> Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content.
Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.
So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
> So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to?
“Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes.
> Is that really a standard you want to set?
Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman?
> Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand?
In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it.
You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube.
Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service.
The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech.
In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
> My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service.
And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
> The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content
> In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
> And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
Cool - but you didn't propose anything? Are you calling Russel Brand an employee of YouTube who deserves labor protection? Does YouTube get to fire Russel if he doesn't get enough views or stars? Does YouTube have to employ everyone? Do they pay FICA taxes on his earnings?
> What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
That's my point - I don't want the government making speech decisions - and it's expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment. Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one. They don't have police powers - and I'm certainly not giving it to them. The government does have police powers and if not restrained can not only fire you, but throw you in jail and worse.
If they're a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive behavior, beat them up over that. If you think there's a better way, build a competitor. But don't go giving the government more power to regulate speech.
Indeed, I didn’t. I just said that we should treat Google with at least the same scrutiny we treat the government. I didn’t say that porn should be allowed on YouTube. I didn’t say that Russel Brand is a YouTube employee. That’s all your weird imagination.
Employers and clients of private companies are protected all over the world for various reasons and it doesn’t result in weird problems you come up with. Should black people be Google employees to not get racially discriminated for using YouTube? No. It is a protected class. Should Germans be employed at a pharmacy to get the right to buy drugs? No. It’s a law that they can get it without any discrimination. I am talking about very basic things that already exist and we can’t even get past that in our discussion.
> Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one.
> They don't have police powers
I really can’t see much difference between Google banning me on monopolistic YouTube or the government banning me on monopolistic StateTube. You aren’t getting in jail in either case. Actually, there is one difference: StateTube would at least be governed by a democratically elected body.
I hope we both at least can agree that having StateTube as a de facto monopoly would be bad. So why should YouTube, that seems clearly worse, be considered good?
Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards? How does that work? Nationalize Google?
No one forces me or Russell Brand to watch or post on YouTube. I don’t have social media accounts because I don’t want to give up my privacy or get subjected to their whims. Russell Brand made different choices.
> Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards?
"We” are human beings who are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
> How does that work? Nationalize Google?
Social expectations, social awareness, legal means. It would work like all other customs and laws work: you get socially shunned and get legal trouble for your actions that don’t meet social expectations. Try to open a bar that doesn’t allow black people to enter it to see how those mechanisms work in practice.
Good luck getting enough people to care about a celebrity cancellation.
The only way to change the behavior of big corps like Google is not to give them money, and to get other people to do the same. I wouldn’t count on getting enough people worked up, though.
Russell Brand has his rights intact for now. Any damage to his dignity he did himself. He doesn’t have the right to post on YouTube, and YT has every right to decide who and what gets on their platform. Don’t like it? Don’t use it.
It’s not just about celebrity cancellation. This is just another form of a bigger problem. For example, many people got their Google accounts blocked for no reason and no recourse. There are stories about it on HN.
Yeah, LGBT rights and defunding police are more trendy issues to care about than the techno dystopia of tomorrow; but one doesn’t exclude the other. And hopefully the public sentiment will get there before it’s too late.
Yeah, those "many people" blocked for "no reason."
Google is free for most users. If they block someone from their services that's their prerogative. I doubt they do it randomly for "no reason," just like I doubt someone who says they got fired for "no reason." It might happen but more likely Google had a reason, just not one the blocked person agrees with or wants to tell anyone about.
What happens on YouTube with the advertising policies hardly seems to rise to "techno dystopia of tomorrow." Russell Brand didn't have his Google or YouTube accounts blocked. His videos are still there. YouTube de-monetized his channel, which means they won't run ads on his videos, and Brand won't make money on YouTube. YouTube has obligations beyond Russell Brand's ego and income -- they have contractual obligations to their advertisers and all of their users. No one has to watch or post on YouTube, and we don't descend into a dystopian hellscape if YouTube does one thing or another -- if it disappeared tomorrow most people in the world would barely notice, and a few wealthy celebrities living parasitically off of attention and advertising would have to get real jobs.
Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.