I just received my second community guidelines violation for my video demonstrating the use of LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5, for 4K video playback. I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools…
I just received my second community guidelines violation for my video demonstrating the use of LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5, for 4K video playback.
I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content, or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content.
In fact, in my own house, for multiple decades, I've purchased physical media (CDs, DVDs, and more recently, Blu-Rays), and only have legally-acquired content on my NAS. Streaming services used to be a panacea but are now fragmented and mostly full of garbage—and lots of ads. We just wanted to be able to watch TV shows and movies without hassle (and I'm happy to pay for physical media that I want to watch).
But this morning, as I was finishing up work on a video about a new mini Pi cluster, I got a cheerful email from YouTube saying my video on LibreELEC on the Pi 5 was removed because it promoted:
Dangerous or Harmful Content
Content that describes how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content, software, subscription services, or games that usually require payment isn't allowed on YouTube.
I never described any of that stuff, only how to self-host your own media library.
This wasn't my first rodeo—in October last year, I got a strike for showing people how to install Jellyfin!
In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!)
So I thought, this case will be similar:
- The video's been up for over a year, without issue
- The video's had over a million views
- The video doesn't promote or highlight any tools used to circumvent copyright, get around paid subscriptions, or reproduce any content illegally
Slam-dunk, right? Well, not according to whomever reviewed my appeal. Apparently self-hosted open source media library management is harmful.
Who knew open source software could be so subversive?
The video
So along that theme, I've re-uploaded the video to Internet Archive, free for anyone to download and view at their leisure.
Yes, even those rebels running LibreELEC on their Raspberry Pis!
Here it is: LibreELEC on the Raspberry Pi 5 - Internet Archive.
I've also uploaded it on Floatplane, for subscribers.
Alternatives
I've been slowly uploading my back catalog to my channel on Floatplane, though not all my content is there yet.
Some in the fediverse ask why I'm not on Peertube. Here's the problem (and it's not insurmountable): right now, there's no easy path towards sustainable content production when the audience for the content is 100x smaller, and the number of patrons/sponsors remains proportionally the same.
I was never able to sustain my open source work based on patronage, and content production is the same—just more expensive to maintain to any standard (each video takes between 10-300 hours to produce, and I have a family to feed, and US health insurance companies to fund).
YouTube was, and still is, a creative anomaly. I'm hugely thankful to my Patreon, GitHub, and Floatplane supporters—and I hope to have direct funding fully able to support my work someday. But until that time, YouTube's AdSense revenue and vast reach is a kind of 'golden handcuff.'
The handcuff has been a bit tarnished of late, however, with Google recently adding AI summaries to videos—which seems to indicate maybe Gemini is slurping up my content and using it in their AI models?
Maybe the handcuffs are fools-gold, and I just don't see it yet.
Read the original article
Comments
This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed.
From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software."
This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content.
Here in the UK, Ofcom held their second day-long livestreamed seminar on their implementation of the Online Safety Act on Wednesday this week. This time it was about keeping children "safe", including with "effective age assurance".
Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance on how platforms should implement the regime they want to see. They said this is on the basis that if they give specific advice, it may restrict their ability to take enforcement action later.
So it's up to the platforms to interpret the extremely complex and vaguely defined requirements and impose a regime which Ofcom will find acceptable. It was clear from the Q&A that some pretty big platforms are really struggling with it.
The inevitable outcome is that platforms will err on the side of caution, bearing in mind the potential penalties.
Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.
By hshdhdhj4444 2025-06-0611:5211 reply Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while…
There are so many issues with this.
Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities.
The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the reason isn’t necessarily because YouTube has a particularly better UI that keeps viewers and content creators on it. The reason YT has all the content creators is because it leverages Google’s ad monopoly and is able to help creators make money. A decently functioning anti-trust system would have split google ads from the rest of the company by now.
2. The devastation of the promise of the open internet. VCs have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to ensure we remain in walled gardens. Open source, self hosted, software on the other hand, where the benefits are shared and not concentrated in individual hands which can then spend billions to ensure that concentration, has suffered.
We need govt funding for open source and self hosted alternatives that are easy and safe for people to setup.
Combine the two and instead of YT getting to choose what videos are seen and not seen on the internet, major and small content creators would self host and be the decision makers, and still make similar amounts of money because they could plugin the openly available Google Adsense (kind of like how you can on blogs…).
By somenameforme 2025-06-0612:174 reply I think their real edge is a practically free and practically infinite bandwidth/capacity global CDN setup. There's no real technical reason for this still to be the case, but bandwidth costs are significant for people relying on other services to provide such. Or they're cheap and slow/capped.
This is the main reason I think alternative sites have a hard time competing. Play anything on YouTube from anywhere and if it's buffering/slow then it's probably your internet connection that's the problem. By contrast do the same on competing streaming sites and it's, more or less, expected especially if you aren't in certain geographic areas.
Monetization on YouTube is mostly just a carrot on a stick. The overwhelming majority of content creators will never make anything more than pocket change off of it. That carrot might still work as an incentivization system, but I don't think it's necessarily the driving force.
By sfn42 2025-06-0622:05 I'm not really disagreeing with you but I have a 700/700 fiber connection that generally works perfectly for anything I do, and youtube craps out pretty frequently. It'll just fail to load videos and I have to refresh up to multiple times before it starts working properly.
Also the frontend is generally very wonky, I'm wondering if its severely over engineered or something. It seems very simple, but it's failing at all kinds of stuff all the time. Shorts fail to load when scrolling, the scrolling just stops working, some times it keeps playing the previous video's audio while the current video is frozen.
Some times if I write a comment and try to highlight and delete some of it, when I hit backspace it deletes the part that wasn't highlighted. A normal <input type="text" /> does not do that. Have they implemented their own text inputs in JS or something? All you need for that component is a form with a textfield and a submit button. As far as I know that won't behave this way so I'm not sure what they're doing but it doesn't seem great.
I went and checked, it's a div. No idea why they would do that for that simple comment form.
By luhn 2025-06-0619:10 Yeah, anybody can make a half-baked CDN, but Google has PoPs inside ISPs across the world [1] and competing with that is essentially impossible.
[1] https://support.google.com/interconnect/answer/9058809?hl=en
By tshaddox 2025-06-0620:49 I have to imagine that YouTube also has massive storage requirements that are a non-trivial portion of Google’s storage costs.
By clucas 2025-06-0612:55 Plainview: You gonna change your shipping costs?
Tilford: We don't dictate shipping costs. That's railroad business.
Plainview: O-oh! You don't own the railroads? Course you do. Of course you do.
Why should "YouTube" as an entity enjoy freedom of speech? They're a platform for user-generated content. Outside of outright illegal content (which is even tenuous sometimes, I'd like to reserve this for the worst of things), they shouldn't be able to pick and choose which UGC they are willing to allow. They're the modern "town square". They're effectively a monopoly in this day and age (yes, there are other video hosting platforms, but YouTube has the largest share of all by far, and are de facto the place people expect to find video UGC).
Serving video with high availability to millions of people is hard. Few organizations, that aren't already flush with capital, are going to be able to replicate that at any sort of scale.
I'm tired of big corporations using their might to override individual freedom of speech. Once you reach a certain size, you should have to make moderation a more personal thing. Instead of taking videos that aren't illegal in and of themselves down, they should have to empower the user to moderate their own feed. Of course, this is incompatible with the modern drive to use these platforms to push content in front of people, instead of letting them curate their own experience.
I don't have all the answers, but the "corporations = people, and thus corporations have freedom of speech" angle has done a lot of damage to the rights of individuals.
By int_19h 2025-06-0621:39 I think one thing that we should be more cognizant about in general is that corporations are a legal construct to begin with, and as such, there's no natural right to incorporate - it's strictly a privilege. So society attaching even very heavy strings to that is not unreasonable so long as they are applied consistently to all corporations. Which is to say, if corporations don't do what we as a society want them to do, beating them with a large and heavy stick until they start doing that is not wrong, and we should be doing more of it.
And if people really want their freedoms, well, they can go and run their business as individuals, with no corporate liability shield etc. Then I'm fine with saying that their freedom of speech etc overrides everything else.
> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities
I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube.
But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them.
The argument that removing videos is their speech implies that hosting videos is their speech. So they should be liable for all content they post.
They are two different things, though. One is actually producing content, and the others deciding which content host and share. And there are all kinds of various legal and illegal combinations, here. For instance maybe they decide that it's okay to host Nazi content, something that is absolutely protected under the first amendment. Or maybe they decide that it's not okay to host Nazi content, even though it's definitely protected under the first amendment.
Also see Gonzales v. Google.
But really the most dangerous thing here is telling a company that they are legally liable for everything their users post. A large company like Google has the legal firepower to handle the massive onslaught of lawsuits that will instantly occur. A smaller startup thing? Not a chance. They're DOA.
Heck, even on my tiny traffic personal website, I would take the comment section down because there's no way I can handle a lawsuit over something somebody posted there.
I should not be required to host content I do not wish to host. And at the same time I must be shielded from liability from comments that people make on my website, if we are to have a comment section at all.
I think using the example of Nazi content and the first amendment is a distraction. What’s relevant is speech that is not legally protected.
Should the New York Times have civil libel liability for what they publish in a newspaper? Should Google have civil libel liability for what they publish on YouTube?
By Manuel_D 2025-06-0716:07 > Should Google have civil libel liability for what they publish on YouTube?
They do.
What they don't have liability for, is content that users post to YouTube.
By beej71 2025-06-0820:01 For me, the more pertinent question is should I be liable for not-legally-protected content people post to my comment section on my website?
By zmgsabst 2025-06-0617:01 That’s my opinion:
If you exhibit pre-publication restraint, you’re an editor of an anthology — and not an information service hosting user content.
That would make sense if this were a math theorem, but law and liability and society don’t usually work like math.
Theee things can be true:
1. YT and similar give people a platform for speech
2. So long as they make a good faith effort to identify and remove content that is illegal, the hosted speech is not theirs.
3. As platform owner they are also free to exercise speech by moderating topics for any or no reason
By tzs 2025-06-0615:35 > The argument that removing videos is their speech implies that hosting videos is their speech.
There is no such implication because the first is an affirmative act based on their knowledge of the actual content and the other is a passive act not based on knowledge of that content.
By ClumsyPilot 2025-06-0612:066 reply > Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities
Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech.
But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it.
A lot of breakdown in society lately is clearly coming from the fact that some people/companies have it both ways when it suits them.
By akimbostrawman 2025-06-0612:193 reply The solution would be to revoke section 203 from any platform which acts as a digital public square if they do moderation beyond removing illegal content.
Ofc they would try there best to be excluded to have there cake and eat it too.
By lesuorac 2025-06-0612:50 The entire point of section 230 is to allow platforms to remove non-illegal content [1].
Basically there were two lawsuits about platforms showing content. One of the platfroms tried to curate content to create a family-friendly environment. The second platform just didn't take anything down. The first platform lost their lawsuit while the second won their lawsuit. Congress wants to allow platforms to create family friend environment online so section 230 was written.
By cosmic_cheese 2025-06-0614:27 If something like that were put in place, any platforms acting as a “public square” should also be required to disable all recommendation and content surfacing features aside from search, algorithmic or otherwise.
Those recommendation features already do plenty of damage even with platforms having the ability to remove anything they like. If platforms are restricted to only removing illegal content, that damage would quickly become much greater.
You need moderation for more than legality though, otherwise you can't have open forums like this, that aren't total cesspits.
By Terr_ 2025-06-0617:18 Right:
* When a bot farm spams ads for erectile dysfunction pills into every comment thread on your blog... That's "legal content"!
* When your model-train hobbyist site is invaded by posters sharing swastikas and planning neo-nazi rallies, that too is "legal content"--at least outside Germany.
All sorts of deceptive, off-topic, and horribly offensive things are "legal content."
By intended 2025-06-0615:40 Sadly it turns out that the biggest driving force is politics, and the inability for our institutions to win with boring facts, against fast and loose engaging content.
The idea is that in a competitive marketplace of ideas, the better idea wins. The reality is that if you dont compete on accuracy, but compete on engagement, you can earn enough revenue to stay cash flow positive.
I would say as the cost of making content and publishing content went down, the competition for attention went up. The result is that expensive to produce information, cannot compete with cheap to produce content.
Your premise is incomplete. When someone posts illegal content on YouTube they are not liable if they are not aware of the illegality of that content. Once they learn that they are hosting illegal content they lose their safe harbor if they don't remove it.
Please don't post deliberately false information on HN.
By tzs 2025-06-0616:54 Let me rephrase, since saying they lose their safe harbor was a poor choice of words. The safe harbor does indeed prevent them from being treated as the publisher of the illegal content. However illegal content can incur liability for acts other than publishing or distributing and section 230's safe harbor won't protect them from that.
i find it hard to believe there is any content on YT platform that they are unaware of.
I mean what do you think happens? Do you think YouTube employs an army of people to watch and vet every single video that gets posted there?
no i think YT uses an AI to categorize and vet media based on standard rubrick, at a pace that exceeds a human collective by orders of magnitude.
they know about it as soon as you post it.
The reason we're having this discussion this on this particular post because YT's AI is not infallible. There isn't a "standard rubric" - just automated correlation-based scoring derived from labeled training data. In this case, the AI learned that media piracy and self-hosted setups are correlated, but without actual judgement or a sense of causality. So YT doesn't truly "know" anything about the videos despite the AI augmentation.
I am curious what you consider to be a "standard rubric" - would that be based on the presence of keywords, or requires a deeper understanding of meaning to be able to differentiate the study/analysis of a topic versus promoting said subject.
By rolph 2025-06-0618:57 automated correlation-based scoring derived from labeled training data, would be the standard rubric
> Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech.
> But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it.
There is no contradiction there.
Imagine a forum about knitting. Someone, who has it in for the owners of this knitting forum (or perhaps even just a SPAM bot) starts posting illegal, or even just non-knitting content on this forum.
The entire purpose of the forum is to be a community about knitting.
Why is it the legal or moral responsibility of the knitting forum to host SPAM content? And why should they be legally liable for someone else posting content on their platform?
You're equating specific pieces of content with the platform as a whole.
There is no reality where I will accept that if I create something. I spend and risk my money on web hosting. I write the code. I put something out there... that other people get to dictate what content I have to distribute. That's an evil reality to contemplate. I don't want to live in that world. I certainly wont' do business under those terms.
You're effectively trying to give other people an ultimatum in order to extract value from them that you did not earn and have no claim to. You're saying that if they don't host content that they don't want to distribute that they should be legally liable for anything that anyone uploads.
The two don't connect at all. Anyone is, and should be free to create any kind of online service where they pick and choose what is or is not allowed. That shouldn't then subject them to criminal or civil liability because of how others decide to use that product or service.
Imagine if that weird concept were applied to offline things, like kitchen knives. A kitchen knife manufacturer is perfectly within their rights to say "This product is intended to be used for culinary purposes and no other. If we find out that you are using it to do other things, we will stop doing business with you forever." That doesn't then make them liable for people who use their product for other purposes.
This isn’t really what’s being argued. We’re not talking about a knitting forum. We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is a distinction in the law. If you want to not be liable for the content posted to your platform then you may not moderate or censor it seems like a fair compromise to me. Either you are knitting forum carefully cultivating your content and thus liable for what people see there, or you are a neutral hosting service provider. Right now we let people platforms be whichever favors their present goal or narrative without considering the impact such duplicity has on the public users.
> We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms.
There is no such thing as a "content neutral hosting platform." I know that people like to talk about social media services in the same umbrella as the concept of "common carrier", which is reserved for things like mail service and telecommunications infrastructure. And that might be what you're conflating here. If you're not, then please point me to the law, in any country even, where "content neutral hosting platform" is a legal term defined.
> If you want to not be liable for the content posted to your platform then you may not moderate or censor it seems like a fair compromise to me.
Compensation for what? The "platform" built something themselves. They made it. They are offering it on the market. If anyone is due compensation, it is them. No matter how much you don't like them. You didn't build it. You could have, maybe. But you didn't. I bet you didn't even try. But they did. And they succeeded at it. So where does anyone get off demanding "compensation" from them just for bringing something useful valuable into existence?
That is a pretty messed up way of looking at things IMO. It is the mindset of a thief.
> Either you are knitting forum carefully cultivating your content and thus liable for what people see there,
Thank you for conceding my argument and shining a spotlight on how ridiculous this is. You agree that according to your world view, the knitting forum should be liable for the content others post on it just because they are enforcing that things stay on topic. Even just for removing SPAM bot posts this would expose them to this liability.
> Right now we let people platforms be whichever favors their present goal or narrative without considering the impact such duplicity has on the public users.
The beautiful thing about freedom is that along as people don't infringe upon the rights of others, they don't need your permission to just go build things and exist.
The YouTube creators didn't have to ask you to "allow" them to build something useful and valuable. They just went and did it. And that's how it should be.
