Nazis being oppressed, again

[Bitek]

Except that Google has up to this time allowed such content on Youtube, I don't see any evidence that Google is the reason that no one has started a Nazitube or Hatetube.
This isn't a free speech issue any more than child pornography is a free speech issue. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that community standards may apply to certain speech. No one cries free speech about the distribution of kiddie porn because the community standard against such child abuse is well understood. The only reason that some people cry free speech over Naziism is due to those people's failure to understand that the community standard is also strongly against speech that will inevitably result in the murder and genocide of innocents.
So if people want to talk about how they mindlessly hate certain people and want to kill them just for being born, they are still free to do so. But just not on Youtube. Or here on ATPN for that matter.

You think it they can keep porn off of there, Nazi propaganda is also will within rights and capability.

 

[crashtech]

Except that Google has up to this time allowed such content on Youtube, I don't see any evidence that Google is the reason that no one has started a Nazitube or Hatetube.
This isn't a free speech issue any more than child pornography is a free speech issue. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that community standards may apply to certain speech. No one cries free speech about the distribution of kiddie porn because the community standard against such child abuse is well understood. The only reason that some people cry free speech over Naziism is due to those people's failure to understand that the community standard is also strongly against speech that will inevitably result in the murder and genocide of innocents.
So if people want to talk about how they mindlessly hate certain people and want to kill them just for being born, they are still free to do so. But just not on Youtube. Or here on ATPN for that matter.

While I don't really want to dissent on this issue all day, I would like to point out that while Nazism and kiddie porn are both beyond despicable, the former contains political speech elements while the latter does not; that's why Nazi speech and symbols are theoretically protected speech in the public square in the US, but kiddie porn will never be. I also object to the notion that failing to forcibly suppress ugly political views "will inevitably result" in murder and genocide, especially in a free country with ready access to opposing viewpoints. There's no way to quantify that, to the contrary, forcibly suppressing unpopular views may actually be giving them far more attention than they deserve.

 

[hal2kilo]

While I don't really want to dissent on this issue all day, I would like to point out that while Nazism and kiddie porn are both beyond despicable, the former contains political speech elements while the latter does not; that's why Nazi speech and symbols are theoretically protected speech in the public square in the US, but kiddie porn will never be. I also object to the notion that failing to forcibly suppress ugly political views "will inevitably result" in murder and genocide, especially in a free country with ready access to opposing viewpoints. There's no way to quantify that, to the contrary, forcibly suppressing unpopular views may actually be giving them far more attention than they deserve.

Just like the way communists in this country were treated.

 

[Ichinisan]

I don't think anyone is going to complain about removal of content sympathetic to Naziism, content made by Nazis, or content supporting Nazis...

...except Nazis.

Tip: Nearly all those people you call "Nazis" just because you disagree with them are not actual Nazis and they probably support this action by a private entity. Who knew?

 

[brycejones]

these things happen. it was fixed.

What is the next thing you are going to complain about: "Cups should never tip over!"

Thanks Obama!

 

[Vic]

While I don't really want to dissent on this issue all day, I would like to point out that while Nazism and kiddie porn are both beyond despicable, the former contains political speech elements while the latter does not; that's why Nazi speech and symbols are theoretically protected speech in the public square in the US, but kiddie porn will never be. I also object to the notion that failing to forcibly suppress ugly political views "will inevitably result" in murder and genocide, especially in a free country with ready access to opposing viewpoints. There's no way to quantify that, to the contrary, forcibly suppressing unpopular views may actually be giving them far more attention than they deserve.

Ok, fair enough, but how are we suppressing unpopular views or speech here? IMO, the biggest misconception here (and one totally born of the social media) is the right to free speech includes a right to be published. Sorry, but that's just not the case and never has been. Nazis are still as free to speak their nazi ideas as much as they ever have been, Youtube just won't be providing them with a soapbox to speak from anymore. That is all.

