This sort of weird slippery slope argument that banning obviously bad advice somehow leads to youtube becoming a "horrible oppressor" doesn't pass the smell test.
By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?
One of the youtube series I watch normally features pork ribs. Like, the shrinkwrapped package you get from the grocery store. Well that video the creator couldn't get pork ribs because of coronavirus and so had used beef ribs instead - and couldn't even plainly say the reason why. Instead he had to hold up a bottle of corona beer and say "Well, it's due to beer, if you get my drift."
Is Youtube actually in the right here? The guy just wanted to say he couldn't find pork ribs. He wasn't telling anyone to inject bleach or chug quinine.
That isn't just clamping down on the conspiracy nutters. This has repeatedly become an issue in multiple videos from videogame commentary to cooking shows I watch. Youtube and other large corporates often see themselves as leading the dumb cattle that is the general population and frankly it's outright insulting and their handling of this situation is abysmal.
But also it's going to get worse. The more Youtube can get away with these things, the more they'll do them. Don't be surprised when this extends even more to protected political speech (Israel BDS, free HK, Taiwanese independence, etc) because it's happened before and it will happen again.
I'm not arguing that youtube is doing a good job, or that youtube's brand of corona-related censorship is in any way making a positive impact.
I'm arguing against the parent comment that essentially makes the argument that _all forms_ of censorship/moderation are bad and inherently lead to oppression.
If you instead want to argue that youtube's specific policies regarding coronavirus are bad/harmful/etc, go ahead, I won't stop you.
Hn is a moderated community, and it's value partially comes from it's moderation. It's restricted to a set of topics, and if things get too out of hand whether it's a personal attack or just insanity, the comment is going to get removed.
Except you can view the dead comments. You can still see the removed stories. You have to opt-in to that, but it's just a checkbox in your profile. HN is moderated, but there is no censorship.
The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK. Either the platform openly admits that it's biased or it has to keep growing what can't be discussed and inevitably that's going to start including content that everyone feels shouldn't be censored.
This is the same with your example though? Anyone can upload a video talking about the coronavirus, they just might not receive money for it (they'll be demonetized). Youtube only seems to be taking an active 'censorship' approach for comments spreading bad information about the virus. Whether or not "against WHO advice" is a good metric for this is debatable, but the goal seems worthwhile.
> The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK.
I fail to see how this property, if it exists, is any less present in a "moderated but without explicit censhorship" system.
Youtube only seems to be taking an active 'censorship' approach
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote an entire book about 'censorship' that's not technically censorship, titled Manufacturing Consent. Rather, what happens in the industrialized west uses soft influence and economic power to achieve the same ends. Media in such a "propaganda model" of operation does technically disseminate information, but does it in such a way as to reduce visibility, reduce emotional impact, and economically discourage.
Actually, the power to engage in a "propaganda model" of operation enjoyed by YouTube is in many ways much more immediate and absolute than that exercised by the western governments in the 20th century.
Demonetization is a form of censorship when Youtube is your paycheck.
If your employer threatened to not pay you because you took a political position that would be abhorrent and oppressive treatment. Youtube is not a direct employee and it's more of a business partner, but it's wielding it's power to control speech - which is oppressive.
I'm arguing against the parent comment that essentially makes the argument that _all forms_ of censorship/moderation are bad and inherently lead to oppression.
This is "basic straw-manning 101." Of course, if you put an absolute re-framing into the mouth of another, it's going to break. Let's try this: Any censorship/moderation of sufficient scope and power, combined with too little accountability, is probably going to produce bad outcomes.
Is YouTube possessed of great scope and power? Check.
Is YouTube transparent and accountable in the way it uses this power? Many, many people don't see it this way. To the point, that people write innumerable articles and make innumerable videos about it. In fact, people have even established at least one union around this issue.
Look, the whole principle of "Power Corrupts" is based upon the same underlying forces as, "You can't convince someone of a fact, if their paycheck depends on it." Everyone is subject to such biases. No one is possessed of all the relevant facts and perspectives. This, in fact, is the true principle behind such phrases as "check your privilege."
We are all human beings. We are all fallible. We all have the potential to make mistakes and even carry out miscarriages of justice and unfairness, if we are given enough power with too little accountability. It's thinking one is somehow immune, or somehow justified by circumstances, which is the key ingredient to the very worst evils in history.
Scope for self doubt and transparency work, and when people lack self doubt and exercise power without transparency, bad things happen. It's not some "weird slippery slope." It's an established part of the human conditions, going back thousands of years, valid in all times, all cultures, and all places.
(P.S. A key historical indicator that such corruption is happening: When a group of highly educated people start to work against transparency and the openness of information, one is in this regime of "Too much power, too little transparency." Heck, these highly educated, smart people might even pull some middle-school shenanigans, like "refutations" that leave out the sources.)