I get that certain creators run into trouble with the TOS. Hell, I've tried to create an Instagram account on several occasions and it gets suspended before I can even use it. And when I appeal or try to ask "why?" I never get answers. It's frustrating.
But the difference between you and me, is I don't think that people who build and create things and bring valuable shit into existence owe me something just by virtue of their existence.
By ClumsyPilot 2025-06-0616:511 reply > The beautiful thing about freedom is that along as people don't infringe upon the rights of others, they don't need your permission to just go build things and exist
This is hollow sophistry, and it’s not how things actually are.
You don’t have freedom for Self dealing, price fixing, collusion, bribery, false marketing, antitrust violations, selling baby powder with lead and many other things.
In some states you can’t even legally collect rainwater.
Also the government will come after you with guns and throw you in jail if you violate some bogus and fictitious “intellectual property rights” that last for 70 years after creator has died.
It’s u helpful to pretend we live in Wild West of liberty
By gspencley 2025-06-0915:27 > You don’t have freedom for Self dealing, price fixing, collusion, bribery, false marketing, antitrust violations, selling baby powder with lead and many other things.
It's funny how often people will not read what you wrote, and instead read what they want to read.
Not only did my comment preempt that specific reply of yours in the very sentence you quoted, but you seem to have a warped working definition of the word "freedom": where you think that if someone uses it they mean "freedom to do literally whatever the hell they want to no matter who they hurt."
That means that your mental model of the word "freedom", at least when you hear others say it, begins with a straw-man.
No discussion is possible under those conditions.
I'll help you out: my personal operating definition of "liberty" is "An environment in which all interpersonal relations are consensual."
That's why, as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others (the part of my quote that you just completely dropped and ignored so that you could react to what you wanted to read instead of what I actually wrote) you don't need the permission of others to build something. You can just go and do it.
> the concept of "common carrier"
So then, your actual opinion is Yes a "content neutral hosting platform." does exist?
Its seems very obvious here that people are saying that the laws that apply to common carriers could be changed so they apply to social media platforms.
Problem/confusion solved here, and the world doesn't fall apart. As we already have these laws, and the world didn't fall apart before.
By gspencley 2025-06-0914:52 > So then, your actual opinion is Yes a "content neutral hosting platform." does exist?
No. Common carrier and "hosting platform" are not the same thing. If someone wanted to apply common carrier status to broadband infrastructure, it might make sense. Applying common carrier to knitting forum does not. They are two very different things. One facilitates discrete communication between two distinct parties while the other publishes and distributes content to a wide audience. Conflating the two is an exercise in mental gymnastics that only makes sense if you have a political agenda and don't care about being intellectually honest.
By dcow 2025-06-0617:49 I honestly don’t know what you are spewing off about. At one point you quote me saying “compromise” then proceed to argue as if I said “compensation”. I’m not going to respond to a mischaracterization.
To your challenge:
> In the United States, companies that offer web hosting services are shielded from liability for most content that customers or malicious users place on the websites they host. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (―Section 230‖). protects hosting providers from liability for content placed on these websites by their customers or other parties. The statute states that ―[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.‖ Most courts find that a web hosting provider qualifies as a ―provider‖ of an ―interactive computer service.‖
>Although this protection is usually applied to defamatory remarks, most federal circuits have interpreted Section 230 broadly, providing ―federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.‖
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/itl/StopBadware_...
There is clear legal handling in the US beyond common carrier provisions for hosting providers on the internet.
The nuance here is an argument over what constitutes a hosting provider and how far we extent legal immunity.
My “worldview” is that if you want to claim your business is a hosting provider so that you are granted the legal protection from content liability, that you have a responsibility—which I’d argue we should codify more formally—to remain a neutral hosting provider in spirit, because it is in line with the type of liberty (freedom of expression) we aim to protect in the US. You are saying “legally I’m a neutral hosting provider”, and we already tolerate removal of spam and legally obscene/objectionable content so your point there is moot, so if you are making that claim legally then it’s two faced to turn around and say “IMA private entity I can do whatever I want to curate the content on my platform because I’m responsible for the brand and image and experience I want to cultivate in my house”.
I’m okay with hosting providers not being liable for user content, and I’m okay with yarn forums deleting any post that doesn't reference yarn. It’s the mix of both that I feel is partly responsible for the poor state we’re in now where users get demonetized on YT for questioning the efficacy of new vaccine technology.
Hopefully it’s clear what the nuance is here. And if you don’t think there’s a whole conversation that has been happening here read up on Cloudflare’s philosophy and what Prince has written about the topic. Because they were faced with the same dilemma with The Daily Stormer (but not quite as flagrant as Google/YT trying to play both sides for profit).
By ClumsyPilot 2025-06-0616:35 > There is no reality where I will accept that…
Welcome to the club
> if I create something. I spend and risk my money on web hosting. I write the code...
You can create a forum in 20 minutes, it’s all open source and I did that when I was 14
All the ‘risk’ and ‘writing code’ is about fighting other platforms for attention, not providing a consumer good.
> ultimatum… in order to extract value from them that you did not earn
I am the consumer, the market exists for me and I pay for the whole party. If a business that harms customers is called a crime syndicate.
You might see this ultimatum in other areas too, like “you can’t sell baby food with lead in it, or you go to prison”
By Slava_Propanei 2025-06-1016:39 [dead]
By andrepd 2025-06-0613:49 The issue is that the knitting forum is a different beast from youtube. The latter is a platform. Its scale makes it QUALITATIVELY different. And there's network effects, there's dumping behaviour, there's preinstalls on every phone, there's integration with the ad behemoth, all to make sure it remains a platform.
This is correct. In the US tiktok is currently being sued for feeding kids choking game content through the algorithm that was earlier judged to be free speech.
By maketheman 2025-06-0614:26 Curation and promotion, even if done by a machine (LOL, why does that matter at all?) needs to come with significant liability.
It should be possible to protect content hosting services from extensive liability while not protecting companies from the consequences of what they choose to promote and present to people. Those are two separate and very different activities that aren't even necessarily connected (you could curate and promote without hosting, and in fact this happens all the time; you can host without curating and promoting, this also happens all the time—in fact, these typically are not mixed together outside of social media companies with their damned "algorithms", as far as content from 3rd parties goes)
By andrepd 2025-06-0613:47 > A lot of breakdown in society lately is clearly coming from the fact that some people/companies have it both ways when it suits them.
See how copyright is protected when it's whatcd violating it and when it's OpenAI
By bigbadfeline 2025-06-0619:081 reply > A decently functioning anti-trust system...
Unfortunately, it's a tall order in the current political environment for the same reason open source funding isn't forthcoming, these are just parts of a bigger problem which is best discussed elsewhere.
With that said, you're absolutely right in your assessment, this is approximately what needs to happen in order to improve the current sorry state of media and public discourse. Sadly, as evidanced by the other replies to your comment, the public at large simply doesn't get it and the situation is even worse with the structural changes needed to make a real solution possible.
It's a vicious cycle that results in ever worse media, and not only media. The current public spat between the two smartest people in the world (by mass media metrics), garnished with public blackmail attempts and private-social media channels, is a jaw dropping proof of dysfunction but ofcourse the media presents it as casual entertainment.
By LocalH 2025-06-0619:15 > Sadly, as evidanced by the other replies to your comment, the public at large simply doesn't get it and the situation is even worse with the structural changes needed to make a real solution possible.
The ones with money and power (which are effectively the same thing) want it to be this way, as it makes them richer and more powerful. The masses are just pawns literally being moved around on the chessboard of society.
One thing I really wish, is that more people volunteered to moderate things. It’s a volunteer position, it’s needed for most of the communities we are part of, and doing this raises the floor of conversations across the board.
The distance between the average view point on how free speech works, and the reality that content moderation forces you to contend with, is frankly gut wrenching. We need to be able to shorten that distance so that when we discuss it online, we have ways to actually make sense of it. For the creativity of others ideas to be brought to bear.
Otherwise, we’re doomed to reinvent the wheel over and over again, our collective intuitions advancing at a snails pace.
By raxxorraxor 2025-06-109:37 I dislike people promoting extensions to the formerly liberal moderation and content controls on the net because the current status quo was entirely predictable.
And your statement is wrong. There was a culture that such content wasn't removed and if it was done, there was a backlash. Even on platforms like Facebook and there certainly was a time where such removals generated feedback.
But activists demanded censorship and everything degenerated into some stupid partisan shit about bullshit topics that do not matter.
It doesn't take too much to comprehend that the demands for censorhip normalized it in the end.
And open solutions like ActivityPub also had to suffer the insufferable and made the openness a moot point.
Govt funding would make everything even worse because people would demand even more content controls and there are numerous leverages where public officials could be pressured to enact more content controls.
By AnthonyMouse 2025-06-0619:14 > Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities.
Here's some text from Section 230 of the CDA:
> (c) (2) Civil liability
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
...
> (e) (1) No effect on criminal law
> Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
Now in this case, you have YouTube, a service with obvious market power, taking down content promoting a competitor to YouTube. There are Federal criminal antitrust statutes.
By mardifoufs 2025-06-0615:392 reply Mhmm, so would it be fine for a private platform not allowing say, Muslims on their website? Especially a platform as big as YouTube? I mean, it's essential to their rights to be able to do that, I guess?
Like I understand your point, but this argument is usually not actually useful. Especially since it's usually not coming from "free speech absolutist" types, so it always comes off as a bit disingenuous. Unless you are arguing for big corporations having an absolute right to free speech, which I would disagree with but would at least make the argument consistent.
By dragonwriter 2025-06-0618:59 > Mhmm, so would it be fine for a private platform not allowing say, Muslims on their website?
Depends on the sense of “private”.
If it is, private in the sense that it is a platform run by a Christian Church for the use of organizations affiliated with that Church, and not offering information dissemination to the general public, sure.
If its a private business offering platform services to the public at large but specifically excluding Muslims, then it is potentially engaging in prohibited religious discrimination in a public accommodation. Unlike religion, political viewpoint is not, federally, a protected class in public accommodations, though state law may vary.
(OTOH, under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and similar laws in many states, and case law based on and in line with the general motivation of such laws, laws including state public accommodation laws, are being looked at more skeptically when they prohibit religious and religiously-motivated discrimination, as an impairment of the religious freedom of the discriminating party, in theory irrespective of the religions on each side, but in practice favoring discrimination by Christians and against non-Christians, so possibly the Muslim exclusion would succeed even in a public accommodation.)
By pr0zac 2025-06-0618:45 I don't think anyone would argue that would violate freedom of speech, however it would still be illegal as it would violate the civil rights act by discriminating based on religion. Theres more than one right involved in your hypothetical basically.
By Slava_Propanei 2025-06-1016:28 [dead]
By dcow 2025-06-0613:07 We don’t need the government to throw money at “open source”. That’s silly. Youtube used to be a means to an end. I need to send my friend or a teacher a video but email has a 25mb attachment limit. Need to use youtube or image shack. These days you can just use a text message or whatever platform you’re using to communicate. So youtube has now become a platform for “content creators”. It’s a different beast. To compete with youtube you have to not only make the video stuff work but also break the network effect and figure out how to pay creators.
Further, plenty of VCs don’t give two shits whether your thing is open source or not, they just want ROI. In my experience it’s tech law (or lack thereof) that missed the infusion of “internet maker ethos”. The depth of the average startup legal advice is “here’s a privacy policy and EULA that maximally protect your company at the expense of users”. “Here’s an employment contract template that tries to fuck your employees.” “It’s safest not to share your source code and keep it a trade secret.” “Go have fun.” If you want to see more open source then you need to cultivate that ethos among the people in power running the companies. So often I see the prevailing sentiment even here to be anti-gpl. The gpl may be imperfect, but if you care at all about the proliferation of open-source in a western copyright regime, then pissing on the gpl as “the brainchild of crackpot Stallman” is not the way to get there.
If you want more open source then founders need to come to fundamentally understand that their source code is not what makes their business valuable, it’s the time and effort they put in to provide a service that others aren't providing or is better than the competition. Too many founders are living the delusion that at a software level their engineers are writing novel patentable or trade secret level code that gives them a true algorithmic leg up. 9 times out of ten their shit is just new and fresh and disruptive. I understand that in rare cases people are doing truly novel things with software, but that certainly isn’t the default case.
I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other. There's obviously already filtering going on in youtube, even before covid, on illegal content and also on legal content that is against the policy (adult content for example).
How is Covid desinfo during the pandemic suddenly a slippery slope for anti-competitive measures, while all the other moderation measures aren't? Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules?
I think we really need a better argument than 'making any rule leads to making bad rules, so we better have no rules'.
By aleph_minus_one 2025-06-068:543 reply > Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules?
- The magnitude of content involved.
- The fact that there exists a significant part of the society which is vocal about not endorsing these particular deletions.
- The fact that many people became aware of the moderation ("censorship") that YouTube does and its power.
- The fact that these COVID information videos (despite being perhaps wrong) formed important patterns of opinions, i.e. some opinions considered "extremist" or "wrong" were suppressed.
By nobody9999 2025-06-080:29 I respect that view. And I think you (and anyone else who shares that view) should be able to access any legal content, should they wish to do so.
That said, what does what you or I think have to do with YouTube's policies?
If you disagree with some or all of their policies (I certainly do), you are free not to use YouTube.
I tend not to use that site because I don't like ads and I don't like being spied upon.
No one is stopping you or anyone else from creating a platform for the topic(s) you'd like to see disseminated and discussed.
Or is it (and I'm not saying it is) your contention that YouTube should be required to provide both hosting and ad monetization to everyone, without regard to the content of those hosted videos?
We also suppress videos on the correct manufacturing process for plastic explosives. Not because doing it safely is a bad idea, but because proliferating bomb making materials is.
Covid disinformation got people killed. It will continue to get people killed, especially with a proponent of it leading the US health service.
Things likely to lead to death, are likely things you do not want on your platform.
Since Swedish policy during covid, produced by medical professionals and researchers, was contrary to US policy during covid, this kind of information was also removed.
You do not have this kind of disagreement within the professional field with bomb making materials. Pandemic prevention is an on-going research topic where a lot of different professionals has wild difference in views and approaches, and the meta studies done post the covid pandemic has also demonstrated that much of the strategies deployed by countries all over the world, including US and Sweden, was proven to be inefficient or directly false. The effectiveness of non-N95 respirator against an airborn virus that mostly spread through aerosols (rather than droplets) was one of them, and the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden demonstrated that in an early study when they found live virus surviving the filtered air conditioning in the hospital.
Some people in Sweden first learned about the US censorship because official news from the Swedish government was removed from platforms. Some fringe Covid disinformation might get people kill, but the chilling effect from liberal use of censorship will also kill people.
The biggest killer of all seems to be the politicization of pandemic research. The meta studies seems to be mostly ignored by the political discussion, and its very possible that we get a repeat of the pandemic sooner than later without any thing changing from last time.
By bjourne 2025-06-0614:19 "Some people in Sweden first learned about the US censorship because official news from the Swedish government was removed from platforms."
Citation very, very much needed.
And none of that changes YouTube's liability - caused by misinformation and death.
A company can generally be relied upon to act to reduce their liability in most cases. That involves not pissing off their federal regulatory bodies.
Sweden was not caught up in the early suppression of misinformation. Things changed after a certain tacolike individual called Google's CEO into a private meeting. And expecting them to ignore that, is insane.
By whywhywhywhy 2025-06-0612:111 reply >And none of that changes YouTube's liability - caused by misinformation and death.
Doesn’t section 230 protect them from the consequences of words users transmit through their platform.
By shakna 2025-06-0615:07 Only if they "take reasonable steps" to "delete or prevent access" to that content. That is, they filter or suppress the information. Which is precisely the point of this thread. They did.
Sweden is widely recognized as the example to absolutely not follow in handling pandemics.
N95s (and above) definitely work, so does filtered air. But sweden has a long standing history of eugenics
By int_19h 2025-06-0621:51 > Sweden is widely recognized as the example to absolutely not follow in handling pandemics.
Is it? There were some very scathing attacks on their COVID policy back in the first two years of the pandemic, but when you look at more recent retrospectives that have the benefit of hindsight, it seems that they didn't actually do worse than countries which went full lockdown.
By Sloowms 2025-06-0612:29 As opposed to the US? Like sending infected elderly people to elderly homes to infect more people?
By andrepd 2025-06-0613:56 That's your perspective. What if I were to demand it be silenced and only opinions praising its policy were shown?
Let's talk it over in the open, it's not perfect but it's the best way.
By stefantalpalaru 2025-06-0611:38 [dead]
but its not about the information, its about who spouts it. For example its possible for the same government entity to be 100% whitelisted in saying "DONT MASK", and also "MASK OR YOU KILL GRANNY", both are 100% allowed, but when some layperson says the one that isnt favored by the regime at the time, well, they are censored at best.
Disinformation got people killed. That creates liability. The causes a platform to suppress information.
Information, backed by experts, usually requires intervention by a higher power to supress - because it doesn't carry the same liability.
