored content over the internet.
Why bother with these policies? They are not enforced in any type of uniformity. Rather, they should just say we take down anything we want. At least then, they wouldn't be seen as the hypocrites they are.
In 1954 a Puerto Rican group fired shots into Congress - there was no social media back then. Jimmy Carter pardoned them.
The suggestion now is that social media is ok to use as a tool to organize the kind of looting and arson that results in the killing of people like David Dorn, but not organize a protest that results in vandalism of the hallowed halls of insider trading.
A few years ago, Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook did not see themselves as responsible for the online hate that led to it. Was it MSNBC that radicalized the shooter then? Where was he getting his information from?
The fact of the matter is that violent language against specific political figures is acceptable, and violence from others is not acceptable. This is further proved in specific cases like the Kathy Griffin decapitation video, the drawing of Trump's head being cut off (Facebook sent a specific memo to Cognizant that this was a valid exception).
This is being done because the vast majority of people working at these companies see fit to lecture the world on topics like unconscious bias, and then selectively apply their policies when it aligns with their personal politics - completely oblivious to the other cases where enforcement should be equal.
This will be seen as an escalation and further undermine the credibility of these companies in the eyes of millions. If at all they stay it will be because of prevailing trends and network effects only.
I guarantee you that at this very second you could search twitter and find folks freely expressing their admiration for Rand Paul's neighbour, who attacked him so violently that he was critically hospitalized. There is a sickness in political discourse that is being selectively attended to by people suffering from the very same sickness.
I consider this an unfortunate decision. Actively censoring "misinformation" regarding election irregularities will achieve the exact opposite of what (I hope) is intended here: to prevent harm.
Trump has already been successful in creating the image of a rigged election in the minds of his supporters. He has been working on this for at least a year. This already happened. It can't be undone by censorship.
The only thing that censorship will achieve is to further the "us versus them" mentality. Instead of visiting YouTube, where maybe 0.1% of the content is right-wing conspiracy talk, they will retreat to some "free speech" media site where every other channel is crackpot hour.
This is a pretty vague announcement. What counts as "misinformation" or a "false claim" and who makes that decision? Will YouTube be contacting primary sources to verify all claims made in videos? Will they be relying on some designated "fact checkers"? Or maybe they're trying to tell us that ALL claims of voter fraud will automatically be deemed false without any form of review (this was the approach Twitter took with their labeling)?
[+] [-] FeistyOtter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AgentME|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jschwartzi|5 years ago|reply
I could say the same thing about your ask that YouTube allow a free-for-all on their platform but that's only because I'm witnessing the logical conclusion here in the US. We have to do something different or these events will repeat themselves.
[+] [-] picardythird|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|5 years ago|reply
The way to make the population aware is not through videos that people "MUST SEE!!11". Or typical manipulative ways of steering the masses.
Of course the winners write history, if they were correct or not is in the end "less important" in some ways and more important in others
[+] [-] staplers|5 years ago|reply
It's quite literally the seeds to fracturing a society.
[+] [-] yongjik|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|5 years ago|reply
> We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.
> We believe everyone should have easy, open access to information and that video is a powerful force for education, building understanding, and documenting world events, big and small.
> We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.
With the events that occurred in the past year, these statements are completely false.
[+] [-] greatgib|5 years ago|reply
Why most people don't realize that censorship leads us to a very very dark futur?
In my opinion, everything would be so much better if we could educate kids and adult on "critical thinking" and "intelligence", instead of censoring everything that could be "fake" (for real or not) based on decision of the ruling cast of a country.
[+] [-] stouset|5 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the benefits of commenting on a moderated forum where @dang has arbitrary power to delete posts and ban accounts. And it’s precisely because of his moderation on this privately-run publicly-available platform that we continue to enjoy relatively troll-free, level-headed adult discussions about difficult topics.
[+] [-] evgen|5 years ago|reply
At this point we know with absolute certainty that a lack of censorship (either direct or self-censorship due to societal costs) leads to a very, very dark place. Time to start exploring other options.
