What's interesting is that the majority of her speech is discussing the suppression of free expression, saying how "authoritative" sources are given priority, advertiser-friendly videos are rewarded and given priority, and others are suppressed.
You can argue the necessity of those actions, but trying to call those actions examples of free expression is the kind of corporate double-speak that erodes trust.
I find the use of the word suppress to describe what youtube does a bit odd. Now, I am of the opinion that youtube doesn't outright ban most things they find objectionable. That would be suppression (please tell me if I am wrong about this, because otherwise my next few sentences are just fundamentally wrong).
What I see youtube doing is promoting content they like. The video is not itself deleted, its just not promoted (both to users and advertisers). Would you really call that suppression? You can argue its suppression in the sense that when you are so powerful any decision regarding disadvantaging someone is suppression. But I am not totally convinced by that argument, because curating a platform is their entire purpose at this point.
TheAdamAndChe|4 years ago
You can argue the necessity of those actions, but trying to call those actions examples of free expression is the kind of corporate double-speak that erodes trust.
newswasboring|4 years ago
What I see youtube doing is promoting content they like. The video is not itself deleted, its just not promoted (both to users and advertisers). Would you really call that suppression? You can argue its suppression in the sense that when you are so powerful any decision regarding disadvantaging someone is suppression. But I am not totally convinced by that argument, because curating a platform is their entire purpose at this point.
StandardFuture|4 years ago
But not to assume malevolence ...
It's humorous how the aristocratic class is so much more Marie Antoinette these days.
the-dude|4 years ago
donw|4 years ago
prezjordan|4 years ago
otterley|4 years ago