By handoflixue 2025-06-0610:291 reply Amazon.com currently carries the "Anarchist's Cookbook", including the Author's Footnote saying that the publication of this book is a terrible and dangerous idea. My local library also carries this book.
Is this disinformation really more dangerous than that book? Is there some reason YouTube should be more liable for user-uploaded content, versus a bookstore being liable for content they deliberately choose to carry?
By shakna 2025-06-0611:01 For a time, the Cookbook was banned. However, due to most of it being common knowledge, and the rest of it being ineffectual nonsense unlikely to harm anyone, restrictions were relaxed.
In some jurisdictions, however, it does remain banned to this day. YT are liable if they broadcast the contents of the Cookbook to the UK, for example.
Which is a great example of companies acting because they'll end up liable. Which is the only point I've made.
> Disinformation got people killed
Back this up with data if you want to keep stating this as fact. How do you know know disinformation got people killed, and what specifically are you defining as disinformation?
By strangattractor 2025-06-0617:171 reply In March 2020, an Arizona man died and his wife was hospitalized after ingesting chloroquine phosphate, a substance used in fish tanks to clean aquariums, in an attempt to prevent or treat COVID-19. They reportedly mixed the substance with liquid and drank it, experiencing immediate effects. The man's wife told NBC News she had seen televised briefings where President Trump discussed the potential benefits of chloroquine for COVID-19 and remembered using it for her koi fish. The Banner Health hospital system issued a warning against taking inappropriate medication and household products to treat or prevent COVID-19, emphasizing that chloroquine used for malaria should not be taken for this purpose.
I don't like the president, but I don't remember seeing him say to take chloroquine phosphate tablets. I definitely heard him say that he though hydroxychloroquine might me a possible treatment, presumably referring to hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets.
More importantly though, the then (and unfortunately now) president isn't a doctor and didn't directly tell people to take it. If a person heard that and decided to eat a bottle of pills meant for a fish tank, I don't know who we could lay blame on other than the person that made that choice.
By strangattractor 2025-06-0820:061 reply Do you remember him suggesting to drink bleach or exposing yourself to UV? [0]
Let's say for example the President keeps his yap shut about hydroxychloroquine or drinking bleach [0] etc and 10 people listening to Alex Jones die taking it because they are frightened. Now lets say POTUS goes on televised News and suggest doing dangerous things to 100 times the size of Alex Jones's audience and we end up with 1000 needless deaths of people that may not get COVID anyway. I expect Alex Jones to be an irresponsible sleaze bag but POTUS should have some restraint/intelligence.
By brigandish 2025-06-095:181 reply I watched that press conference[1] at the time. He didn't suggest it to the audience, as you can see in the short clip too, and even though that short clip is not only clipped in time but in the viewport so you can't see that he's speaking to a doctor, Deborah Birx[2], and asking her about these things, because they'd been discussed with him previously, off camera.
I have no idea why people keep saying that he suggested injecting household detergents or drinking bleach or some other nonsense like that, other that parroting biased nonsense or coming up with it themselves. What's more worrying is the way it was reported as such, even though he's talking to journalists, the press conference was filmed start to finish and is freely available in several places.
This lie needs to die.
Also, if you watch earlier, the guy from Homeland goes through their experiments that show the virus does indeed die when exposed to sunlight[3]. I thought it was very interesting and instructive but the next day saw the media distorting it beyond recognition.
And this, in a thread about misinformation and disinformation.
[1] https://youtu.be/bATddhoI6gI?si=2ITmdayt4rLNLalT&t=1591
By strangattractor 2025-06-1121:121 reply The couple from Arizona would likely disagree if both were still alive - they heard what he said and acted in accordance with their interpretation.
Looking at Birx face while he is making those comments indicates - to me at least - a person very uncomfortable with what is being said. If they were discussed with him before (your source of info unknown) then he clearly did not understand what was being said to him. Yes UV kills all viruses on surfaces as does bleach - it is not useful for someone already infected with COVID and neither is Hydroxychloroquine (taken internally or otherwise).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57zJr82dhQ
Whether it is redrawing NOAA Hurricane projection maps, claiming COVID will all go away in a couple of months or cabinet members claiming vaccines have not been tested while simultaneously giving indication that taking untested remedies is ok - make it a little unclear who is MIS and DIS informing the public.
By brigandish 2025-06-1415:231 reply > your source of info unknown
He says it in the press conference.
> The couple from Arizona would likely disagree if both were still alive - they heard what he said and acted in accordance with their interpretation.
They did something stupid, what's your point?
By strangattractor 2025-06-1819:20 What is said by the President is seen and interpreted by the masses. The couple from Arizona are unlikely the only example of individuals doing "something stupid" because of things the President says.
Attempts should be made to accurately inform people and minimize the number of people that do "something stupid" IMHO. Doing stupid things can have multiple sources - being misinformed or partially informed is one of them. Scared people often do really stupid things.
Sadly misinforming people seems to happen on a regular basis with this administration. If this had been a one off incident during a crisis it would be more understandable. Sometimes Presidents make mistakes. Telling people "what do you have to lose" is for untested drugs IMO is not responsible behavior.
By strangattractor 2025-06-0820:44 You're correct he is not trained as a doctor but that doesn't stop him from giving medical advice. When referring to hydroxychloroquine "...what do you have to lose..." [0]
Hundreds verifiably died, after following misinformation [0]. And I would define misinformation as claiming something has health benefits, when very clearly, it will kill you. Like when Gary Lenius believed that hydrochloroquine was a cure.
By _heimdall 2025-06-072:26 > A BBC team tracking coronavirus misinformation has found links to assaults, arsons and deaths. And experts say the potential for indirect harm caused by rumours, conspiracy theories and bad health information could be much bigger.
The claims in the article, which is notably from very early in the pandemic, are focused mainly on looting, rioting, etc.
There are also stories of people poisoning themselves with household cleaners that they believed to be doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate.
I'm not sure how that's relevant though, they were dosing themselves with household chemicals based on what they heard from the then (and unfortunately now) president who notably has no medical background.
If a person says advil is useful for headaches and someone is harmed when they take a whole bottle, I wouldn't blame the first person for that decision and I definitely wouldn't begin to say speech should have been censored to avoid it.
> Covid disinformation got people killed.
You know this claim can never be substantiated right? You will never be able to show causation like that and we would never allow some controlled trial to see whether giving people whatever information you deem as misinformation actually increases the death rate relative to a control group.
By ordersofmag 2025-06-0612:201 reply Even in science there is not a 'requirement' that you have a controlled experiment in order to have evidence that a claim is true. Following your argument you can't substantiate that humans are the result of evolution because we can't take two groups of early primates, subject one to evolutionary forces and the other not and see what happens. Instead we can observe a chain of correlations with plausible mechanisms that indicate causation and say it's evidentiary. For example, data that indicates unvaccinated people died at a higher rate and data that indicates people who chose not to vaccinate self-report that the reason they made that choice was based on particular information that they believed. That would be evidence that helps substantiate the theory the information led to deaths. It's not 'proof'. We can't 'prove' that exposure to the information actually led to the decision (because people sometimes misattribute their own decisions) and it would be impractical to imagine we can collect vaccine-decision rationales from a large number of folks pre-death (though someone might have) and you can't attribute a particular death to a particular decision (because vaccines aren't perfectly protective) so you have to do statistics over a large sample. But the causal chain is entirely plausible based on everything I know and there's no reason to believe data around those correlations can't exist. And science isn't about 'proof'. Science is about theories that best explain a set of observations and in particular have predictive power. You almost never run experiments (in the 8th grade science fair sense) in fields like astronomy or geology, but we have strong 'substantiated' theories in those fields nonetheless.
By _heimdall 2025-06-0612:29 A causal chain being plausible does not justify or substantiate a claim of causation.
I absolutely would say that we can't prove humans are the result of evolution. The theory seems very likely and explains what we have observed, but that's why its a theory and not a fact - its the last hypothesis standing and generally accepted but not proven.
My argument here isn't with whether the causation seemed likely, though we can have that debate if you prefer and we'd have to go deep down the accuracy and reliability of data reporting during the pandemic.
My argument is that we can't make blanket statements that misinformation killed people. Not only is that not a proven (or provable) fact, it skips past what we define as misinformation and ignores what was known at the time in favor of what we know today. Even if the data you to point to shows correlation and possible causation today, we didn't have that information during the pandemic st the time that YouTube was pulling down content for questioning efficacy or safety.
Come on, man. COVID deaths per capita were highest in countries that had very active vaccine skepticism. While this is not causation establishment, it is super highly correlative:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... gives good estimates of COVID death impact using a very reasonable methodology.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.27.22271579v... illustrates that it's hard to nail this relationship down since UNDERREPORTING was ALSO highest in countries with high vaccine skepticism.
While establishing causation is the gold standard, dismissing strong correlative relationships where everything reasonably considered conflationary has been ruled out (which a raw death count would ostensibly do much of) is not arguing in good faith, IMHO
Sure, you can absolutely claim correlation there and say something like "information making people hesitant to get the vaccine may have increased risk of death." That's wildly different than claiming that misinformation killed people.
Comparing country level statistics is also pretty inaccurate. The populations aren't controlled at all, here you are assuming the only meaningful difference in the populations are vaccination rate. Plenty of other factors could come into play; environmental differences, average health, average number of prescription drugs, preexisting conditions like heart disease or diabetes, etc. You can't just hand wave away any other population differences and assume that vaccination rate was the key there.
As you pointed out the data itself isn't reliable due to differences in reporting and testing. How can you skip past that and still land on misinformation caused deaths?
> the data itself isn't reliable due to differences in reporting and testing
That is why The Economist used excess-death estimates, skipping right over the whole "death caused by COVID" vs. "death caused by comorbidity" debate. Since COVID was arguably the only worldwide difference between 2019 and the following years, a presumption that the very-statistically-significant excess deaths were largely due to COVID was thus reasonable.
Where even raw death reporting was suspect, they used reasonable estimates. They made their data and analysis public, you can analyze it yourself and counterargue, or have an AI do it these days. Hey, maybe that would be a good exercise!
> Comparing country level statistics is also pretty inaccurate
It compares countries with their own prior years first AND THEN to each other, not countries directly to other countries. This should factor anything systematic at a per-country level, out, such as average health.
Hey, I'm not saying it's flawless (does that even exist?), I was just impressed by their work here back when I last looked at this. I am generally a skeptic and enjoy critical thinking, so I do not attribute this lightly.
By ndriscoll 2025-06-0613:02 Measuring excess deaths doesn't skip that debate. e.g. consider a world where the only populations that died were very old people and morbidly obese people, and everyone else experienced mild or no symptoms. In that world, it would be fair to say that being very old or morbidly obese caused people to die from what was otherwise a mild cold; i.e. those comorbitities were "the cause". Then it would be fair to say excess deaths are a measurement of how prevalent those groups are.
By _heimdall 2025-06-0613:26 Excess deaths is an interesting one, and again can show correlation, but it still can't distinguish cause. Obviously the death numbers were much higher those years, but two major factors were different - the virus was spreading and society responded to it in drastic ways. We can't say how many people died due to lack of access to care for example, or how fear and loneliness factored into death rates.
Excess death rates, at least in the US, are particularly interesting because they didn't follow the pattern I would have expected. Pandemics will effectively pull forward deaths, that didn't seem to happen here. Our all cause mortality spiked noticeably during the pandemic but it came back down to a more normal rate, I would have expected it to be below normal for at least a year or two. Its not as simple as pointing to all cause or excess deaths and saying it must have been vaccine hesitancy - we can't distinguish why those people died and it wouldn't explain the mortality rate after the pandemic.
By xorcist 2025-06-0614:33 Right, but covid disinformation != vaccine skepticism.
As a sibling commenter pointed out, a big part of the covid disinformation that was removed at the time was by established researchers in respected institutions or countries such as Sweden whose pandemic strategy was just different from what many US state institutions implemented.
Sweden turned out to have one of the highest vaccine acceptance levels and also lowest deadliness in the disease. One cofounding factor is the purported high trust in institutions, but such trust is built on having clear and direct communication, and the perception of information being filtered for policitcal or personal career reasons can never yield rust.
Pandemic awareness is a much too complicated issue to be simplified into crazies and vaccine skeptics against everyone else.
By shakna 2025-06-0615:01 Apart from all the accidental suicides from overdosing on alcohol, or taking cleaning products, or... There were a lot of news articles about this, at the time. They got to interview dying people, who admitted their mistakes.
Which is sorta why there actually is studies done on the impact of the misinformation [0].
> Following this misinformation, approximately 800 people have died, whereas 5,876 have been hospitalized and 60 have developed complete blindness after drinking methanol as a cure of coronavirus.34–37 Similar rumors have been the reported cause of 30 deaths in Turkey.38 Likewise, in Qatar, two healthy South Asian men ingested either surface disinfectant or alcohol-based hand sanitizer after exposures to COVID-19 patients.39 In India, 12 people, including five children, became sick after drinking liquor made from toxic seed Datura (ummetta plant in local parlance) as a cure to coronavirus disease.40 The victims reportedly watched a video on social media that Datura seeds give immunity against COVID-19.40
[0] https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/103/4/article-p1621...
By p1dda 2025-06-069:10 [flagged]
By calvinmorrison 2025-06-0611:52 [flagged]
By catlifeonmars 2025-06-0611:591 reply I think an administration that was happy to spread disinformation and cast doubt on vaccination had an outsized impact. YT ain’t the problem.
> cast doubt on vaccination
This seems like a bizarre retcon. No only did Trump fund "Operation Warp Speed" but he still (occasionally) expresses pride at funding the vaccine research. This is not "casting doubt on vaccination". I think the US right was generally doubtful of vaccination, but I'm fuzzy about whether this started before or after the vaccine mandates. Certainly I remember it being more of a phenomenon once Biden took office - perhaps as knee jerk opposition to a Democrat president.
By Larrikin 2025-06-0616:36 They are casting doubt on the vaccine currently by prohibiting access to it, downplaying the disease, and removing science funding.
The very first commercial I saw after Biden was sworn in was a government ad telling people to get vaccinated.
By potato3732842 2025-06-0610:462 reply >We also suppress videos on the correct manufacturing process for plastic explosives. Not because doing it safely is a bad idea, but because proliferating bomb making materials is.
>Covid disinformation got people killed. It will continue to get people killed, especially with a proponent of it leading the US health service.
>Things likely to lead to death, are likely things you do not want on your platform.
Proliferating attitudes about the restriction of communication like you are doing and advocating for is bad and gets people killed. The history books are chock f-ing full of the recipe and the steps.
I'll take my chances with the plastic explosives and the health quackery.
Even though people may spew falsehoods the truth "just is" and will keep coming back up.
By shakna 2025-06-070:16 Russia's official propaganda technique [0], is about spewing falsehoods, because the truth does not keep coming back up. Lie enough, and people do give up.
Hitler and Goebbels did effectively make use of a ministry dedicated to spewing out as many falsehoods as they could, and it very effectively controlled the flow and acceptance of information in Nazi Germany.
Pol Pot and his Little Red Book empowered the Khmer Rouge, and actively buried the truth to the point where people assisted the regime to become one of the most bloody in all of history.
As Orwell warned us, because he lived through Soviet Russia and their propaganda machine, the truth does not survive when there are those dedicated to twisting it or hiding it to fit their purpose.
By catlifeonmars 2025-06-0612:092 reply > Even though people may spew falsehoods the truth "just is" and will keep coming back up.
I wish I had your level of confidence about this. I just feel like it is not the case these days and it’s depressing.
By insin 2025-06-0614:08 > Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…
-- Jonathan Swift, 1710 [1]
(very apt that this has an ad in the middle of it)
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=KigTAAAAQAAJ&q=%22Truth+com...
Indeed. In the ages pre-algorithmic social media and pre-generative AI I would agree that about truth. Now I'm not so sure.
By kevindamm 2025-06-0614:20 funny, I still had this open from when I saw it mentioned in another thread on HN
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Debunking disinfo takes significantly more energy than it did to create it, although I have no more than anecdata to back it up I have yet to find anyone who disagrees.
So, I too would like to believe that the truth prevails but imo it only does so when its champions are incredibly persistent.
By aleph_minus_one 2025-06-069:173 reply > Covid disinformation got people killed.
If they trust bad medical advice on YouTube and die, it's their problem.
Its the problem of those they affect. "Infectious" is not self-contained to a singular individual.
Its also a problem for the platform - who is now party to it happening.
YouTube allowing bad medical advice will hurt YouTube. Their safest option, is to disallow it.
By aleph_minus_one 2025-06-069:572 reply > YouTube allowing bad medical advice will hurt YouTube.
YouTube censoring videos people want to see will also hurt YouTube.
By shakna 2025-06-0610:07 I don't think that is so certain - or a viable alternative would be competing with them.
By const_cast 2025-06-0621:35 Evidently not very much.
> Its the problem of those they affect. "Infectious" is not self-contained to a singular individual.
