re: Is cancelling a YouTube channel a digital book burning?

Bicker over the correct percentage all you want, but the point remains valid. Youtube has the massively dominant platform and they tinker with, demonetize and ban speech that does not conform to a narrow and arbitrary Progressive orthodoxy. All while being under the umbrella of the even more dominant Google platform which enjoys even more legal protections nobody else gets.

quote:

---

Youtube has the massively dominant platform

---

Are you saying they didn't build that?

Should they not be allowed to decide what content they believe is best for their commercial venture?

quote:

---

demonetize and ban speech that does not conform to a narrow and arbitrary Progressive orthodoxy

---

I have no idea if this is true, but if it is, that is their prerogative. As stated earlier, if they are leaving a gap in the market where demand exists, someone will almost certainly fill it.

quote:

---

All while being under the umbrella of the even more dominant Google platform which enjoys even more legal protections nobody else gets.

---

I'm not sure what legal protection you are referring to that applies to Google or YouTube that wouldn't equally apply to another search engine or video hosting website.

quote:

---

With that being said, deleting a youtube channel is the equivalent of a book store deciding not to sell a particular book, or books by a particular author.

---

YouTube is a bit more than just a bookstore. So is reddit, Twitter, and Facebook.

Frame it any way you want - but the constant effort to silence and scrub non-progressive viewpoints from every aspect of American through this ridiculous cancel culture is every bit as insane as book burning. It’s probably even worse.

quote:

---

YouTube is a bit more than just a bookstore. So is reddit, Twitter, and Facebook.

---

No, they aren't. It's exactly the same. They are just the Barnes and Noble of their genera. Others in the game are "The Shop Around the Corner".

If folks don't like how one platform does it, they are completely free to start their own. And therein lies the difference in true government censorship and a PRIVATE organization filtering content on a platform they control.

Youtube, redit, twitter, facebook are all businesses trying to make a profit. If they deem content is detrimental to that goal, it is their prerogative to remove that content. Government censorship is about th suppression of ideas because it goes against a political agenda, which is usually 1). Keeping the people under control or 2). Keeping that part in power.

Are you familiar with the term monopoly? You understand that Google ( monopoly) owns YouTube ( monopoly) . You understand that Google gives YouTube a preferred place on its platform, right? You understand that Congress and the FCC have given them a preferred legal status that makes them immune from lawsuits, provided that they do not behave as a PUBLISHER. And yet here you are allowing that they make the editorial decision of a publisher by banning that which does not conform to their narrow Progressive ideology? You are aware that section Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act requires them to behave as an impartial platform for information,NOT to behave as curators of “ acceptable” viewpoints?

Bottom line, our government should not allow monopolistic PLATFORMS to censor speech unless they are willing to accept the legal liabilities of a PUBLISHER. They all have it both ways now which has resulted in a very narrow orthodoxy being promoted, and everything that beers away from it censored, de monetized etc.

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.

—Noam Chomsky

quote:

---

Are you familiar with the term monopoly?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

You understand that Google ( monopoly) owns YouTube ( monopoly) .

---

I don't think Google or YouTube is a monopoly.

quote:

---

You understand that Congress and the FCC have given them a preferred legal status that makes them immune from lawsuits, provided that they do not behave as a PUBLISHER.

---

Again, this is a distortion of fact. They don't have a preferred status over other search engines or video hosting website. Although, I'm not sure I agree with the law.

quote:

---

Bottom line, our government should not allow monopolistic PLATFORMS to censor speech unless they are willing to accept the legal liabilities of a PUBLISHER. They all have it both ways now which has resulted in a very narrow orthodoxy being promoted, and everything that beers away from it censored, de monetized etc.

---

Again, misrepresenting then as monopolies undercuts what is a valid argument. I agree it is problematic to allow them near blanket protection from liability for the content on their platforms when they behave as a publisher or editor in many ways.

Technically no, when you burn a book you destroy the accessibility to that specific avenue of information forever. If you cancel/block a YouTube channel, you still have the option of reversing that action later and you don't affect its accessibility for other people.

quote:

---

Technically no, when you burn a book you destroy the accessibility to that specific avenue of information forever. If you cancel/block a YouTube channel, you still have the option of reversing that action later and you don't affect its accessibility for other people.

---

Your logic only holds water if social media platforms decide to allow the publishing of information they’ve banned later.

You do realize the term Monopoly doesn’t mean competition doesn’t exist, right? It’s not that there isn’t a competitor out there with 1% or 4%, it’s that they have a DOMINANT position and unfair market advantage/market share that precludes fair competition and discourages market entry.

If you have a handful of Tech oligarchs controlling which information is disseminated and which is not, and editorializing about said Information, effectively behaving as PUBLISHERS , when they are specifically forbidden to do so , we have a problem. There is no way any sane American can feel it is good for this country to have a handful of people in control of our information. Which is why you will see them broken up in the relatively near future.