Protests on the social platform have entered a new phase, with users shirking the platform’s NSFW content rules en masse. The development has some media buyers on high alert, experts say.

  • Itty53@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Still not free speech at all. You’re pointing out the difference between being able to speak freely and being provided an audience. There are no nations in history or philosophers in humanity which supposed the existence of a human right to provide an audience to everyone.

    But again, YouTube isn’t a free speech platform. The public sidewalk is, YouTube isn’t. They have no obligation to provide you anything at all.

    • kbity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is undoubtedly true. YouTube is a private entity and there is no legal obligation for them to treat speech equally. But it is subjectively troubling that YouTube, a virtual monopoly, has little qualms about directly shaping the political discourse on its platform, censoring and limiting the reach of content about LGBT people while Fox News is on the front page.

      • Itty53@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are absolutely no where close to a virtual monopoly. Anyone can upload and stream content online, and probably millions of websites allow it now, without exaggeration. What they have is a prefab audience. There are no considerations needed for free speech whatsoever.

        If you want to influence their moderation habits, you need to be their customer or better yet, their shareholder. As just another leeching user, your voice means nothing to them and frankly that isn’t problematic. 10,000 leeches won’t influence them the same as one paying customer. I can guarantee that. And again, if you’re just a leech then it really is no wonder why they wouldn’t listen as a for-profit business.

        There are troubling bits about lots of platforms and media outlets and companies, but that’s not an excuse to twist up legal terminologies like monopoly or free speech in order to make weak criticisms. Doing so weakens the framework of law more than it does influence YouTube at all. Because that framework of law is only as valid as we use it. Countless examples of that problem abound - virtually the entirety of the Trump presidency is an example of why misuse of the law in common discussions among people is actually very dangerous. That’s been a sticking point for me for a long time, and it’s more important as years go by. So I’m gonna call it out, especially when it’s happening on “my” team.

        If you’re gonna make accusations where we actually have legal recourse (like monopolies) then you need to understand them. There is no where close to a real monopoly in YouTube.