The stats I've seen suggest the vast majority of people have caught COVID between 2019 and now and pretty much all the preventative measures that worked reliably were things that either individuals could do themselves or that required targeting travellers specifically.
It isn't obvious that people trusting YouTube about COVID affects any third party. Who and how are they affecting?
Even if we assume that's true (everything I've seen says it isn't), then a sole individual always affects others. Humans do not exist as lone monks in the hills, generally speaking. When they are ill, it affects their workplaces, it affects their families, it affects their friends. When they die, it's worse - it affects all of those, but also has tail effects on the health industry.
Nothing you do, ever, is in isolation. So nothing you do, ever, will not affect someone else. Pretending that everyone is a sole unit, to excuse behaviour, has never made sense.
I mean, ok. Everything is connected to everything else, true enough. That seems a bit vague. Do you have a specific example to illustrate what you are talking about? Because the 'disinformation' that I saw being banned was typically people with PhDs in vaguely related fields talking about scientific papers. Disagreeing with them seems like a fair play, deplatforming them seems actually damaging. If I can't listen to people with PhDs to learn about academic papers because everything is interconnected then something has gone rather off the rails.
The disinformation I saw turned into accidental deaths. By attempting to treate the virus with alcohol, horse tranquilisers, and more. And those deaths are verified.
People weren't listening to PhDs getting banned. They were listening to influencers get banned.
So are you talking about your neighbours and relatives here? Like someone next door tried feeding someone else alcohol when their spouse got COVID? What actually happened?
> People weren't listening to PhDs getting banned. They were listening to influencers get banned.
I'm a people, you know.
By shakna 2025-06-0714:25 People died. [0] I'm not talking anecdotes, because that's pointless when discussing why a company acts.
[0] https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/103/4/article-p1621...
By fkyoureadthedoc 2025-06-0614:151 reply This doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Big Pharma would benefit from everyone taking ivermectin to cure their covid, yet content about that was removed. Google is bigger than the entire Pharma industry, and only a couple Pharma companies had covid vaccines.
There's also a ton of general anti-pharma content on YouTube that they'd get taken down, demonetized, etc if they had any power over YouTube.
By ekianjo 2025-06-073:49 > Big Pharma would benefit from everyone taking ivermectin
I don't follow. Why would Big pharma benefit from everyone taking ivermectin since its off patent and ultra cheap?
By peterclary 2025-06-069:342 reply Even if you don't care about those people, what about the people who would be affected by them? A would-be bomb-maker might only blow themselves up, or they may kill many in a crowd. Somebody walking around with a deadly pathogen infects and kills others. Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense. Individual freedom ends at the point at which it causes real harm to other people.
Also, you know who tends to be most in favour of "let stupid people face the consequences of their poor choices"? Those who want to profit from those people and their choices.
> Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense
Do we know how many otherwise healthy children caught Covid and died from it?
My impression from the official figures is that in most countries the number is vanishingly small if not zero.
Well, it's CERTAINLY not ZERO... I recall seeing numerous articles about overweight children dying of it, for example
Remember that even polio only put like 1% of its victims into an iron lung
By freedomben 2025-06-0613:451 reply I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with GP, but I would imagine they would argue that an overweight kid is not "otherwise healthy children."
By kube-system 2025-06-0614:372 reply And I would argue that lives have value even when people have preexisting medical conditions.
> I would argue that lives have value even when people have preexisting medical conditions
(Otherwise healthy) school-age children - and younger adults - always faced a very low risk from Covid-19, and we had solid statistical data on this from at least May 2020 onwards.
Maybe we need to look at where our decision-makers get their information, and their incentives?
By kube-system 2025-06-0619:54 Again, that's all fine and great. However, many people are not "otherwise healthy" today, and nobody knows who is going to be "otherwise healthy" tomorrow.
By pmarreck 2025-06-0916:26 Okay, what is the trade-off for ignoring that risk? What's a few extra dead kids, right? They weren’t healthy anyway, it’s just Darwinian.
Much easier just to suspect an unfounded conspiracy instead.
Maybe your username should be “empathyfail”
By freedomben 2025-06-0614:511 reply I certainly don't disagree with that, and I would imagine there aren't many people who would, but it is not in any way an argument against how many otherwise healthy children died of covid.
If you want to make an argument that an overweight child should still be considered otherwise healthy, that would be a welcome and relevant argument, and also an interesting one.
By kube-system 2025-06-0617:081 reply I am saying that narrowing the discussion to "otherwise healthy children" is a reductive to a silly degree. The point is to protect all children, many of which are not otherwise healthy, or for that matter, may become unhealthy at some point.
> The point is to protect all children
You'd close schools to protect a minority of children with comorbidities from a virus which doesn't threaten the vast majority of children, knowing that school closures will definitely damage all children?
Umm.
By int_19h 2025-06-0621:47 Is it really true about "vast majority"? In US, at least, it seems that the number of children with comorbidities such as obesity would actually be pretty high. You could argue that it's still a minority so long as it's under 50%, but I think that closing schools to protect, say, 20% of kids from a virus that can kill them is eminently reasonable.
By kube-system 2025-06-0619:56 Nobody suggested anything of that sort in this entire thread.
If you take the percentages from the CDC and multiply them out (and don't fall for the "polio" vs "paralytic polio" sleight of hand), it was way smaller than that - somewhere on the order of 0.01%.
The flu, for example, was always a worse risk than polio, people just became fearful of polio because we found a way to save some lives in a non-ideal way, which became very visible.
By fkyoureadthedoc 2025-06-0617:38 Presented as fact without evidence, preemptively dismissing contrary evidence from the most likely source to have the historical data. I'd love to see your sources for the risk of severe lifelong injury or death of polio vs the flu.
By const_cast 2025-06-0621:38 So many caveats to this comment...
> "otherwise healthy"
Yeah, not all kids are otherwise healthy. There's kids with Leukemia or whatever that are extremely immunocompromised because of chemotherapy. They have to coexist with anti-vaxxers and, believe it or not, their lives matter too.
> caught Covid
You think the anti-vaxx crazy train starts and stops at Covid? These people have been attacking MMR for much longer than Covid. Children DO die to measles, mumps, and what have you.
By mbac32768 2025-06-0722:44 In my state it was 2.
The absolute number.
By stefantalpalaru 2025-06-0611:42 [dead]
No, it's everyone's. Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. Also, and I know basic empathy is a foreign concept nowadays, but what if I wished for my fellow to not die of a preventable disease because a grifter sold them on an insane idea?
there is no long term herd immunity with coronaviruses; which is why they are often use in disaster prevention scenarios...
what you call "herd immunity" is merely letting people die and then go "we have herd immunity" as part of your survivor bias
only solution that works most of the time, regardless of pathogen (including covid): air filtration (respirators and/or whole room)
By xorcist 2025-06-0614:39 There absolutely is. You just think the word immunity means something else.
After vaccination or a passed infection the immune response is there. When a sufficient immune resopnse from a large enough portion if the population is enough to lower the critical cases below some threshold, we call that type of immunity herd immunity.
It's not binary, but a useful concept nonetheless, and one that some people devote their professional lives to. It can be observed every flu season.
By brigandish 2025-06-0610:131 reply Herd immunity is not a direct goal of vaccination, protection of the individual being vaccinated is. If someone needs protection, then they should get vaccinated!
Then why did we ask small kids to be vaccinated for COVID when they had no serious risk of anything? Rhetorical question, of course.
By brigandish 2025-06-073:18 On the contrary, for the overwhelming majority of children you're absolutely right, they didn't have serious risk from COVID-19, which makes your question a good one, not a rhetorical one.
Regardless, herd immunity was not a serious possibility at any point (given the high Rº and lack of a vaccine that could prevent transmission), which, considering this was known very early on makes your question, again, a good one not a rhetorical one, despite your intent.
Finally, regardless of herd immunity, at risk individuals would still require vaccination, which makes the herd immunity as a goal, again, irrelevant, which is where I started. It's a nice by-product.
By Imustaskforhelp 2025-06-0612:13 I am not sure about America but in India, I was a child during covid, 7th grade - 8th grade and i didn't have a vaccine but my school students just one grade above us were called in school and they were asked for vaccine.
Though, to be fair, my whole family caught a "virus" during 2nd phase except my father but we didn't go to hospital and just bed rest for 2-3 days. My family really were skeptical of vaccine but personally I don't mind vaccines and would prefer it.
By protonbob 2025-06-0612:10 Even more, why did we REQUIRE them to be vaccinated for COVID.
By aleph_minus_one 2025-06-0610:38 > Then why did we ask small kids to be vaccinated for COVID when they had no serious risk of anything?
Think of the children ... :-)
By saint_yossarian 2025-06-0610:032 reply > Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated.
...or getting infected, of course.
Unfortunately, thus far, Covid19 has been through too many rapid changes for natural immunity to be effective. [0] The earlier forms allowed for it, but the evolution of the virus has outstripped most natural defences.
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
But somehow the vaccines catch up on the strains before they come out?
They attack different things in the virus. Often multiple things at once. Which really should not be surprising.
You got it backwards: the vaccines specifically targeted only the spike protein, while natural infection created different antibodies against all parts of the virus.
Novavax COVID-19 vaccine never targeted specifically the spike protein, and instead focused on boosting the creation of various different antibodies. It is also the least effective.
The current breed of mRNA vaccines targets the spike protein, and the TRIM21 gene. Some of them also attack the S protein directly.
All of them work to boost various antibodies. The "targets" are in addition. By targeting the spike protein, the attack hits the RNA of the virus, not just the protein. The entire cellular structure of the virus breaks down. The same with TRIM21 targets.
The bodies natural defences never targeted the spike protein, and instead focuses on the N-layer, not "all parts of the virus". These natural defences rarely manage to cause the viral cell to decay, they tend to work by slowing reproduction instead.
Novavax's vaccine was also spike-protein-only, the difference between theirs and the mRNA ones was they created it artificially in moths then extracted it for the vaccine instead of generating inside the human body.
By zanfr 2025-06-0610:27 sadly getting infected just means the virus will nuke your immune system (not to mention your endothelium)
By redeeman 2025-06-069:58 [flagged]
By teamonkey 2025-06-0610:54 Of course vaccines don’t prevent you from catching the virus, that is not how they work. They train your immune system so it’s better at fighting the virus when it enters your body.
This reduces the chances of your immune system being overwhelmed by the virus, reduces your recovery time, reduces your symptoms, and therefore reduces the chances of you spreading it to other people.
... Most vaccines do not completely prevent you from contracting a virus.
They reduce the liklihood, and thus reduce the footprint.
Heck, the concept of herd immunity is about protecting individuals who cannot be vaccinated at all. By reducing a virus' footprint.
there is no long term herd immunity with coronaviruses; which is why they are often use in disaster prevention scenarios...
what you call "herd immunity" is merely letting people die...
By shakna 2025-06-0611:15 Herd immunity, for some definitions of a debated term, is absolutely achievable - and lasting. [0]
> Technically, then, a population can reach herd immunity even with low levels of the pathogen still circulating, which means it hasn't necessarily been eradicated for good. The point, ultimately, is that herd immunity may not be the right shorthand to refer to the end of the pandemic. It’s been bandied about incorrectly, certainly imprecisely, Fine says. “I think people often haven’t a clue what they’re saying.”
By ekianjo 2025-06-0610:27 Even Pfizer recognized they never produced any data to support that in their trials. So the government was lying all along.
> I'm really tired of people hiding behind free speech and "but what if someone had something important to say!".
But who is going to decide what we are allowed to say and what not? We all know “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It’s very easy for someone to “manufacture consent” if you can take all the opponents out.
> So the answer is: it has to be decided democratically.
Okay so the voters have to choose what other people are allowed to say? Either we all have to say what the democrats want us to say and then what the republicans want us to say?
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0610:281 reply This is, by far, one of the saddest statements I have read on this site. You are not wrong. The world around us serves as a clear proof of that and yet I still want to believe in the 'aspirational nature' of the values that are supposedly guiding US as a country.
By Defletter 2025-06-0611:01 I think the problem comes from an unconscious belief that the Constitution is self-executing, thus is something that can be taken for granted because it'll always be there protecting them. That they can elect someone like Trump and it's fine because he's confined by the Constitution. Ultimately, the Constitution and its amendments are just words on paper: their worth comes from the People's demand, substantiated with an implied threat of revolution, that those words be obeyed. When your society acquiesces to the tyranny of partisanship within your institutions, particularly within the Supreme Court and it's self-proclaimed right to amend the Constitution at will, your Constitution only continues to exist through inertia. Elect someone like Trump who has no regard for the law unless it's useful to him, and that inertia slows. To quote Danielle Allen: "I have seen time and again people who just stop reading at that period after 'pursuit of happiness'." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqiFMiQeXNQ)
By brigandish 2025-06-0610:06 That "mostly" is doing a lot of work. Why should anyone with an, shall we say innocent opinion have their opinion quashed simply because they are not an expert? Which, by the way, is also a strange requirement, there were plenty of bona fide experts disagreeing with each other during the pandemic, but the experts going against governments promoting lockdowns also had their voices severely limited.
As Mill put it, so eloquently:
> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
By ulrikrasmussen 2025-06-068:573 reply > Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.
For example, YouTube currently has quite a lot of really good videos on harm reduction for drug users (and probably also a bunch that are not very good and/or directly misleading). I would expect all of such videos to be removed if such a child protection law was passed, because any neutral discussion of drug use apart from total condemnation is typically perceived as encouragement. That would deprive people of informative content which could otherwise have saved their lives.
By actionfromafar 2025-06-0610:32 All these concerns are muddled by thinking about Youtube as the example, since it is such a blind meta machine optimising for ad revenue, it’s already actively pushing all kinds of harmful content.
By SkyBelow 2025-06-0614:03 The problem with any laws for a good purpose is that, even if you can get everyone to agree on the general statement of a good purpose, there are disagreements on what actually counts as achieving the goal from both a moral and a scientific level.
For example, providing information on how to do something harmful X more safely might increase the risk of people doing X. On the moral side, someone might argue that even 1 more person doing X is worse than the reduction in harm of the others doing X. On the scientific side, there is likely not direct evidence to the exact numbers (ethical concerns with such research and all that), so you'll have some people disagreeing on how much the harm is increased or reduced and different numbers can both be reasonable but lead to different conclusions given the lack of direct research.
This all becomes supercharged when it comes to children, and you'll find people not even be consistent in their modes of thinking on different topics (or arguably they are consistent, but basing it off of unsaid unshared assumptions and models that they might not even be consciously aware of, but this then gets into a bunch of linguistic and logic semantics).
Big tech censorship disgusts me. Everything is completely backwards from what it should be, and the sheer scale of those platforms (bigger than many countries by population or money) prevents individual people and even governments from exercising meaningful democratic oversight. So these platforms congregate hundreds of millions of people and whatever their CEOs and/or douche tech bros in SV decide is what becomes law.
Another example: videos about the holocaust or WWII atrocities. Every one of them demonetised and hidden from recommendations because it touches a horrifying topic. Harms the children? On the contrary, nothing more important in an age of global fascism waves than a lesson in how it went last time.
Meanwhile the whole platform is a cesspool of addictive brainrot, gambling ads, turbo-consumerist toy unboxing videos, etc. Things that are actually truly harmful to kids. These are not restricted, these are promoted!
War is peace etc etc. Good is evil and evil is great. Everything is backwards.
I hate this so much.
The thing to understand is your last paragraph: everything big ads does is unsurprisingly focused toward making people into worse versions of themselves. You wouldn't let kids go to a casino or porn site for educational material. Don't let them use youtube either.
It could be that someone happened to post educational videos to the porn site. If so you'd might as well download them while you have the chance, but don't mistake their existence for some indication that that's what the site is for. They're still less than 0.1% of the videos, and you'd need to specifically search for them or be linked to them to find them. Assume you'll need to look elsewhere for educational material. e.g. there are 10s of thousands of results for videos for "Holocaust" on worldcat.
There's extensions to remove or hide recommendations. Problem solved.
YouTube has too much information to just ignore for education. It's the most efficient method of learning for many topics and for many people.
It's closer to PBS than a porn site imo. (The idea of a porn site with YouTube's puritan guidelines sounds pretty funny.)
By ndriscoll 2025-06-0614:09 Problem is still not solved because search also returns a lot of garbage, and you don't want kids to be on a site that's 99% garbage. Xvideos could have a large library of science and history videos while still being 99% porn. Like I said, adults should download and curate the good stuff but recognize they're still in the seedy part of town, shouldn't let kids go there, and shouldn't expect it to be a platform for learning. That's just not its purpose. In fact youtube's purpose is basically the opposite of personal growth.
You can get literal pbs at pbs.org for $5/month, or your local library for free.
By darthcircuit 2025-06-0614:151 reply The problem is that YouTube and Google on a whole actively encourage the use of YouTube in schools, home schooling, and education in general. Google workspace for education is free for educational institutions. They also have a curated YouTube kids app with a giant feed of brain rot that they consider to be safe for kids, but only because the content doesn’t show anything graphic or have bad language.