[+] [-] lordnacho|5 years ago|reply
Problem is, there are only a handful of cafés in the world that everyone frequents and so there's an onus on the people who run them to make a lot of decisions about who gets to say what. Add to that the cafés don't live off selling coffee or having debates, they sell adverts for other things, which complicates their incentives.
I think it's awful how all the social media firms have waited until now to grow a spine, but I'm not sure what the best course would have been.
[+] [-] mountainb|5 years ago|reply
I'm sort of ambivalent on them myself, but I do think it's worth pointing out that events have arguably destabilized in tandem with the increasing use of censorship by the social media firms. Open debate is, per liberal theory, supposed to reduce political acrimony and to serve as a 'relief valve' for public discontent that would otherwise be vented in violence and disorder. As censorship increases, you should expect more disorder and more political violence rather than less if free speech theory is correct. If free speech theory is wrong, then censorship should cool political passions and enable the state to recoup legitimacy.
Reality is more complex than that, but we should at least acknowledge that our constitutional system of government assumes that free and open debate will help to maintain a peaceful and orderly republic.
[+] [-] mey|5 years ago|reply
These "cafes" are small/tiny and have a stronger social construct. We know each other and are held accountable to each other. Not just pissing on the commons.
[+] [-] lostmsu|5 years ago|reply
IMHO, storming White House already crosses the line for a free and fair debate. And so do baseless calls to do that.
[+] [-] danhak|5 years ago|reply
1) Any private company (or person) has the right to determine what speech they tolerate, amplify or disseminate
2) No company should be so big that their assertion of that right dramatically changes the national conversation
[+] [-] CyberRabbi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaybchr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberRabbi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasd00|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odessacubbage|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcheung|5 years ago|reply
We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said.
Having a free press and allowing citizens to be heard becomes crucial to a functioning democracy.
That being said, I'm also in favor of letting companies have freedom to run their companies as they see fit as long as it is legal and moral. But this decision by YouTube saddens me.
If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.
[+] [-] colmvp|5 years ago|reply
I mean the US is already there.
I recall many years ago having to actively search for the positions and speeches from Ron Paul because he was barely given air time in debates.
Same goes for Andrew Yang where I only got to know him through alternative media sources (podcasts) instead of major news channels.
[+] [-] evgen|5 years ago|reply
> If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.
This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. This event was not a response to censorship, it was a response to an subset of the population being fed a steady diet of outrage and misinformation and then putting on your surprised pikachu face when they get upset that their candidate lost an election. These people had the ability to be heard and debate and participate, they just are not willing to accept the consequences of that participation or to acknowledge that their candidate lost.
[+] [-] howmayiannoyyou|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dominotw|5 years ago|reply
top comment on HN is how this could be dangerous road to go down on.
top replies on twitter are how this doesn't go far enough.
[+] [-] jedimastert|5 years ago|reply
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
[+] [-] ketzo|5 years ago|reply
But yesterday, a mob breached the Capitol attempting to stop the peaceful transition of power. In no small part because of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
The people running these companies, I believe, have a moral responsibility to act.
[+] [-] kortilla|5 years ago|reply
Let’s not pretend the Internet has enabled something particularly nefarious here.
By pressing these companies to be the arbiters of free speech, you’re exacerbating the problem. These thoughts and people don’t go away, they just move to other platforms.
[+] [-] gnarbarian|5 years ago|reply
I don't think it was a good idea to go inside the capital and it will cause very negative and counterproductive blowback.
Media coverage of this will be biased, compare it to the "mostly peaceful" protests happening all summer. It will be used as an excuse to further censorship and sideline sympathizers. The reaction will increase polarization and decrease our ability to communicate.
I'm not saying election fraud happened but I completely understand their frustration.
[+] [-] colordrops|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberRabbi|5 years ago|reply
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/state-officials-asses...
[+] [-] odessacubbage|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgellow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bananabiscuit|5 years ago|reply
Calls were made too early too many times over the course of the last couple of months, eroding the trust of the 99% of the completely normal Trump supporters out there.