But for the record, I disagree that angry propaganda that consists almost entirely of "Jews/blacks/Muslims/brown people/women/socialists/etc/etc are trying to kill/enslave us so we need to kill/enslave them first" qualifies an an opposing viewpoint.

 

[crashtech]

@Vic , it's simply a matter of how these platforms are viewed. I assert that they have become the online equivalent of the town square, and might therefore end up with speech rules more consistent with a public space. You maintain that they are private "soapboxes," which is the case now, I agree. YouTube right now doesn't have to allow anything at all on their site, they maintain absolute control over the content. Whether all of that power and authority rightly belongs in the hands of a single corporation is an open question. Generally I favor less gov intrusion rather than more, but that's not to say gov intrusion is never necessary and appropriate. It's not a black and white issue... is it?

 

[Vic]

@Vic , it's simply a matter of how these platforms are viewed. I assert that they have become the online equivalent of the town square, and might therefore end up with speech rules more consistent with a public space. You maintain that they are private "soapboxes," which is the case now, I agree. YouTube right now doesn't have to allow anything at all on their site, they maintain absolute control over the content. Whether all of that power and authority rightly belongs in the hands of a single corporation is an open question. Generally I favor less gov intrusion rather than more, but that's not to say gov intrusion is never necessary and appropriate. It's not a black and white issue... is it?

I agree it's not a black and white issue but, at the same time, it seems to me that the best to resolve this without govt intrusion is to let Youtube keep 'encouraging' certain users to create their own platforms.

 

[crashtech]

I agree it's not a black and white issue but, at the same time, it seems to me that the best to resolve this without govt intrusion is to let Youtube keep 'encouraging' certain users to create their own platforms.

That, of course, would be ideal. Meanwhile, Google maintains a virtual monopoly over much of the information people can access. There might even be some parallels here to the Net Neutrality issue, where it's become the case that private information conduits have taken on a similar aspects of a public utility.

 

[cytg111]

I dont worry too much about nazis, the thing about nazis is that we can see them coming from miles and miles away. I worry about those nazis that are not nazis, if that makes any sense, there is a huge disconnect in our shared data set of reality these days, like our own member Slow is proof of. Something is building and its rooted in fear and hate and populists are at the helm of these projects. Its not nazis. Its something worse.

 

[WelshBloke]

Meanwhile, Google maintains a virtual monopoly over much of the information people can access.

In what way? You are in no way limited to using Google's hosting or search engine.

 

[crashtech]

In what way? You are in no way limited to using Google's hosting or search engine.

That will be Google's argument, that they captured 90+% of the search market fair and square. Even if so, if they've become so big that other companies simply can't effectively compete, is this necessarily a good thing? I don't know.

 

[WelshBloke]

That will be Google's argument, that they captured 90+% of the search market fair and square. Even if so, if they've become so big that other companies simply can't effectively compete, is this necessarily a good thing? I don't know.

I'm still not seeing how this is Google having a monopoly over what you can access.

 

[amenx]

Have a feeling this could be the start of something bigger. While banning hate speech, Nazi sympathizing, holocaust denial may be justified, I wonder if there will be a flurry of attempts to eventually lump anti-Israeli criticisms into this as 'anti-semitic' (and therefore as 'hate speech').

 

[crashtech]

I'm still not seeing how this is Google having a monopoly over what you can access.

It's something upon which reasonable people can disagree. It won't be up to us to decide if Google's massive dominance is a good thing or not, but it is a reasonable question to ask. Right now it's easy not to care because they are only going after obvious bad guys.

 

[soundforbjt]

Have a feeling this could be the start of something bigger. While banning hate speech, Nazi sympathizing, holocaust denial may be justified, I wonder if there will be a flurry of attempts to eventually lump anti-Israeli criticisms into this as 'anti-semitic' (and therefore as 'hate speech').