On the other hand, porn services are (generally) actively blocked in educational institutions, so the content, regardless of its educational quality will never be suggested to kids because they are not a target audience. (Not to mention the legal trouble these services would have from actively enticing minors) I doubt we’ll see “PornHub for kids” our RedTube signing a contract with Blippi or Miss Rachel.
By ndriscoll 2025-06-0614:23 Half their business is propaganda (the other half being surveillance); of course they represent themselves as something positive. Recognize them for what they are. Point it out to others. Advocate for banning them in schools. Warn parents that youtube kids is not appropriate for children. They do near zero curation. They don't commission creation of educational content. They are nothing like PBS (as another commenter compared them to). More generally, ads are not child appropriate. These platforms have some useful content, but on the whole they undermine teaching virtues, and in fact their entire purpose is to push the opposite.
By ulrikrasmussen 2025-06-0614:13 I agree 100%, and in another comment I also suggested an alternative to child protection laws, namely that we should severely restrict the viability of the ad tech business model altogether. While it does make certain niche content creation financially viable which otherwise wouldn't, in the grand scheme of things the negative externalities outweigh the good.
Once you normalize vague enforcement around "problematic" content, the net just keeps widening
These slippery slope comments always seem a little naive to me because they imply there is some pure way to handle moderation. In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.
Maybe you would respond by saying that is illegal and only illegal content should be taken down. According to which laws? Hate speech is illegal some places, should that be removed? What about blasphemy?
Maybe you would suggest to closely follow the local law of the user. Does that mean the site needs to allow piracy in places that is legal? And who decides whether the video actually violates the law? Does the content have to stay up until a court makes the final decision? Or what about content that is legal locally, but might be under some restrictions. Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence?
There needs to be a line somewhere for normal people to actually want to use the site. I'm not going to claim to have the perfect answer on where that line should be, but there is always going to be an ongoing debate on its exact placement.
By ulrikrasmussen 2025-06-069:143 reply The problem is the nature of YouTube, which is a platform with the main purpose of generating revenue based on advertisement while minimizing their own operational risk. YouTube does not care one bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions (only if the legal repercussions carry a significant cost, of course). This naturally leads them to err on the side of caution and implement draconian automated censorship controls. If the machine kills off a niche content creator then it means nothing in the grand scheme of things for YouTube. YouTube is a lawnmower, and you cannot reason with a lawnmower.
This is very different from past "platforms" such as niche phpBB boards on the old internet, book publishers or even editorial sections in newspapers who at least to some extent are driven by a genuine interest in the content itself even though they are, or were, also financed by advertisements.
The main problem here is that we allow commercial companies to provide generic and universal "free" content platforms which end up being the de facto gatekeepers if you have something to say. These platforms can only exist because the companies are allowed to intersperse generic user-generated content with advertisements. In my opinion, it is this advertisement-financed platform model that is the core problem here, and automated censorship is only one of the many negative consequences. Other problems are that it leads to winner-takes-it-all monopolies and that it strongly incentivizes ad companies such as Google to collect as much information about people as possible.
By PeterStuer 2025-06-0610:25 " ... bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions"
Close, but no cigar. If you have a sector with giant add spend, you grant them full control, regardless of the add impressions. People talk a lott about 'regulatory capture', but 'media capture' is just as real.
By mrguyorama 2025-06-0616:36 There has never ever ever been a time where you could disseminate your idea to more than about a hundred people for free.
The vast vast vast majority of the good ideas disseminated to the public in human history required someone to go pay a printing press operator to print them hundreds and hundreds of pamphlets.
This is literally how the American revolution happened. Not by requiring existing newspapers to carry opinions they didn't have (though some newspapers were literally owned by friends or people sympathetic to revolution and carried the message).
It's perfectly fine that you have to pay someone to carry your message or print pamphlets. That was always the intent of free markets and free speech together. It wasn't that anyone would be forced to carry your message (which is why the first amendment is extremely clear that you also have a right of association and can therefore not be forced or compelled to carry speech you do not want to), it was always that someone surely would be willing to make a quick buck to cater to your speech, no matter how fringe.
And it's entirely correct. Nobody at any point was unaware that Sweden had a different approach, and there was lively debate about it from day one, primarily about how "just trust people to stay home when they are sick" literally doesn't work here in the US.
It doesn't matter that Youtube took some of that discussion down, because it happened everywhere else too. Youtube is NOT your property.
Youtube cannot prevent you from talking about anything to your family.
I mean, this is just capitalism.
And while I loved old forums, they were constantly fighting with being underfunded, there was infighting between the "owners", and each one worked differently, making them a bunch of disconnected little silos.
Especially compared to Youtube, there's just NO WAY IN HELL any non-exploitative company could ever finance a project of even remotely similar scope. There are already, right know, alternatives for all the big monopolists. Most people aren't using them because they don't like the trade offs.
By ulrikrasmussen 2025-06-069:44 > I mean, this is just capitalism.
Yes, capitalist forces are incredibly strong, which is why we need regulation to avoid negative externalities to spiral out of control. Regulation that is intended to protect consumers often end up being moats for the monopolies to cement their monopolies even further, because the regulation is too heavy and expensive to comply with for the smaller competitors.
I think that child protection laws is an example of such regulation because it will impose a huge legal and financial risk on small sites and forums which were never part of the problem.
This is why I would rather go for regulation which more or less outlaws or severely limits the viability of the problematic business model. This could also backfire of course, but I believe it will be better even though many will find it inconvenient if YouTube disappeared.
> According to which laws?
This part at least seems to be no problem. Many platforms already follow and enforce different rules in different jurisdictions.
> And who decides whether the video actually violates the law?
There are myriad laws around the world, and somehow we manage to decide what's legal and follow the law, at least most of the time. This argument is absurd on the face of it: "we can't have a law because laws are too difficult to follow and enforce".
People and corporations make their best attempt to follow the law, regulators and institutions give guidance, courts adjudicate disputes. Do you live somewhere where it works differently?
By slg 2025-06-068:19 >There are myriad laws around the world, and somehow we manage to decide what's legal and follow the law, at least most of the time. This argument is absurd on the face of it: "we can't have a law because laws are too difficult to follow and enforce".
Yeah, I agree that argument is absurd. I will also note I never made that argument, so I'm not sure where you got it.
You are also missing half my comment. "Just follow the law" is not a complete answer to the questions raised. Plenty of companies will still want to remove content that doesn't violate the law in certain jurisdictions such as pirated content. Should Youtube be obligated to host that content? What if the actual right's holder threatens to stop advertising unless Google removes that content regardless of local law?
I just don't know why people pretend this is a simple issue with a single straightforward solution.
By aleph_minus_one 2025-06-068:551 reply > In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.
What is extremist about this opinion? (EDIT: with the exception that we indeed remove CSAM and similar things "everybody" wants removed and will (importantly!) otherwise get YouTube into deep trouble, but (basically) nothing else)
By nkrisc 2025-06-069:11 Being in favor of CSAM on YouTube would definitely be an extremist opinion in nearly all societies and cultures, I believe.
> Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence?
YouTube can decide to host, or not host, whatever it wants. The challenge is with unclear terms of use. They have a habit of taking down videos with little or no reason given, and it isn't clear what terms the video content would have violated.
Of course they can draw their own lines, but they should be clear and consistent.
>but they should be clear and consistent.
As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in Jacobellis v. Ohio [1], "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
I'm not sure how we can expect "clear and consistent" rulings from Youtube when even our law can be vague and inconsistent.
By _heimdall 2025-06-072:15 In my opinion that's a better argument against the usefulness of a supreme court than it is a justification for allowing leeway in censorship.
The justice is claiming that said illegal content cannot be described or identified in law, that it must be up to a judge to make that call. Such a system is insane to those being ruled by it - we can't know if we are breaking the law, but at any time a judge could decide of their own accord that we are.
We must live under a system of laws that can be comprehensible enough for a reasonable person to be able to tell when they cross the line and are likely breaking the law.
By mrguyorama 2025-06-0616:47 The first amendment gives them the right to literally be capricious and malevolent in their hosting choices.
Your right is that, if you don't like it, you cannot be forced to use it.
And that is true. Nebula exists because all those people were getting fucked by Google's capricious actions. Armchair historian made his own platform because Google wont pay you ad dollars if you show actual historical war footage, because god forbid you learn history.
Youtube is not a platform where anyone can say anything. There's no such thing as a "digital town square" that is owned by a private company. Even real, actual, public squares have some limits on speech nowadays.
If you want some sort of digital public square where anyone could host literally any video content, it will be funded by taxes and run by the government.
I would however hold strong support for reforms that limit the shenanigans and nonsense in Terms of Use. You shouldn't be able to put utterly unenforceable or even illegal things into a Terms of Use without penalty. Contract law has a principle of separability that means Google can put literally as many scary, illegal, unenforceable claims into it's contracts and a court would still enforce it, just without those specific parts. That gives Google a huge incentive to put even impossible things into their ToU hoping you will buy that they could enforce it, even when they know they cannot.
I also think it should not be possible to make a contract that says "we can update this at any time and change everything about it without your consent" just entirely. All contract revisions should require mutual consent.
IIUC, ToU have also just not been tested in court very well. So we should stop beating around the bush and just make a real legal framework for them.
> In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.
This is not what is being said in the comments you are replying to, you are taking it to the other extreme yourself
By slg 2025-06-067:56 Yes, I intentionally included an extreme example to highlight my point. However, that was not the only example included. Would you like to respond to my whole comment or just that single cherry-picked sentence?
By timewizard 2025-06-068:021 reply > a line somewhere for normal people to actually want to use the site.
Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised.
In any case, Youtube is the size where it can grapple with all these questions you just posed, but anyone else hoping to challenge their monopoly or otherwise host a small collection of videos, perhaps for a specific purpose or community, now effectively cannot.
> but there is always going to be an ongoing debate on its exact placement.
Who exactly started _this_ debate? Was there some recent outcry from the citizens that their lives have become unlivable due to the lax content restrictions on social media? Really?
>Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised.
This is effectively the same thing. Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which impacts their opinion of the companies that advertise on that content. If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub.
>In any case, Youtube is the size where it can grapple with all these questions you just posed, but anyone else hoping to challenge their monopoly or otherwise host a small collection of videos, perhaps for a specific purpose or community, now effectively cannot.
I'm not sure where this logic leads. Are you suggesting that a company needs to reach a certain size before they can be expected to moderate their content?
>Who exactly started _this_ debate? Was there some recent outcry from the citizens that their lives have become unlivable due to the lax content restrictions on social media? Really?
Isn't this question answered by your first paragraph? Users and advertisers started this debate. There was definitely public pressure for Google to take down Covid discussions that mainstream sources believed were misleading. Was there consensus? Maybe not, but there was definitely a public debate about it.
> Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which <...> If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub.
Was this hypothesis ever actually even remotely tested or is it advertising agencies deciding what content is no bueno?
We don't need to hypothesize. If you pay attention to this space, you will see it play out in real time in the news. Over the last several years, there have been multiple public pressure campaigns against the advertisers on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.
By timewizard 2025-06-0619:56 > you will see it play out in real time in the news.
Which is always fair and accurate and is in no way under similar pressure from advertisers. So this is an awesome yardstick to use.
By shakna 2025-06-0611:10 Business accounts that list porn sites tend to get banned by the processor. There are very few payment processors willing to work with the major porn networks.
In 2022, both Visa and Mastercard banned Pornhub, leading to major shakeups as the network tried to get off the blacklist.
I don't see most advertisers being happy with spend on such a volatile target - even before the agency debates if it will affect brand image.
By timewizard 2025-06-0619:55 > Users and advertisers started this debate.
I submitted that users have no power and advertisers have it all. So, no, not "users and advertisers," _JUST_ advertisers.
> There was definitely public pressure for Google to take down Covid discussions
There's public pressure for Google to take down information about abortion. So what's the difference? When does "public pressure" reach a point where they act? And is the pressure truly public and organic? Or fake and astroturfed?
You ignore more than you answer.
By _fat_santa 2025-06-0613:50 At least in the context of Covid, the real issue I saw was not the taking down of content, it was that a very small group of people dictated what content should be taken down.
Generally speaking in the world of "science" (any field) there will always be a level of disagreement. One scientist will come up with one theory, the other will come up with another theory, they will endlessly debate until the topic is "settled" and then the whole loop repeats if another scientist thinks that the settled topic is not actually settled. Overall I would say this is a very healthy dynamic and keeps society moving forward.
What people go so mad about during Covid was not the content being taken down, it's that you had had various scientific organizations around the world straight up break what I described in the previous paragraph. During covid you had one group make endless rushed decisions and then when other scientific groups challenged those findings, the response was not what I outlined above but rather an authoritarian "I am the science" response.
This "main group" (NIH, CDC, etc) painted all those challenges as conspiracy theories but if you actually listened to what the challenges were, they were often times quite reasonable. And the fact that they were reasonable arguments highlighted the insane hubris of the "main group" and ultimately led them to loose virtual all credibility by the time Covid wrapped up.
No it doesn't. I reject your slippery slope fallacy.
The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads to more censorship? Of course not.
It is a logical fallacy if used as part of an absolute claim, but it doesn't make it always wrong when used in general statements. Some slopes are slippery, we can look at history to see this. We can't claim all slopes are slippery, this doesn't mean that no slope is slippery.
People aren't starting with axioms and then defining what absolutely will happen. People are discussing trends that appear to happen generally, but there will be exceptions. Going to college leads to a better job is a slippery slope, it doesn't always happen, but going to college is still good advice (and even better advice if one is willing to go into detail about the degree, the costs, the plans at college, and so on).
If we want to reject something as a logical fallacy, we need to consider if the other person's argument hinges on something always happening as some sort of logical proof, or if it hinges on it happening only at or above some threshold. If the first case, pointing out a slippery slope argument is a valid counter, but in the second case, it isn't and instead leads to two people talking past each other (one arguing X happens often enough to be a concern, the other arguing that X doesn't always happen, both statements that could be true).
By thrance 2025-06-0618:34 But that's the thing, when have hate speech laws led to repressive censorship, ever? It is a slippery slope, since there's no example to point to.
I'll link another comment of mine which expands on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44200533
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0610:342 reply [flagged]
By paulryanrogers 2025-06-0612:351 reply > If it is not against the law, it should be up.
Does this mean it would be illegal for private platforms to take down legal content? All platforms or only those that are defacto public spaces?
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0622:30 I have no clearly defined strong feelings on that part of it yet. I am leaning towards the latter, but I honestly dislike the approach, because its a given that any factor used to determine what a public space is will be played with.
> As history has shown
No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade public space and you end up with a fascist government, like the one currently in the US, who won't give a fuck about your free speech.
Paradox of tolerance [1]:
> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
To be clear, are you claiming that the repressive censoring in China started with good intentions and then degenerated, or that free speech absolutism guarantees the perenity of your freedom of speech? Because neither claim is true.
An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, as that is the only protection of your free speech. Why respect the free speech of nazis, who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to?
> If it is not against the law, it should be up.
Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. Siegheiling in public is illegal where I live, and rightfully so if you ask me. There is always a line. The US draws it a CSAM.
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0622:451 reply << When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism?
Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting.
<< Because neither claim is true.
I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better.
<< An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says.
Correct.
<< We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power,
With you so far.
<< as that is the only protection of your free speech
Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say.
<< Why respect the free speech of nazis
Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why?
If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own.
<< who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to
You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot.
<< Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be.
You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.
> Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting.
Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it.
> Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say.
Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't.
> You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot.
Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom.
Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight.
> It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own.
This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further.
That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow.
To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship.
If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0712:301 reply << If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
I am ok with that.
<< Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it.
I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America.
<< Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society.
Yes, freedom can be dangerous and scary. There are things I wish people did not do, but they do it anyway. As for the contributing, at best I can say that you are not being objective, reasonable or charitable with that statement.
<< Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard?
Friend, you misunderstood. Not nazis, you. Hold you to a higher standard. We are expected to be better, because we know better ( or at least we should ). This is also why I am mildly amused, when the first cry I hear from people, when they see something online is to cry for more control of what they can see/say/do. It is beyond ridiculous.
<< Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further.
We absolutely disagree on that point. Your "much further" is already ridiculous. It is simply not factually accurate. Not in the EU. Not in Germany. Not in GB.
<< Because you aren't.
Friend, we disagree. And that is ok. Know that I love you despite your deep character flaws.
edit: minor edits for syntax/grammar
Please stop it with your insufferable patronizing. This whole conversation is a waste of time.
You keep ignoring the basic material fact that respecting fascists' free speech is a sure path to losing it for everyone, as is the case in the US, and in many places before it.
You suggest nothing except "holding oneself to a higher standard" (whatever could that mean?). Can this help you face ICE agents when they abduct you in the streets and ship you to a foreign black site?
> I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America.