(P.P.S. One thing younger people don't understand, is how in past decades the ethos of Free Speech used to suffuse society. People wouldn't just accede to the letter of the law, they would enact the ethos in their everyday lives. There is an obvious epistemological wisdom in such practice. Really, wanting to hang out with people with such an ethos is really just an extension of wanting to hang out with honest people. Seems to me, this changed in the early days of the Internet, with electronically implemented forms of near-censorship, and that the ethos of regular life has shifted to accepting such practice of near-censorship.)
One of the things that's important when we discuss any kind of censorship and freedom of speech is what we call "Chilling Effects". If you know taking a political position is going to result in your family being arrested and put in prison, then your speech is being curbed even without being punished and it's one of the insidious wrongs of censorship.
When a grown man who was in the marines for several years is afraid he's going to lose his youtube channel talking about why he can't find pork ribs, that's a chilling effect. When a multi-million dollar videogame streamer is afraid he's going to be demonetized if he talks about why he's filming from home instead of his studio, that's a chilling effect.
The goal of a good censor is not to enforce censorship. It's to get the people to enforce it themselves.
Tim Pool has talked about it regularly, how if independent Youtubers even speak the word their video will be instantly demonetized, but bigger YT channels (those with millions of subs) as well as mainstream media outlets can use the term with no ill effects. He's such a prolific content creator across three channels I can't single out an exact video from the past ~90 days of material for you though.
If the telephone system had the same moderation as HN then I would suspect that indeed it would seen as oppressive if they were listening on all telephone calls and banned users who they deemed inappropriate citizens.
We only have one telephone system so being banned has a rather large impact as it is an essential service. So maybe we should ask what platforms are like other essential services. Radio is an essential service. What about Youtube? The telephone system is an essential service. What about Skype? I think libraries are also seen as an essential service, so what about Wikipedia? And then we have HN. How essential is HN?
I think there is a big difference between content moderation (based on published and reasonably objective rules) and an outright ban on contradicting the stance of an organisation that is highly political.
If this rule was implemented earlier, you’d be banned for saying there is human-to-human transmission, proposing flight restrictions, or advocating for the general public to use masks. The W.H.O. has explicitly advised against each of those measures, despite significant disagreement on every one of those claims. It’s absurd that dissenting against the W.H.O. has been banned, although it’s predictable of course.
I've been very surprised, and I guess I shouldn't be, that so many folks are taking such a hard black or white stance on this. There's folks who've literally pushing ingestion of Chlorine Dioxide to eliminate coronavirus, or conflating HBOT with inhaling ozone to "clean" the lungs. I 100% believe that transparency and understanding when and why things are taken down can help, but there's a _lot_ of slippery-slope arguments being made that here that actually surprised me, when we're talking about actually trying to prevent people from spreading information that can actually lead other to harming themselves, rather than seeking treatment.
Moderation is not necessarily censorship. It is only censorship if the content is removed based on the content itself.
For example, shutting down a flamewar for simply being aggressive is not censorship, as long as the same discussion would have been permitted if held in good spirit.
Censoring "wrong" content likely has bad outcomes, the worst being that with only "good" content, critical thinking may get even sloppier.
HN has plenty of rules that remove content "based on the content itself". For example, HN bans job ads (outside of 'who is hiring' threads). There are no circumstances where a job ad post is allowed outside of 'who is hiring' and YC-funded companies, not even "in good spirit". Similarly, the HN FAQ says not to post comments complaining about paywalls, and there is no 'unless you are civil' exception.
Again, does banning content from an internet forum inevitably lead to "oppression" or "bad outcomes"? If so, why hasn't this happened to HN/Reddit/Twitter/etc?
As someone who did a lot of moderation in the past, people forget any platform is more akin to a cafe, instead of a public square. A cafe has rules that keep a pleasant atmosphere. A public square has a public function and needs rules to allow for a broad discourse or protests. One could argue if there is a certain size where a platform like youtube becomes a public square. But on the whole its their room, their rules.
I disagree. Aggression in the sense of language style, is very much in the eye of the beholder. As is assigning value to a ‘flamewar’. One person’s meaningless flamewar is another person’s valuable but heated argument.
Sure, if you stop something early you may have overstepped, but no one questions violence taking place when rocks are being thrown. Same goes for once a discussion degrades to ad hominem attacks/insults.
I think it's obviously bad advice for you to suggest that censorship isn't a slippery slope. Under section 239-C of the Obviously Bad Advice Act, I have dispatched the police to your location. Please be ready to comply when they arrive.
Sorry, but history is overwhelmingly against you. The historical precedents are legion. We're not talking about some "weird slippery slope argument." This is well established human nature. In fact, many of the items in the Bill of Rights are based around this principle.
In fact, the principle has a much shorter, snappier version: Power Corrupts.
By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?