As I suspect you know, his point was that it’s sad that YouTube is making politically motivated censorship decisions, just like China would. While we all know that Silicon Valley leans left, I think that those of us who want good things for the world would like to believe that these companies can check their politics at the door when it comes to running platforms that serve people across the political spectrum. Sadly, that’s not the case.

If YouTube identified itself as a partisan platform where speech that is not left leaning is in danger of being curtailed (which is what it is), I wouldn’t have a problem with these actions. But it masquerades as a neutral platform that is open to all, in the same way that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox masquerade as news outlets. That is a threat to democracy, because it creates the impression that only left leaning speech is newsworthy or acceptable for viewing, and anything else is fringe.

For almost all intents and purposes, the audience is on YouTube only. Use anything else, and you are basically guaranteed to divide your audience by two orders of magnitude. Such is their monopoly on videos that are over 1 minute long.

This makes YouTube deplatforming very close to actual government censorship. The only meaningful difference is the lack of due process.

It is perfectly rationale to say that YouTube has the freedom to make editorial choices while also pointing out that they are making bad choices.

You aren't countering any criticism by stating that YouTube has the freedom to make those choices -- you're just changing the topic and ignoring the nature of the criticism.

Which platforms in particular are you referring to?

>So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform.

I'm not saying that either. I'm saying it should be prohibited from curating its own platform because it's popular and because it's where a substantial part of the public political debate takes place.

>The impact is negligible.

Maybe, but he's only one person.

>Nobody cares what PewDiePie thinks when they enter the voting booth.

You could say that about just about anyone that isn't a cult leader, because that person isn't the only one the voter is listening to.

>it's YouTube's prerogative to kick off whoever they want

It is now, sure.

It does, just in that YouTube is the possessor of the right, not the restricted governing party.

To be fair, Rumble is a decent alternative. Some videos have millions of views, they basically accept anything that’s protected by the first amendment. A lot of banned creators have moved or are moving there.

That said, I’d still argue YouTube is “the commons”. Just like you can have multiple malls and a town square, there’s no real argument there should be a limit.

So I should have the right to force a private company to broadcast my message? Free of charge?

People can host their content on other platforms if Youtube isn't working for them.

As demonstrated by the court case you mention, that is false. I am surprised how tightly people cling to this notion, which has no basis in reality.

Freedom of speech is exactly what allows Youtube to decide what speech to allow and what speech to prevent, and under what terms. Forcing a private company to publish speech against its will is the exact opposite of freedom.

>There are large nations where all large mass media networks are forced to allow every candidate and party a certain amount of election propaganda on their airwaves, maybe that's an idea to stop this abuse by YouTube and other networks?

It isn't abuse. Youtube removed the material because it violated their policies.

Also, Youtube isn't a mass media broadcaster. The premise for regulation of broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum is that useful bandwidth represents a limited resource. The internet isn't a limited resource, there isn't a finite amount of "internet" to be used that Youtube is taking up, so the argument for regulating Youtube as if it were a broadcaster makes no sense.

A big chunk of our culture is hosted by that company. Not sure if that makes a difference, but imho, it should.

Of course they do. There are channels that can be removed that would instantly lose access to millions of monthly viewers that can't practically be replaced anywhere. They have a monopoly on that type of reach (the most important type), and especially when these platforms decide to blacklist in concert.

> now that they’ve done so they should no longer be allowed to moderate and curate content

Yes, because once your business decisions have the power to decide who gets elected President, for example, it's in a different class and has to be regulated differently than a corner flower shop. There are many examples of laws and regulations that apply to business based on size.

> what is this extremely strong claim based on? youtube is just one of an endless series of options for posting videos on the internet

Again, it's not one of endless, it is entirely unique -- for many channels, their reach on YouTube is not replaceable anywhere. That's like saying, AT&T can shut off your phone service for your political opinions because you can always go meet someone in person to talk. That's simply not how we've historically agreed to interpret the obligations of massive communications platforms, and there's a very good reason for that.

I don't want who gets to speak to the public decided by some faceless, unelected tech oligarchs. That's a dystopia. "They only get to decide if you easily get access to an audience of millions, you can always get an audience of 5" is a deeply flawed argument.

For "not a political platform," Youtube has quite a lot of political content, and it's not at all clear to me why someone would think that the idea of a general interest video hosting site and a political platform are somehow exclusive at all.

And as far as obligations go... I'd imagine that there's no legal obligation, and maybe there shouldn't be, but that isn't the end of the question. As far as I know, I'd have no formal obligation to stop and render aid or even contact emergency services if I came across someone unconscious and bleeding on the sidewalk near my house, but that doesn't mean I might not be under some obligation.

And one problem is that organizations like Youtube often don't put themselves together in such a way that there's anyone interested in and capable of responding to these questions.

It's almost like they come across a turtle in the desert, and it's flipped over on its back, belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out their help. But they're not helping. Why is that?

This is a reductionist gotcha? YouTube is obviously the de facto english-language video host on the internet. That position is weakening now vs TikTok and Facebook/Instagram.

Porn is a good example of the overlap between platform/publisher and how the publisher keeping it off the platform has allowed competition to exist in that niche. That could probably form the basis for a strong argument in favor of an enforced separation of hosting and publishing.

We do: It's called Their Own Websites.

Not that what YouTube did was right, but I sure wouldn't rely on them to be the sole holder and provider of my content.

Yeah, that ain't happening. We need some FCC laws around targeted content to audience (spawning echo chambers) to optimize engagement.

Yes it is. Youtube is a huge conduit for communication.

Imagine if ABC banned a candidate. The argument that there’s still CBS and NBC are available is not relevant as a major media outlet is favoring a candidate by blocking their opponents.

For small outlets it’s not an issue. But YouTube is the biggest video provider on the planet, not allowing a political candidate would be detrimental to democracy.

Even if that candidate said stupid stuff like “world is flat.” People have to make their decision and as long as we’re a democracy, that choice should be individual.

No one has an inalienable right to any of these features, let alone to all of them in a neat package. The organizations that invest ingenuity, capital and labor to create platforms with those features do have a right to set terms on how their platforms is used.

I don't get how the solution to what is seen as corporate authoritarianism (on private property) is asking for more authoritarianism (by the government) to force persons to host content they'd rather not.

Arguably. Youtube is a video hosting site, it's not a political platform and has no obligation to host content it doesn't deem suitable for their platform.

Those videos should be sent to news agencies, (inter)national archives, the UN, war crime tribunals, etc instead (or in addition to) "entertainment" video hosting sites.

Can't %group% go make %something%.

Forget conservatives. Anyone who makes their living making video is doing so based on YouTube's whim. If they kick you off, even by mistake as has happened multiple times, you have no recourse. That's what makes them a monopoly. That is why they need to be treated as a utility.