
Despite Crackdowns, Neo-Nazi YouTube Videos - charlesism
https://www.propublica.org/article/despite-crackdowns-white-supremacist-and-neo-nazi-videos-take-stubborn-root-on-youtube
======
toofy
The surface level free-speech argument is beaten to death. Yes, we know free-
speech is important. We fight hard for it because it is important. Speech is
incredibly powerful.

We _know_ speech causes material changes to the world, that is why we fight so
hard for to protect that freedom. So lets move the conversation forward, to
the material changes this rise in anti-intellectual, conspiracy minded, anti-
science free speech crusaders are attempting to cause--what world are they
attempting to create by using powerful speech?

Let's not be disingenuous and pretend these types of speech should be brushed
away as if they don't matter, as if speech is harmless, as if it has no impact
on the world. We _know_ it has impacts, that is why we fight to protect
speech.

Speech can't be both powerful enough to protect and simultaneously meaningless
to the point that no one should be concerned. We can't say "Speech is the most
important thing we have." and then turn around and say "Oh, its just words,
ignore it, snowflake." We can't have it both ways. If we protect speech
because of it's power, then targets of hate speech have a right to be upset
when it takes aim at them. If we protect speech because it is powerful, then
we all have a right to be concerned with the enormous rise in anti-science or
just plain bad information masquerading as science. Speech matters, we have a
right to be pissed when it's used for nefarious purposes or used carelessly--
it is not meaningless, it is powerful.

~~~
towaway1138
> the material changes this rise in anti-intellectual, conspiracy minded,
> anti-science free speech crusaders are attempting to cause

You lost me here, as in my experience, such activity has been in significant
_decline_ over my lifetime. We're actually living in a golden age where
science and reason are ascendant.

Using this as a pretext for silencing people that don't agree with us seems
particularly pernicious.

~~~
toofy
Did you respond to the wrong post? I'm certain I didn't mention silencing
anyone.

In fact, when you take my post as a whole, not partially as you did, over and
over again I gush about the importance and the incredible power of speech.

~~~
towaway1138
You're arguing for limiting speech. I'm arguing against.

~~~
toofy
> You're arguing for limiting speech.

I absolutely am not.

------
giardini
Of course. Free speech reigns. What could possibly be better - banning them
from speaking, pushing them underground, jailing them, torturing them, or
worse?

Giving people freedom of speech is our only hope of engaging them at some
future time in dialogue and of possibly bringing them to some other
conclusions. Consider it an application of the "Golden Rule".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule)

And take some solace that, as a group or groups, "neo-Nazis" are not nearly as
much a problem as were the original German Nazis, both for their own society
and for the world.

~~~
charlesism

        Giving people freedom of speech is 
        our only hope of engaging them at 
        some future time in dialogue
    

The diehard ones generally end up in jail. You can pay them a visit there, to
engage them.

In the meantime, pushing them underground means that elementary school
students won't watch their videos when they auto-play after a make-up
tutorial, or RDR2 gameplay video.

~~~
FakeComments
Where do you stop?

Hitler and his political organization did terrible things, and we certainly
should try to stop those kinds of events from repeating.

But the same could be said of Stalin or Mao: should we ban all of the neo-
communist videos on YouTube?

~~~
charlesism
I'm not Youtube, so it's not my call, but if they had any sense of
responsibility, they should certainly ban Nazis and terrorists.

Whatever they don't want on their platform beyond that is their business. If
they don't like videos of baby sea lions, well, I'd have to find my baby sea
lion videos elsewhere.

~~~
luckylion
Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists", who defines who to ban? Is it
the original "Nazi" definition, or some modern diluted definition where the
number of Nazis has skyrocketed? Do we allow content from "freedom fighters"
and "rebels"?

~~~
toofy
> Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists"

On their platform, YouTube does.

I apologize if I'm accidentally misunderstanding what your expectations are
regarding decisions in society, but if you're asking for society to eliminate
judgement calls, this is an incredibly unrealistic ask and you will almost
certainly forever be frustrated.

Everyday humans make judgement calls, and they seem to be reasonable far more
often than they are unreasonable. If YouTube's userbase feels YouTube has
become unreasonable, they move on to another platform. Whether you realize it
or not, in a society based on private property, where we allow individuals to
have control over things they own, what may seem like arbitrary judgement
calls are necessarily made thousands of times per day. Everything from the
local bartender who must decide when someone has too much to drink to the
person choosing which stocks to buy, to the interviewer deciding who the best
candidate is for a job. Judgement calls are constantly made. In a society
which worships private property and places an incredibly high value on
individual choice, Asking "who decides X, Y, and Z?" will always end with "The
person who owns the _thing_ or is placed in the trusted role for that
decision." You interact with this trust over and over and over again
throughout your day.

Now if you want to question whether or not a society should worship private
property to the level with which we do, this is an entirely different
question. But in our current iteration, where we trust individuals to make
decisions without seeking permission from every member of society, the owners
of something or the people they hire decide what is or is not do with their
personal assets.

It likely isn't possible to run a society where no one is ever making
judgement calls. Again, if I misunderstood the implications of your question,
I apologize.

~~~
FakeComments
YouTube actually agreed not to editorialize user uploaded content in exchange
for protection from copyright laws.

So YouTube actually voluntarily surrendered the right many of you suppose it
has in exchange for a privilege — if YouTube removed content that way, it
becomes liable for any acts of commercial copyright infringement.

~~~
toofy
I'd be interested to hear more about this, do you have any articles handy
which go into detail of the specific language of this agreement? I'm sure this
may be a possibility, but I'm skeptical, I'd be more inclined to believe
YouTube's lawyers would be more than smart enough to advise them not to break
that kind of contract. I'd love to see the language though if you have it
handy.

Giving up the power to pick and choose what sort of content would be allowed
on their platform seems like something no sane organization would give away.
That would be like hackernews signing an agreement where they wouldn't be
allowed to moderate, highly unlikely.

