Scott Adams Hit With Youtube Censorship

[Inquiry]

I don’t know why this surprises people. YouTube/Facebook/Twitter are private companies, not public services. If they don’t want Scott Adam’s stuff on their platform, they have no obligation to host his videos.

Like, the idea that big tech companies lean left is kind of a “no duh” revelation in my mind.

It’s more complicated than that. Different forms of media have different checks and balances. For instance, newspapers have a fairly free reign over what they print but they are still responsible for the words and photos printed in their pages. They can still be sued for libel, for instance. That’s reasonable because newspapers and similar media edit and curate what they publish.

Internet forums and arenas like Facebook, Youtube, and the like were given special protection from that danger on the grounds that they did not curate or act as editors of content. Because they only acted as arenas of free speech, not editors, they could not be held responsible for the content. The alternative, making them curate content, would stifle the free speech arenas they provided.

However, if they are taking the time to editorialize, fact-check, or otherwise suppress specific points of view they are removing the reasons for those special protections.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

For instance, newspapers have a fairly free reign over what they print but they are still responsible for the words and photos printed in their pages. They can still be sued for libel, for instance.

We’re talking about Youtube pulling someone else’s content, not about Youtube being liable for what it allows up. I have no idea how your example relates to this discussion. Also, Roland is an attorney. as am I, and we know all that.

If you have an issue with what Youtube is doing, then I would suggest writing to your congressional representatives and they will decide whether they want to look into further regulating Youtube or having another hearing or the myriad of other things congressional representatives do when they want to look concerned.

Good day.

 

[phil3]

The U.S. Supreme Court, which arguably is conservative now, has rejected lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of the election. This isn’t really a partisan issue.

On the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the legitimacy of the election. They ruled the parties bring the suit had no standing in the matter.

 

[pnewton]

If you define that as censoring, then that has always been perfectly legal. If I write an editorial filled with lies and submit it to my local paper, I too would be censored. The internet allows free enterprise, meaning any company that wants can operate based on their own policies. The size of the reach should not be an issue, at least for fiscal conservatives that support the free market.

Now there may well be antitrust issues if one company starts to expand into other media areas trying to buy up all outlets.

Internet forums and arenas like Facebook, Youtube, and the like were given special protection from that danger on the grounds that they did not curate or act as editors of content. Because they only acted as arenas of free speech, not editors, they could not be held responsible for the content. The alternative, making them curate content, would stifle the free speech arenas they provided.

There is the balance. Do they not have some responsibility to curate against illegal content? Dangerous content? Where is the line to be drawn? In a market system, I fail to see the argument that the government gets to regulate that line.

In any case, demonetization should 100% be in their control. At minimum, they should be able to determine pricing policy and not have to provide funds for nefarious people.

 

[JimG]

Of course. And nefarious people are those who disagree with them, and whose ideas they do not want to allow on their platform.

 

[sallybutler]

If Youtube deletes my favorite crime and history channels I go to other platforms where I can see those. It’s not a big deal.

also costuming, cooking, and how-to. Some of the history ones are wonderful. Check absolutehistory.

 

[phil3]

If you define that as censoring, then that has always been perfectly legal. If I write an editorial filled with lies and submit it to my local paper, I too would be censored. The internet allows free enterprise, meaning any company that wants can operate based on their own policies. The size of the reach should not be an issue, at least for fiscal conservatives that support the free market.

Are these tech company publishers or just container of information?

They use to say we provide a place for people to upload their content. It was not their job to monitor how people used their platform.

But now they are acting as publishers. They now can be held accountable for the content on their Platform. But they want it both ways. They want to limit the content and not be held accountable.

But then again facebook is a liberal organization. Having double standard is needed to be a liberal

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

YouTube is doing all of this stupidity, in response to 2 main forces.

1. The “ad-pocalypse”
2. various gov officials getting on their case.

In a way, it’s our fault collectively. We need to stop conflating the content an ad is next to with the character of the advertiser. Ads merely appear where they believe the target demo is.

We need to tell our elected officials to back off and instead tolerate opposing, sometimes offensive viewpoints (all sides need this). We also need to tech ourselves and or children how to determine validity of info sources.

 

[pnewton]

But then again facebook is a liberal organization. Having double standard is needed to be a liberal

LOL! Apparently not!

Looks like all it take here is to be the one on the other side to go running to Big Brother government for help against all these bullies.