Ok, you're completely deluded. Do you seriously think hate speech policing was what led to Trump's government?? Fascists have been able to say whatever they want for ages now in this country.
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0720:461 reply << Do you seriously think hate speech policing was what led to Trump's government??
Interesting. I suppose I was not wrong with my assumptions. More to the point, what do you think led to Trump's government?
<< Fascists have been able to say whatever they want for ages now in this country.
You have some sort of a point which broadly happens to coincide with one the previous one's I have made. But I won't offer a rebuttal before you answer the question in the first paragraph.
<< Can this help you face ICE agents when they abduct you in the streets and ship you to a foreign black site?
You seem frazzled. My personal recommendation is to take a step back and reconsider your argument. I will offer a minor response here so you do not feel ignored. None of this should be a surprise to anyone, who has been paying attention. I will add that it does not escape me that current set of circumstances would not be quite so easily generated were it not for the oh so helpful hands of those, who cheerfully signed up for being able to silence dissent. Great job there.
<< You suggest nothing except "holding oneself to a higher standard" (whatever could that mean?)
I hate to repeat myself for fear of people accusing me of being formulaic, but what do you think it means?
<< You keep ignoring the basic material fact that respecting fascists' free speech is a sure path to losing it for everyone, as is the case in the US, and in many places before it.
Hmm? I deal with people as they are; warts and all. You seem to want to live in alternate reality pretending they ( and their opinions ) don't exist and have no bearing on you. I honestly do not think I am the one ignoring things. All I can say is, good luck.
<< Please stop it with your insufferable patronizing.
What would you like me to do instead?
<< This whole conversation is a waste of time.
I honestly disagree. I mean, maybe it was for you, but I did derive something useful from it.
> Interesting. I suppose I was not wrong with my assumptions. More to the point, what do you think led to Trump's government?
What leads to fascism? Discontent stemming from decades of neoliberalist policies, that left many impoverished and without social nets to catch them. Neoliberalism doesn't sell anymore, so the choice is now between social-democracy and far right populism. Guess which one the capital class preferred and championed? Same story as always.
What do you think led to Trump's government? Cancel culture? Don't be ridiculous.
> I will add that it does not escape me that current set of circumstances would not be quite so easily generated were it not for the oh so helpful hands of those, who cheerfully signed up for being able to silence dissent. Great job there.
I feel like you are victim blaming here. Do you mean to say that ICE's behavior is a consequence of a will to hold people accountable hate speech?
ICE makes use of new tools that were created under the current administration. They make no use of prior laws that may have been diverted from their original purposes.
> I hate to repeat myself for fear of people accusing me of being formulaic, but what do you think it means?
I think you mean something like "they go low, we go high", which is a terrible idea in my experience.
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-084:021 reply << What do you think led to Trump's government?
It is an interesting question and we may be actually getting to a more interesting piece of this conversation ( I was mildly concerned we will not be able to get there ). I think opportunity met an opportunist, but that may be tad too glib. Allow me to elaborate as it partially builds on what you wrote.
Way back when I remember going on a mini vacation driving through some states, which included Ohio, West Virginia and few others. I think that was before Trump was elected the first time, but just after Vance started to promote his memoir on just about every show ( not a bad read, I might add ). I had good time overall despite seeing some of the things Vance talked about on that road trip. Probably the saddest thing I saw was a sign saying 'save us Trump'. Chappelle picked up on that too in one of his bits, but I digress.
Why do I mention it? After first Trump win, all the networks tried to do attempt some soul searching with added bonus of melodramatic hand wringing ( whether it was sincere or theater, I leave up to you to interpret ) on how could this have happened, and, amusingly, Vance actually said the why with a simple 'can you hear us now?'. That was obviously in ancient times when CNN thought Vance was a good guy and therefore could be allowed to make such brazen statements.
My subtle point is that folks were already desperate then. The discontent is not discontent anymore. It likely borders on barely contained anger since, to your point, policies did not change much despite, seemingly, party colors changing at the White House.
<< Cancel culture? Don't be ridiculous.
Having wrote all of the above, I can give you that 'cancel culture' as you chose to frame it was not a sole reason for that anger, but I think you severely underestimate the very human need for a safety valve. Hell, systems' need for a safety valve. Believe it or not, soviet communists understood that fairly well. It is possible it was just one more thing that pushed some over the edge.
<< I feel like you are victim blaming here.
I will be mildly blunt. I don't really care how you feel. For every action, there is a reaction. In that sense, human interactions are practically newtonian. I get that you may be sad that I told you your very own actions and stances may be the culprit for the issues you rail against now, but the sooner you recognize this, the sooner you can make reasonable adjustments. Or not.
<< ICE makes use of new tools that were created under the current administration. They make no use of prior laws that may have been diverted from their original purposes.
I have three questions for you. And? So? What? Every single power center is pushing in their own direction for their own benefit using every tool at their disposal. None of this is new. Narrow facts may be different, but the basic principle remains the same. And you focus on what? Theater.
<< I think you mean something like "they go low, we go high", which is a terrible idea in my experience.
You might not be wrong here. However, I would like you to entertain the alternative, because I am not sure you did that in any kind of serious way. "They go low, we go high" at its core is adherence to the existing standard, which is basically what the society is built around. If you tell me that standard is degrading. Maybe the degradation does not quite make it null and void, but it further erodes existing standards eventually leading to societal collapse and a vacuum and I hope that you do understand that humans are not exactly great in a vacuum.
If you see me arguing for status quo, this is exactly the reason.
If I understand you well, you seem to believe that Trump's government is a reaction to the democrats going too... what? Too woke? Too progressive?
IMO, this is an extremely shallow understanding of politics and ignores the material forces that led to someone like Trump getting into power.
You can't look at the US in a vacuum. What is happening here has happened dozens of times elsewhere. Was Orban elected because the opposition was too woke? Was Mussolini elected because the opposition was too progressive? Of course not.
Trump voters have a really warped perception of the democrats, thanks to decades of well-funded propaganda. They believe the neoliberal party that holds mildy rainbow-capitalist social views is actually a "degenerate trans gang" out to trans their kids or whatever.
In truth, the democrats are socially very mild compared to actually progressive parties around the world. Blaming their mild social policies instead of the massive campaigns of disinformation that made them pass for extremists is ludicrous.
Here: I'll posit that if the democrats actually fixed the country through more corporate taxes, socialized universal healthcare, free university and such, we'd have heard none of Trump. Without them ever needing to abandon their social policies.
But they did not, as they too rely on corporate donors and are too afraid to lose their support by addressing the actual issues this country faces: growing inequalities, etc.
> After first Trump win, all the networks tried to do attempt some soul searching with added bonus of melodramatic hand wringing ( whether it was sincere or theater, I leave up to you to interpret ) on how could this have happened
Yes, liberal media is condemned to be forever clueless, as they can't reason about the prevalence of money in US politics, and couldn't foresee the very obvious consequences of the wealthy channeling hundreds of billions of dollars toward promoting right-wing populism.
> You might not be wrong here. However, I would like you to entertain the alternative, because I am not sure you did that in any kind of serious way. "They go low, we go high" at its core is adherence to the existing standard, which is basically what the society is built around. If you tell me that standard is degrading. Maybe the degradation does not quite make it null and void, but it further erodes existing standards eventually leading to societal collapse and a vacuum and I hope that you do understand that humans are not exactly great in a vacuum.
For better or worse, I believe the only solution is for an hypothetical economically progressive party to "play dirty", that is to say employ a form of "left-wing populism".
Bernie has been kind of successful in his "oligarchy tour", redirecting the anger of Americans from minorites and unto the billionaires, which largely contribute to this country's actual issues for one.
There is no fixing this mess through an appeal to "centrism" or "status quo".
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-0816:301 reply << There is no fixing this mess through an appeal to "centrism" or "status quo".
I personally do not think it can be fixed in its current form, which is primarily why I argue to maintain what we do have.
<< Bernie has been kind of successful in his "oligarchy tour", redirecting the anger of Americans from minorites and unto the billionaires, which largely contribute to this country's actual issues for one.
I give him credit. He made those policies 'cool' among young people. Were it not for his age, he would have been a real threat to the existing power centers.
<< For better or worse, I believe the only solution is for an hypothetical economically progressive party to "play dirty", that is to say employ a form of "left-wing populism".
Eh, best I can say is that whatever they are doing now is definitely not working well. We might be in disagreement about the way, but I would not mind being on the 'winning side' for once.
<< In truth, the democrats are socially very mild compared to actually progressive parties around the world. Blaming their mild social policies instead of the massive campaigns of disinformation that made them pass for extremists is ludicrous. Here: I'll posit that if the democrats actually fixed the country through more corporate taxes, socialized universal healthcare, free university and such, we'd have heard none of Trump. Without them ever needing to abandon their social policies.
I do not think you are wrong about any of this, but it is impossible to say for sure one way or another.
<< They believe the neoliberal party that holds mildy rainbow-capitalist social views is actually a "degenerate trans gang" out to trans their kids or whatever.
The interesting part here is that the democrat party was partly forced to consider changing their stances a little as a result of that propaganda. The internal party conversation still seems to be ongoing, but the impact has been clear ( calls to 'not focus' on minorities that are too small to matter and too, whats a good word, visible to the general population ).
<< IMO, this is an extremely shallow understanding of politics and ignores the material forces that led to someone like Trump getting into power.
I do not claim to be some political whiz, but I am still somewhat attuned to the local 'vibe'. As always, it is possible that I simply see what I want to see and just form satisfying explanation afterwards, but I did see some of the things coming. So even if it is shallow, it appears to work as a heuristic more often than not. I admit that sometimes I wish it did not.
That said, if you can offer a counter explanation of the forces at play, I am all ears. Believe it or not, I am actually listening now.
<< If I understand you well, you seem to believe that Trump's government is a reaction to the democrats going too... what? Too woke? Too progressive?
Hmm, close. I think we can start with that. Democrats were in a weird spot, because, as you noted, they were putting a facade of a working man's party, while getting fairly cozy with interests that do not exactly align with those. From that perspective alone, internal conflicts of interests were inevitable. That helped build some of the discontent you mentioned ( and help build narrative about uniparty and bolster both sides are the same conversations ).
That said, to your point about going too woke, it did not help with people already being in a rather foul mood over being on the wrong end of the stick of economic policies and, as as results, were looking for something to focus that anger on. And the right was able to find at least two very viable scapegoats, who were both explicitly supported by the democratic party ( immigrants and trans ).
So in a sense, dems went too far on dumb stuff, while reps were playing for keeps.
By thrance 2025-06-0823:01 I don't believe there's anything the democrats could have been that wouldn't have been twisted by the massive propaganda apparatus in service of the GOP. If they abandoned their ever ill-defined "wokeness", Fox News would have found something else to scapegoat all the ills of America on.
There are legitimate critics of the democratic party, like their abandon of class matters, or how hollow their social militantism feels because of it. None of those are the reasons the dems are bad mouthed in conservative media.
Democrats can't win by appealing to an ever-elusive and shifting "center". They will forever be the party of child-eating degenerates to the people that voted for Trump, no matter how many causes they drop.
> That said, if you can offer a counter explanation of the forces at play, I am all ears. Believe it or not, I am actually listening now.
I didn't invent most of my ideas on fascism. I look into history books and attempt to apply the lessons of the past on our current situation. Here's a summary of what I think I have learned:
While fascism is an internally inconsistent ideology, it does exhibit consistent aspects. One of them is support from the capitalist class. For example, this connects Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, Trump...
Once the current liberal-democratic model starts malfunctioning because of its internal contradictions* (and it always does), the mask slips and the wealthy start supporting far right populism.
This is the only way for them to prevent the rise of socialism (by redirecting the middle class' anger toward minorities) while keeping on deregulating and privatizing the economy.
Evidently, this doesn't fix anything and only makes things worse, which is part of why fascism always fails in the end, although that can take a relatively long time.
I don't believe there's anything to be done but wait, once the cogs of the terrible machine are set in motion. Wether we're here yet, I do not claim to know.
* Imbalance of power between classes. Capital always gets his ways, and so the material conditions of the rest of the population are left to slowly degrade.
---
Last time, America got lucky in the person of FDR (and what he represented). Through the New Deal, he was able to rekindle the flailing economy by essentially pumping money to the working class, curbing discontent. At least for a time. The wealthy of the time absolutely didn't like that, and attempts on his life were made.
He didn't actually fix the underlying issues though, and 80 years later, we're back to square one.
By redm 2025-06-0612:27 In my experience with OFCOM, Child Safety is just the gateway to a vague list bullet points including “terrorism” and “hateful” content (vaguely defined); what could go wrong??
By b800h 2025-06-069:33 What confuses me is how TV App providers are going to make this work. How is the interface going to work to allow me to use YouTube on the TV whilst checking my age, and ensuring that it's me using the TV each time it's turned on? And how is a TV different to a computer? It's completely impractical.
If you replace "Covid" with "child porn" or "animal cruelty" or "anti-semitism" you'll see how bad this argument is.
By thrawa8387336 2025-06-0615:031 reply Those 3 are not even comparable to each other...
Oh you don't think a plague that killed over 7 million people rates w/ animal cruelty?
By mardifoufs 2025-06-0615:431 reply You sound like the people who argue for disallowing any communist speech or ideology from being discussed because "communism killed 100 million people" or something.
Like yes covid killed millions. What's your point exactly? Do you have any proof that YouTube taking down videos that didn't agree with how the situation was handled actually saved lives? Or is your argument just that if anyone disagreed (even for stupid reasons) publicly with covid policies, they are somehow causing people to die? Again, do you have any actual proof?
I'm gonna skip way to the end of this:
* masking saved lives
* vaccines saved lives
* kids could spread COVID-19
* even young, otherwise totally healthy people died from COVID-19
We knew all these things basically immediately, but because of intense brainrot tons of misinformation spread on the internet. YouTube pulling down videos about COVID-19 misinformation saved lives. The end.
By mardifoufs 2025-06-0617:281 reply So, no actual proof? And actually no, at least where I live, for the first two weeks masks were strongly discouraged and were said to be useless by our local government (Quebec). That was for the first 2 weeks of the pandemic, which were the most important in terms of spread. Even hospital staff were told to not wear them. I'm glad YouTube didn't ban anyone who didn't agree with our local government's opinion on masks then.
Also, that's funny since again, here in Quebec and in most of the world kids were back to school by autumn 2020. Yet it took more than a year after that for children in the US to go back to school. I guess American experts just knew more than everyone else. It's as if things aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
By camgunz 2025-06-0618:00 It's truly bewildering how people on HN can have powerfully strong beliefs that are dispelled by the simplest of Google searches.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258979182...
https://www.afro.who.int/news/implications-social-media-misi...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10578995/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10122563/
etc etc etc etc
By bugtodiffer 2025-06-0610:38 UK's predator network was also built to protect kids but in the end is only used for copyright infringement
By KaiserPro 2025-06-0611:07 These are two different, but slightly related topics, which are being conflated with a third.
Google is not censoring based on moral grounds here. Its purely financial. If they are caught hosting "how to circumvent DRM", then a number of licensing agreements they have with major IP owners that allows them to profit off music, video and other IP disappears. Most of the take down stuff is either keyword search or automatic based on who is reporting.
The Online safety act is utterly flawed, to the point that even ofcom really don't know how to implement it. They are reliant on consultants from delloite or whatever, who also have no fucking clue. The guidelines are designed for large players who have a good few million in the bank, because in all reality thats how ofcom are going to take to court.
There are a number of thing the act asks to happen, most of them are common sense, but require named people to implement (ie moderate, provide a way to report posts, allow transparent arbitration, etc, etc) along with defined policies. In the same way that charities are allowed to have a "reasonable" GDPR policy, it seems fair that smaller site should also have that. but this would go down badly with the noise makers.
As for age protection, they also really don't know how to do it practically. This means that instead of providing a private (as in curtains no peaking) age assurance API, they are relying on websites to buy in a commercial service, which will be full of telemetry for advertising snooping.
Then there is moral/editorial censorship, which is what you go to a media platform for. Like it or not, you choose a platform because the stuff you see is what you expect to see there, even if you don't like it. Youtube is totally optimising for views, even if it means longterm decline. (same with facebook, instgram and tiktok)
By Timshel 2025-06-068:21 I think your position is quite simplistic and completely ignore all the issues around YT pushing all kind of scam/misinformation which has tremendous impact (EX: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10226045/ or https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/12/youtube-i...)
Could try to separate the pure hosting part of YT from the recommendation but since the home page heavily mix recommendations and the subscription page see almost no usage (Technology connection mention 4% traffic), I'm not sure if it makes sense to still consider YT as simple hosting.
And last point I'll make, I believe the fact that their moderation is such a crap shot job is mainly a reflection that it's not a priority.
By arp242 2025-06-0611:52 You already need to remove content if you don't want to be overrun with endless gore and porn videos and that type of thing.
By ajuc 2025-06-067:10 The debate shouldn't be "to remove or not". The debate should be "who should decide what to remove".