It's their company, they can do as they wish, no one is forcing them to use it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's their company, they can do as they wish, no one is forcing them to use it.

this exactly. If a company were to start applying this to things that were not...agreeable by the majority, those users would leave and find something new (or at least they should). Better this than unintentionally stifling. Google and youtube are not really a concern for me. They both work off advertising. If enough problematic content is around those advertisers leave, even if it is unjustly so. That is ALL they care about. I would much rather they police their own sites and let the people choose than have the government stick their hands in it.

 

[brycejones]

It's something upon which reasonable people can disagree. It won't be up to us to decide if Google's massive dominance is a good thing or not, but it is a reasonable question to ask. Right now it's easy not to care because they are only going after obvious bad guys.

You still haven't explained how Google has a monopoly over the access of information.

 

[crashtech]

@brycejones , to be accurate I originally said "virtual monopoly," but here are a few links illustrating Google's overwhelming dominance:

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e_Share_of_browsers_(updated_August_2018).png

https://www.statista.com/statistics...by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/

The exception is that in phones, Google shares a duopoly with Apple.

Honestly I didn't know that this was somehow a controversial point. It doesn't look terribly controversial by the numbers.

 

[ImpulsE69]

@brycejones , to be accurate I originally said "virtual monopoly," but here are a few links illustrating Google's overwhelming dominance:

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Usage_Share_of_browsers_(updated_August_2018).png

https://www.statista.com/statistics...by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/

The exception is that in phones, Google shares a duopoly with Apple.

Honestly I didn't know that this was somehow a controversial point. It doesn't look terribly controversial by the numbers.

The thing is that it is just the 'default, known, preferred'. It isn't a monopoly. There are options out there, people just choose to not use them. That can change at any time. Yahoo and Altavista used to be the kings at one point.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's something upon which reasonable people can disagree. It won't be up to us to decide if Google's massive dominance is a good thing or not, but it is a reasonable question to ask. Right now it's easy not to care because they are only going after obvious bad guys.

You seem to be arguing a different point than the original one. I get that Google is massive in video hosting and search but that in no way stops your access to whatever information you want to get to on the web. It's never going to stop you going to Fox news or CNN or self hosted stuff.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The thing is that it is just the 'default, known, preferred'. It isn't a monopoly. There are options out there, people just choose to not use them. That can change at any time. Yahoo and Altavista used to be the kings at one point.

Yea. I won't argue Google's dominance, but that's due to people being stupid.

Dickduckgo is my go to search engine. Chrome is only used once in a while. Phones is where Google gets me. I prefer Android to apple.

 

[DarthKyrie]

The thing is that it is just the 'default, known, preferred'. It isn't a monopoly. There are options out there, people just choose to not use them. That can change at any time. Yahoo and Altavista used to be the kings at one point.

It's the same thing as Conservatives freaking out about Facebook being a monopoly on Social Media.

 

[crashtech]

I hope you guys are right, actually. We're in a relatively new arena where old ways of looking at things break down. But it should be obvious that having this concern is not a fringe view. Since we are in a new arena, we don't really know what a new kind of virtual information monopoly looks like. Is this it? I don't know. You guys say no, nothing to see here. I reset the chart that I linked above to go back as far as it could (2009):

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share#monthly-200901-201905

Search engines are where people get their information. This information helps forms their internal narratives and the way they view things and interact with the world. So far, there's every sign that Google has been a relatively benign steward of this immense power. It is power, nonetheless. Saying they aren't a monopoly or that people have choices (that they often don't know exist) doesn't change the data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...2ba6bbf1b9b_story.html?utm_term=.a733e531ac21

 

[DarthKyrie]

If people choose to use Google as their search engine that is up to them. Google is not the only search engine that exists, period full stop. Not too long ago Microsoft ran a TV ad campaign for Bing, I also remember Duckduckgo running an ad campaign as well. If you have an issue with Google having the majority share of the search engine market choose not to use it and convince everybody you know not to use it.