Even if the Democrats are 100% sure the election is totally squeaky clean there should be no problem to go over it with a fine tooth comb so that everyone can be certain. Instead any attempt at transparency was ridiculed from the beginning with lots of goal post moving to follow about just how much discrepancies there actually were.
Some law changes right before the election also don’t really make sense (like waiving the need to verify signatures and in fact making it impossible to do after the fact by destroying envelopes) and instead if bringing clarity to the situation, mainstream media ridiculed anyone who had doubts about this as being crazy.
[+] [-] diveanon|5 years ago|reply
They profited for years off of this bile and misinformation and now that the tide is starting to turn they want to pretend like they weren't a huge part of the problem.
[+] [-] TheBobinator|5 years ago|reply
With that said.
DCPD failed to inform FPS\SS of the protesters breaking through 5 barricades and into a building designed to withstand seige until the protesters were almost in the chambers forcing them to flee. The factual narrative here is there was a compromise of congressional security and trust in DCPD.
How we end up, instead, getting the hyper-critical over-the-top insurrection narrative from every MSM company and all the heavy-handed fallout of that narrative without even evidence of busted doors I just don't know, but 4 dead and a handfull injured doesn't even amount to a weekend in Chicago.
Nobody is buying this narrative.
[+] [-] chasd00|5 years ago|reply
It leaves a vacuum though, i bet parler's revenue doubles in 60 days.
[+] [-] vturner|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tenpies|5 years ago|reply
Unfortunately the conventional financial system and regular internet are under the US Liberal control. Their approved narrative dictates who is allowed to use said infrastructure.
[+] [-] balls187|5 years ago|reply
We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's high time (in the US and likely EU) we take a long look at Social Media practices and regulate them.
[+] [-] bumbada|5 years ago|reply
Today Youtube has almost a monopoly on video content on the Internet. If you have a monopoly the priority of power is controlling it and censor "dangeorus information".
From now on it will be impossible for anyone to post anything substantial in youtube that goes against status quo or that offends anyone, specially those in charge.
A new window of opportunity has been opened for a new service that provides uncensored content over the internet.
[+] [-] asquabventured|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw7|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaybchr|5 years ago|reply
The suggestion now is that social media is ok to use as a tool to organize the kind of looting and arson that results in the killing of people like David Dorn, but not organize a protest that results in vandalism of the hallowed halls of insider trading.
A few years ago, Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook did not see themselves as responsible for the online hate that led to it. Was it MSNBC that radicalized the shooter then? Where was he getting his information from?
The fact of the matter is that violent language against specific political figures is acceptable, and violence from others is not acceptable. This is further proved in specific cases like the Kathy Griffin decapitation video, the drawing of Trump's head being cut off (Facebook sent a specific memo to Cognizant that this was a valid exception).
This is being done because the vast majority of people working at these companies see fit to lecture the world on topics like unconscious bias, and then selectively apply their policies when it aligns with their personal politics - completely oblivious to the other cases where enforcement should be equal.
This will be seen as an escalation and further undermine the credibility of these companies in the eyes of millions. If at all they stay it will be because of prevailing trends and network effects only.
I guarantee you that at this very second you could search twitter and find folks freely expressing their admiration for Rand Paul's neighbour, who attacked him so violently that he was critically hospitalized. There is a sickness in political discourse that is being selectively attended to by people suffering from the very same sickness.
[+] [-] incrudible|5 years ago|reply
Trump has already been successful in creating the image of a rigged election in the minds of his supporters. He has been working on this for at least a year. This already happened. It can't be undone by censorship.
The only thing that censorship will achieve is to further the "us versus them" mentality. Instead of visiting YouTube, where maybe 0.1% of the content is right-wing conspiracy talk, they will retreat to some "free speech" media site where every other channel is crackpot hour.
[+] [-] Nacdor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dominotw|5 years ago|reply
yesterday was a gift to social media monopolies.