We've had media laws for decades. Internet is underregulated to a crazy degree, so the people who make the decisions are unaccountable and even unknowable. It would be much saner if the people deciding this were judges and elected officials.
The way we allow a few oligarchs to decide what information 99% of the world consume for hours every day, and just let them do whatever they want, and don't even tax them in practice - it's just absurd.
Free speech is for people not for corporations. And it's certainly not for corporations to enforce.
People defending hacker ethos and free internet pretend internet is still like in 90s. If you do have your own self-hosted blog - sure - be a free hacker.
But if you have million customers - you're not a free-spirited hacker. You're a media mogul abusing unregulated loophole. States should act accordingly.
By verisimi 2025-06-0611:09 > children should be protected.
I get how this sounds unambiguously good - but I hate this excuse. As I see it, if you don't allow kids some danger (unmonitored play, freedom of movement) you end up with adults that are completely unable to assess dangers correctly and want themselves (and everyone else) to be nannied by the government/legislation/etc.
There really are dangers out there, and it is not a bad thing to engage with them to be able to build independence, rather than trying to edit the world to conform to a (mistaken, protected) idea of reality.
By like_any_other 2025-06-0613:47 > Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance
But, short of such an obvious breach, the rules regarding what can and can't be said, broadcast, forwarded, analysed are thought to be kept deliberately vague. In this way, everyone is on their toes and the authorities can shut down what they like at any time without having to give a reason.
> all the content removal around Covid
What are you referring to?
By d4v3 2025-06-0620:01 read this report:
"The White House Covid Censorship Machine"
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/...
During the pandemic there was a lot of content taken down if it in any way went against the mainstream narrative of the virus or the vaccines. You couldn't discuss concerns or risks of the vaccine, or discuss any alternative therapeutics or treatments.
I want to say you also couldn't discuss the lab leak hypothesis for a while, but I can't remember a specific example for sure so maybe I'm misremembering that one.
Good. We should be praising Google for that decision. That made many bad ones but that seems obviously good and saved a number of lives
> obviously good and saved a number of lives
You would really have to show your work on that claim.
"Good" is a judgement call, it may be obviously good to one and obviously bad to another.
Claiming that a number of lives were saved by aggressive YouTube censorship of specific content is also quite a claim. What is the number, and how can you show a direct link between censorship and any one life saved?
By const_cast 2025-06-0621:481 reply It's really quite simple, and we don't even require proof, just logic.
It's plainly true that less masking, less isolation, and less vaccination leads to increased risk of death or injury to Covid. Therefore, having more content promoting those things must lead to increased risk of death or injury to Covid.
We really don't need to over-intellectualize these things. Saying things that are just not true, which increases someone's risk, results in lives lost.
It would be the same as if I made a PSA telling people to not wear a seatbelt. Or to not wear sunscreen. But if I did that, there would be zero dispute, no? So I think we all understand the concept.
> It's plainly true that less masking, less isolation, and less vaccination leads to increased risk of death or injury to Covid.
When you say this is plainly true, how do you back that up exactly? I am unaware of any control tests that would prove out those claims with high certainty.
Our vaccine tests done during the pandemic also not focused on risk of death or injury, they were focused on the frequency of participants notifying of symptoms.
> We really don't need to over-intellectualize these things. Saying things that are just not true, which increases someone's risk, results in lives lost.
I don't see it as over intellectualizing. To claim something is not true requires knowing what is true. We still can't make such claims on many of the pandemic issues, but in the middle of it we absolutely couldn't make such claims.
We also can't make an assumption that a claim being false directly leads to deaths. I can make plenty of false claims that would have absolutely no impact on anything, to say such claims must have led to deaths is ridiculous.
By const_cast 2025-06-074:181 reply > When you say this is plainly true, how do you back that up exactly? I am unaware of any control tests that would prove out those claims with high certainty.
Well... they exist. All the covid vaccines were tried against placebo, and I mean true placebo as in saline. But even if you're distrustful of that it's just common sense.
I don't want to get the flu. Okay, the less people I'm around the lower the chance I have of getting the flu.
When I was immunocompromised during cancer treatment I greatly limited the amount of people I'm in contact with because that obviously lowers your risk of contracting an illness.
Again it's just not... rocket science.
If I say "you don't need to wear seat belts" and then that results in a bunch of people not wearing seat belts, then there's gonna be a lot more brains on the interstate.
Well... we know seat belts are effective. We know isolation is effective. We know vaccines are effective. So put two and two together. After a certain point it feels like being contrarian for the sake of it.
And, as an aside, most people are truly unbelievably bad at risk-assessment. People can't get it to click in their head that doing risky thing doesn't mean bad things will happen to them.
You can party, ignore all the vaccines, have people spit in your mouth, whatever - and be perfectly fine. Everything in life is risk analysis. I'm not saying that not getting a vaccine or not following guidelines will kill you. But it will increase your risk.
But you, your family, hell, everyone you know, might be perfectly fine. Or they might end up like that guy I knew in highschool who died at 20 MPH because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. It's all risk analysis.
By _heimdall 2025-06-080:53 > Well... they exist. All the covid vaccines were tried against placebo, and I mean true placebo as in saline. But even if you're distrustful of that it's just common sense.
Are you referring to the original vaccine trials? I don't remember them being compared against a saline control, but maybe I'm misremembering there.
What I do remember is that they were only run for roughly 4 weeks before unblinding the results and losing any chance at studying the long term affects, both good and bad, of the injections. I also remember that those trials were only converting symptomatic infection during that short period and could tell us nothing of transmissibility. When it came to the children studies, the one study I found proper results for tested the vaccine on 30 children before it was approved for use of kids down to something like 2 years old.
Seatbelts are a whole different thing in my opinion. We do know that seatbelts work, but they work specifically at protecting the person that decides to put one on. I have never understood why we legally mandate seatbelt use when it only helps or hurts the individual using it.
By rollcat 2025-06-069:19 "Think of the children" is the primary justification for so many abusive laws and efforts. The public is buying into it, despite the simplest solution being: parents should pay more attention to how they're raising their kids.
"We don't have the time". True. We've improved the efficiency of an average worker by orders of magnitude each $TIME_PERIOD for about two centuries; yet the length of a mean working day has long remained the same. "You dirty communist". Sure, go suffer.
This system is abusive. We continue to agree to the status quo, because we're constantly being manipulated over the much less important things, like religion, the gays, or the immigrants. You can't get spiteful over the ruling class if you can be kept happy through being spiteful to your neighbor.
By pinoy420 2025-06-067:06 [dead]
By anonymousiam 2025-06-066:587 reply [flagged]
By touristtam 2025-06-067:279 reply > has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades
mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
By throwawaythekey 2025-06-067:343 reply Isn't it obvious that (2) in practice entirely negates (1)?
In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.
It's very hard to find a law without exceptions.
It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill.
It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them.
It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem.
Etc.
Freedom of speech was never intended to be the only fundamental rule of the society. It's one of many. Being fundamentalist about it is harmful.
In particular what is harmful is abusing it to circumvent other, reasonable rules. In USA the reason oligarchs can pay politicians for their campaigns is because it's classified as "free speech". This is corruption on the highest level of the state legalized with idiotic excuse. It's illegal in most democracies, and for a good reason.
Another example is spreading hate campaigns against minorities. We know what happens if you allow this to go on. We've seen 1930s. We have laws against it - but only for traditional media. Internet is a way to circumvent these rules and good practices.
Just like radio was a way for to-be-totalitarian-rulers to circumvent the establishment in 20s and 30s.
I haven't seen anyone here claiming that freedom of speech is the only fundamental rule of society.
It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first.
What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to limit our speech in any way, YouTube can limit all it wants unless it treads into gray area where the limits were specifically requested by the government.
> It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts
If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government.
These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example of network effects and there's no regulation - so of course it's monopolized to a degree unimaginable before.
Governments should break up such monopolies, obviously - but they aren't, so far.
If YouTube is legally a monopoly that's a separate issue that already has defined legal solutions (well, responses at least since they may not solve it).
Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.
The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option. Those with the means could move to another country, but that would only dodge one problem for another. When you live in a country ruled by a single government you can't escape their censorship.
> We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market.
There is - network effect.
> If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.
They would not, because of network effects. Coordination effort required to jump ship from a billion user website is impossible to overcome. You could have all of Americans stop using youtube, and it would still have more content than whatever competitor they turn towards.
> The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option.
There's more examples of people overthrowing a government than people succesfully boycotting a social media platform once it gets big enough.
You're conflating the risk of a monopoly in a market and the absolute monopoly of a government.
I'm not arguing why people choose to use YouTube, I'm arguing that it is a choice. Staying in a country is technically a choice, but as long as you live there you have no choice in your government and can't opt out of their rule.
Its very different. Our speech is protected specifically from government censorship because their control over us is a monopoly by design and their will is enforced through mechanisms like prison and military.
There's 200 countries. You can move. There's democracy in many of them - you can vote people out.
How many youtubes are there? How do I vote for the people running it?
I'm not conflating, I'm abstracting from artificial distinction designed to keep the loophole safe from regulation.
You can move countries, I've done it myself. You can't escape the control of whatever single government claims authority over the land you live on though, and you likely can't/won't move to land that isn't claimed by a single government.
YouTube can censor what they want, you don't have to use it and they can't send police or military after you. You can't move to a land where a single government has control and can send police or military to impose their will on you.
Who controls the media - controls the population. Who controls the population controls the government.
Every democracy will become oligarchy eventually if we don't regulate social media. Most of them won't even be controlled domestically (because the media are global).
There's like 50 people who decide 99% of information people consume worldwide. Or at least what algorithm should decide.
These people know what power it gives. That's why it was worth it for Elon to buy Twitter. It was trading money for political power. And there's nothing anybody can do. This IS oligarchy.
An oligarchy is only one of many outcomes. We could end up with a totalitarian state, feudalism, or a monarchy to name a few.
I do agree, though, that media plays a large role and (should) hold a strong responsibility for where we end up.
By ajuc 2025-06-0817:13 So you're thinking we shoud just hope they will do the unprofitable but noble thing?
By Y_Y 2025-06-069:03 I wonder would it be possible to prosecute bankers under such a law. Is it strictly information, or could you consider actions which undermine faith in the banking sector?
By ben_w 2025-06-067:49 Even the US has such restrictions: Grand jury proceeding, classified information, contempt of court (Trump almost hit that last year), lying under oath, material nonpublic information about publicly traded companies (Musk), copyright infringement, …
Is "Obscenity" still a thing? I guess some porn must be illegal…
And conversely, North Korea has a constitution that says they also support free speech*. So, you know, look to de facto not just de jure.
* """Article 65 provides that all North Korean citizens have equal rights.[15] Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67),""" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Ch...
By roenxi 2025-06-0612:22 The issue with the sort of people who don't like freedom of expression is they often ignore the rules giving people positive rights. The Chinese constitution [0] is crystal clear that Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. Pointing to a law that says people have something is evidence, but not really the end of the conversation.
[0] https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20... - Article 35
By NilMostChill 2025-06-067:45 I'm not who you were asking but i can provide a specific encroachment example.
The anti-protest law update that was passed over the last few years specifically (using the law) curbs the ability to protest freely in public spaces.
It's technically lawful and curbs expression from what it was previously, the same way they are doing it in general, by adding additional laws (or clauses to existing laws) that are intentionally vague so they can make it fit whatever definition they like after the fact.
I'm aware that the legal system is partly based on judicial interpretation etc, but these are so much more vague than previously.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it still curbs freedoms.
incidentally, i think it might have recently been overturned (or has at least been challenged successfully) but the point is , the government pulled some legal shenanigans to curb expression.
another example of the vagueness would be IR35 legislation, again, not debating the pro's and cons, just saying the law is purposely vague when actual guidelines could be provided.
It is a massive meme that people get arrested in the UK for saying things which would be protected in the US.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...
By wesselbindt 2025-06-067:36 I'm not entirely sure what your parent post is referring to, but I know the UK government has been going after anti-genocide folks to such an extent that a group of four UN rapporteurs sent them a letter about it. Details and some more context can be found here:
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-r...
By fallingknife 2025-06-0610:27 1. All animals are equal
2. But some animals are more equal than others
By March_Hare 2025-06-0611:061 reply You have the right to free speech As long as you're not Dumb enough to actually try it
By anonymousiam 2025-06-0616:02 The Clash - Know Your Rights
By Glittergorp 2025-06-0612:081 reply That law has so many caveats to it that it is essentially worthless.
By touristtam 2025-06-0622:45 I respectfully disagree with this assessment. A law is not an absolute boundary, but a societal construct—established collectively and open to reinterpretation as public consensus shifts. As such, it can be enforced as written or challenged and ultimately overturned. That doesn't make it worthless as a trial can lead to a confirmation of the rules considered.
By timewizard 2025-06-067:56 They also have a law against murder.
So super weird that people actually get away with murder still.
Don’t be silly.
The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear.
Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent.
You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot.
I’m ok with that.
By Duwensatzaj 2025-06-068:104 reply I agree that comparing the UK to the PRC is ridiculous, but you seem to have missed that UK policing goes far beyond your example.
Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran, reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam.
Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics.
Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party.
Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly -https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24513379.sellafield-worke...
Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp - https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/former-uk-police-officers-s...
It goes on and on.
This tendency to obscure context is unfortunately pretty common within discussions about freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) within the UK. I would just like to point out that if your points were so evident, you wouldn't need to remove context to make them.
You may it sound like Coskun threw a Quran into his fireplace and the police kicked his door down and arrested him. You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London. The idea that this is "reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam" is you merely repeating punditry.
Likewise, people "being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics" is because they're violating the protective zone around abortion clinics. You can pray all you want but just a little bit over there. You have the entire country to pray for the unborn. Your rights are not being unduly abridged because there's a few 150 meter zones where doing so is considered violating the dignity of others, if not harassing them while they're vulnerable. But of course, this context can be stripped to make a point.
By brigandish 2025-06-0610:171 reply > You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London
What's the relevance? You can burn a Quran without anyone knowing but if anyone knows then it's forbidden and criminal?
Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are. Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're literally doing the thing. Cringe.
By brigandish 2025-06-072:381 reply Offense is taken, not given. Unless it's harassment or assault (both forms of violence) then the response to speech should always be either speech in return, or to ignore it, not to use violence - either through the state's monopoly, in this case via the police, or through vigilante action.
To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, and authoritarian.
This kind of purist ideology is fine in a perfect world, but the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance. And let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech: you just mentioned speech being used as "harassment" and "assault". Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that? And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law and enforceable through other institutions of State?
We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line. It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
By brigandish 2025-06-0717:411 reply > let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech
Let's not introduce a straw man: I haven't claimed I'm for unrestricted speech; and let's also not introduce a Nirvana fallacy[0], my position is thus because the world is imperfect, hence freedom of speech is necessary to improve it and as mitigation against its misfortunes and burdens. It actively reduces violence by providing a better way to "win" an argument.
> Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that?
Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand:
> A person commits an assault if he performs an act (which does not for this purpose include a mere omission to act) by which he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
Spoken threats are an obvious one, so is shouting at someone in the manner that would lead a reasonable person to feel threatened.
Harassment is also easy to understand:
> The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 indicates that someone’s actions amount to harassment when they make the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence. The main goal of harassment is to persuade victims either not to do something that they are entitled or required to do or to do something that they are not obliged to do. Actions listed under the Protection from Harassment Act include, but are not limited to:
> phone calls > letters > emails > visits > stalking > verbal abuse of any kind, including on social media > threats > damage to property > bodily harm
You can see several types of speech in there.
> And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law
You're contradicting your earlier straw man now, you have no such presumption. I do, however, support defamation as a civl tort (though not how it is currently instituted in the UK, the US has a much saner implementation).
> We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line.
I'm glad you've caught up.
> It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people, and you're justifying it. So the argument goes: their offence is justified, their violence is inevitable, hence, we should stop the speech.
Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings? Would that not be peaceful co-existence?
> the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance
Popper defined, in his "paradox of tolerance" two simple tests for telling an intolerant group:
- They shun debate.
- They turn to violence.
You've picked the wrong group to criminalise.
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. - The Open Society and Its Enemies
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault
> Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand
As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society. Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation. How hate speech in defined in law very much mirrors the definitions of harassment and assault (which you appear to have no issue with): it is not mere offence and intent is necessary.
> you have no such presumption
Don't I? Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.
> Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people
This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence. It's also an extremely American phrase used there to dismiss calls for gun control. I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.
> Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?
Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
It's interesting that you would quote this because I very much agree: for as long as rational argument is able to counter intolerance, that's all we need, and anything further is not just unnecessary but detrimental. But when rational argument becomes ineffective, as we've seen, then rational argument cannot be solely relied upon. In an age of misinformation and disinformation, the notion of 'just add more speech, that'll solve everything' is not only exceptionally naive but demonstrably ignorant. One need only look at America to see what being the freeze peachiest country gets you. The UK and the rest of Europe have speech restrictions like hate-speech laws because we have intimate knowledge of the devastation of unrestrained hate. Hate cannot be reliably restrained by speech. You may find a case here and there, but it cannot stop a mob.
---
If I may make a comparison here, the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare has seemingly opened many people's eyes to society's tolerance of state-sanction death through delays, denials, and deposals, compared to society's extreme horror at a rich person getting gunned down. And yes, them being rich matters: I'm reminded of the sheer difference in effort there was between finding the doomed Titan submersible and finding the lost workers from the Francis Scott Key Bridge collision and collapse. Notice also Mangione's perp walk: you don't get that kind of display when the gunned-down victim is poor.
What I'm getting at here is that many people in society turn a blind eye to the death and misery caused by the system. He's not able to afford his medicine and died? He should've picked a better healthcare package or changed providers. The system is given infinite grace. But when [allegedly] Mangione shot that CEO, the notion that there may have been any justification for it is out of the question. He is infinitely wrong. It was odd watching news coverage of the shooting and how they tip-toed around trying to talk about this, compared to the typical US brazenness with every other topic.
This is circling back to your "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to, and I'm probably right, but I very much feel like you're doing what I described above, here. It's giving "milkshakes are cement".
By brigandish 2025-06-093:521 reply > "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to
and
> Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.
Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon (actus reus)in order to physically harm another (mens rea).
The man he attacked, the one whom you would criminalise, what was his mens rea?
> > Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand
Firstly, you've missed the point about that. It being an old law does not necessarily make it a good law (though it is), it means that a) that you should have heard of it, and b) it has a lot of case law, as I pointed out. That's who decides, precedent set by the common people using the common law.
> As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society.
Equivocation, and cowardice I might add, I won't see you banning a whole host of harmful material, like that which was burnt. Regardless, violence against people for exercising freedoms is harmful to society, which is why they're often talked about and pushed to become rights, they're that fundamental. Freedom of speech, expression, conscience and religion are liberal values that distinguish societies with them from those that don't have them, like ones with blasphemy laws.
> Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation.
We "moved on" from blasphemy laws by relentlessly criticising, arguing with, mocking and deriding those who supported them, along with their ideas. Sometimes that speech was free, sometimes it wasn't.
Now, blasphemy laws are back, increasingly, that is the point. We haven't moved on if we're slowly reintroducing them, and regardless of that, freedom of speech protects minorities from attack and dehumanisation. Not only do societies with more freedom of speech have greater safety and opportunity for minorities than those without, freedom of speech is a right that the rich and powerful almost always have, giving it to the poor, weak, or just to any individual gives them strength - the individual being the ultimate minority.
> > you have no such presumption
> Don't I?
Quite obviously not.
> <u>Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.</u>
Arrogance isn't overconfidence, it's not listening, which is why you've repeated the straw man from your previous reply. If a purist is one who supports the laws of assault, harassment, and defamation while not criminalising other forms of speech, then I'm a purist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In fact, I support the burning of a Quran and its printing (even though it contains what you would deem hate speech, if you were to be principled about it).
> > Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people
> This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence.
The US defines the test for this as whether a threat is "credible" and "imminent" (see Brandenburg v. Ohio[1]). Very sensible.
> It's also an extremely American phrase
The logical form of an argument has Americanness? No, logical form can be removed from its original context and reapplied to other matters, as in this case - where does the responsibility lie, the victim, the inanimate object, or the attacker? Watch:
"He burnt a Quran, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?"
"She was on her own at night in a short skirt, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?" You'll find some justification for that in the Quran, so I shouldn't be surprised that you've taken the position you have.
> used there to dismiss calls for gun control.
They have gun control, it's all about where to draw the line ;) The UK government decided to take away the right to arm oneself for self defence, which is allowing them to continue to remove other rights. As Frederick Douglass wrote[2]:
“the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country”
> I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.
Challenging something can tame it. Not challenging it allows it to burn. As an example, due to blasphemy laws[3] and hate speech laws[4] in the Weimar Republic, the anti-semitism coming from the pulpit wasn't able to be challenged, and repression of the speech of national socialists also removed that chance, while affording them fame and access to two-tier justice:
> And while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the vast majority of assaults on Jews weren’t.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and isn't it also ironic that those who would want to institute "hate" speech laws the most, who hide behind them at the first hint of criticism, are the ones actually committing violence. Between knifing someone and burning a book, I know which needs to be criminalised. Why don't you? To quote from [4]:
“Where are your priorities, ladies and gentleman? You're giving away what's most precious in your society and you're giving it away without a fight, and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it.
Shame on you while you do this.”
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r57n2qvzqo
[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/incitement-to-immine...
[2] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lobb-the-life-and-times-o...
[3] https://newrepublic.com/article/120519/tyranny-silence-how-o...
It was already getting tiresome responding to you, but now that you're comparing harmful speech with the "but what was she wearing", I've about had enough. Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions. It seems you have no comprehension that speech can be harmful, until suddenly it is (assault and harassment). Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America). Have a nice day.
By brigandish 2025-06-103:57 > Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions
You seem to be unaware of the violence, subjugation and rape that women are experiencing in societies, en masse, where that logical form is prevalent and accepted. Or, you're waving it away because, like all collectivists, the rights of any group are ignored in the "progression" towards utopia. The ends justify the means.
> Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America)
You mean, that place that, since its inception, unlike the rest of the world except for the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ (what could link those, I wonder?) and the Swiss, that has never had a totalitarian or fascist government? The one with among the greatest freedoms on the entire planet?
Good discussion.
By zimpenfish 2025-06-068:44 > Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran
Wasn't just for burning a Quran though? He was doing it whilst shouting Islamophobic abuse outside the Turkish embassy.
"[Judge McGarva] said that burning a religious book, although offensive to some, was not necessarily disorderly, but that other factors (including Islamophobic comments made in police interviews) made it so on this occasion."[0]
> Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics.
I could only find three - two had their charges dropped[1] and one was charged for not leaving a safe zone after being advised[2] (not silently praying.)
> Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party.
Definitely agree that one would have been better as a warning not to be such a twat rather than arrest and conviction.
> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly
> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp
"offensive" is doing a lot of work there given they were, in the first case, "racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest" and, in the second case, just plain racist.
I'm ok with racist content being policed, personally?
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9v4e0z9r8o
By andybak 2025-06-0610:48 You're either misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in how you've framed all of these.
Which is it?
By ndsipa_pomu 2025-06-069:261 reply You are being incredibly disingenuous and missing out the very important points that ALL of those instances were designed to be provocative and make people feel in fear for their own safety.
e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their health services (i.e. abortion and related services) without fear of being harassed. By stating "silent praying", you make it look as thought they weren't being deliberately provocative in order to make a protest - the exact type of thing that the PSPO is designed to protect against.
By Duwensatzaj 2025-06-0616:321 reply >provocative
So what?
>make people feel in fear for their own safety.
Private chats and bad taste Halloween costumes are designed to make people fear for their own safety?
At least you're honest about your censorship and oppression of anything anyone dislikes.
By ndsipa_pomu 2025-06-0617:14 Well the point is that we don't want people forcing religious views on a mainly secular society. If people have strong views on abortion, then they should abide by those views themselves, but we don't want them harassing people using legal health services. It's fine to protest about abortion etc, but not in a specific buffer zone which has been set up (via a PSPO) to protect vulnerable people visiting the clinic.
I don't know what you're on about with Halloween costumes - I can't see the relevance. Are there PSPOs designed to prevent scary costumes and has anyone been prosecuted for deliberately flouting the PSPO?
By cookiemonsieur 2025-06-067:353 reply > The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear.
But if you compare Zionism to another eerily similar 20th century europe ism, a lot of people will, indeed, complain.
I think if you were sensitive you could still have that conversation. People might very well complain, as is their right, but they’d still allow it if you were sensitive.
The problem is that the Jewish community in the UK is relatively small and vulnerable and there is the tendency for such discussion to turn ugly and affect the lives of all British Jews regardless of their thoughts on Zionism.
We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.
I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations. There are more effective ways to help those in trouble than starting pub fights.
By lelanthran 2025-06-0610:561 reply > We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.
Those two things are not the same. The latter is physical assault. The former isn't anything but a statement on faith.
> I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations.
I don't see anything wrong in burning a religious book as a public statement. Why, specifically, do you need that banned?
By Lio 2025-06-0611:25 I kind of agree with you that as a public statement it shouldn't be banned but it's not the burning of the koran, or any book, that should be protected but the where and when of it.
I feel similar to how I feel about fans who taunt opposition fans at football matches.
Some off colour jokes are funny, even when they're in bad taste. They aren't and shouldn't be banned. You hear a commedian saying them on stage and you'd laugh.
Making those same jokes at a football match though has the potential to cause a riot because people's passions are already raised.
I'm not talking about normal banter[1] related to the game or the teams but the dark stuff that crosses the line. I'm sure you can google it if you want examples.
Where the lines are I'm glad I'm not the one to decide.
1. The crumble based memes are some of the best.
By detourdog 2025-06-068:29 The comparison is not accurate.
Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. Opposing Zionism is the call to destruction of the entire nation-state, and, therefore, a call to genocide.
(Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).
By dragonwriter 2025-06-069:111 reply > Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist.
No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term in practical use by them), Zionism is a flawed and problematic proposal at best.
Well, if your logic is pretending to be universal, then it should apply to Palestinian Arabs as well. Why they should have the right to their state and Israeli Jews don't? (Or vice versa)
I think there is a big disconnect in this debate, and a lot of it comes from framing and conflicting definitions.
I'll try to describe this from my PoV: Zionism, to me, is just jewish-flavored nationalism. To me, the question "has Israel (the state) the right to exist" is almost nonsensical; I don't think that Italy, Germany, France or the US have any inherent "right" to exist, and the same would be true for Israel in my view.
The people that a state governs, however, do have an inherent right to fair representation of their interests (in my view), and this is where Israel often falls short.
There are a lot of non-jews living within Israels borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity).
So I think questioning "western logic" with "why should Palestine (the state) have more of a right to exist than Israel?" is unhelpful framing that misses the main point ("citizens have a right to have their interests represented").
By s1artibartfast 2025-06-0615:471 reply >There are a lot of non-jews living within Israel's borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity).
I dont think this is well supported, or the source of conflict. The state seems to do a fairly good job of providing for citizens within boarders. Arab Israeli citizens have the right to vote in Israeli elections, run for office, and serve in the Knesset. They make up roughly 1.9 million people (about 20% of Israel's population).
You can argue that these people have civic representational differences as minority group, but this is a very different situation than people living Gaza or the west bank, and their representational rights.
Do you consider Westbank and/or Gaza a full state independent from Israel?
Because to me, those are (somewhat) autonomous regions under Israels control-- so still responsible for people living there.
By s1artibartfast 2025-06-0618:09 I think that is the central question: Can you exert control while avoiding representational responsibility, and how much?
Nation states influence each other all the time. They threaten, sanction, and impose restrictions, especially when in conflict without invoking responsibility.
Now I agree that isnt a very accurate characterization of this situation. It is much more of an occupation. I still dont think that invokes a responsibility of enfranchisement, but it certain invokes some responsibility for the occupier. The US occupied Japan following WWII, but that doesnt mean Japanese became US citizens, but there are moral obligations.
I model the Palestinian situation as a failed occupation where there is no progress towards end of occupation criteria. Neither party want integration, nor are they ready for peaceful coexistence.
I dont think Israel has a responsibility to enfranchise or integrate, but it does have a obligation to provide and maintain an option for coexistence, and perpetually put real effort towards achieving it. That means giving 2nd, 3rd, or 100th chances.
By dragonwriter 2025-06-0618:45 > Do you consider Westbank and/or Gaza a full state independent from Israel?
Whether or not a legally independent state exists with some or all of that territory within its borders, that area is effectively controlled by, and in large part (including all of the West Bank, though the exact administrative details differ in different locations in the WB) under military occupation by, Israel.
By dragonwriter 2025-06-0614:32 > Well, if your logic is pretending to be universal, then it should apply to Palestinian Arabs as well.
It applies to the State of Palestine as much as to the State of Israel, correct.
Of course, while I have heard many arguments for recognition of a State of Palestine with twrritory including some parts of the area bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the internationally recognized borders of Egypr, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, none of them have been that that State has a “right to exist".
And I haven't, in this discussion, stated a position on whether either Israel-within-some-borders or Palestine-within some-borders are proper realization of the right of self determination of some people living in the area described above. You’ve just assumed a position out of nowhere because I argued that a “right to exist” if the State of Israel is a fundamentally flawed and problematic position, with a reasoning that on its own terms applies equally to the same argument if it were made for the State of Palestine.
FWIW, I think the best realization of the self-determination rights of the people in the region would probably, in the near term at least, involve both a Jewish and a Palestinian Arab State within some borders, a situation to which there are many obstacles, not least of which is Israel’s long (consisting of most of the time since 1968 at least) campaign of genocide against the Palestinian Arab people, callibrated largely to avoid excessive blowback from the West (and particularly the US), with strategies enggaged in to preserve pretexts for continuing and escalating that campaign with reduced resistance, both direct and dippomatic (which includes, among other things, fostering the formation of Islamist network that gree into Hamas to split Palestinian resistance and have a less sympathetic organized opposition during the occupation of Gaza.)
Unfortunately for that meaning of the word — and a few million people stuck in the middle — two completely different groups of racists are both simultaneously coopting it to stir up hatred for their enemies, who are the other group.
> (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone)
Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant in this case, and I fear suggesting why would be rejected because of that very mindset. So no, the freedom is not there in practice.
"You're with us or against us" kind of thing, but only with the most expansive definition of what counts.
Well, the soldier mindset and "us vs them" mindset is deadly, and the history is littered with mountains of corpses of people who subscribed to this world view, as well as millions of their innocent collateral victims.
Hate is deadly and useless. Israel is a nation that is tightly bound and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Israeli. Palestine is a nation and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Palestinians. Zionism is the affirmation of the Israelis to be a nation proper. Palestinian identity is the affirmation of Palestinians to be the nation proper. Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups, I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
By ben_w 2025-06-0610:17 > Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups,
Brave, and I respect that position.
Myself, I would prefer to carefully phrase things to not get hated. I likely can't be of any help anyway, but I think the chances go down even further if both broader groups hate me equally and think I'm on the opposite team or can't see what the other lot are doing wrong.
> I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
"Orangeman" is a member of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, named for the Dutch William of Orange who took over the UK at the beshest of parliament to support protestantism. William got the name from the principality of Orange, which is named after the city of Orange, which is in France and named after the Celtic word for foread or temple.
They wear the colour orange, even though the colour is named after the fruit (old English grouped this colour under "red"), the fruit being a corruption somewhere in probably-France of "Norange" (hence modern Spanish "naranja"), and before that Arabic.
Back to Dutch Prince William of Orange: The Dutch for the colour is "oranje"; for the fruit is "sinaasappel", literally "Chinese apple", hence the similar (but I'm told distinct species of) fruit with the English name of "mandarin".
Oranges are technically a kind of berry, unlike strawberries which are not.
The zest of an orange is an important ingredient of the mincemeat used in mince pies, which (despite the name) are generally vegetarian.
Words.
By Hikikomori 2025-06-068:371 reply That's not the part we have a problem with. It's that there was already people living there before and now they're using this supposed right to exist to wipe out the local population. Ironically they don't believe that Palestine has the right to exist.
Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.
"They" are me, I am a religious Zionist Jew. I believe that Palestine has the right to exist, just like Israel. Israel is the land of our ancestors, which was ruined by Romans and then settled through Arab conquests (Arabian colonialism was a thing). This is fine, this was a long time ago. We were there even longer, but it is not the time to compare.
If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, just as we are. Neither of us should try to destroy each other.
By Hikikomori 2025-06-0615:021 reply As Zionists go I think you only disagree on how quickly and blatantly you should perform the genocide.
By stefantalpalaru 2025-06-0616:51 [dead]
By chris12321 2025-06-069:311 reply No state has the right to exist, that thought terminating cliche makes no sense legally or philosophically. States are recognised by other states, with no legal rights involved. Also claiming that a call for the end of a state is a call for genocide is ludicrous, if that was the case then every revolution in world history would be a genocide.
Revolution is a change of government, not the end of the state.
And the state of Israel is recognized by other states and the UN.
By chris12321 2025-06-0610:312 reply After German reunification the states of East Germany and West Germany ceased to be. Was that two genocides?
By tvier 2025-06-0611:22 The two sides of this conversation seem to be using different definitions of the word "state".
I won't argue which is more appropriate in this context, but I think that's where the crux of the disagreement is.
That was their voluntary decision supported by the population of both states.
A closer analogy would have been some proposals to dissolve the German state forever after WW2, and get its parts annexed by other states. But that didn't happen.
Not to mention that Nazi Germany was actually doing an actual genocide. But that wasn't sufficient to warrant the same fate for them as a nation.
By HideousKojima 2025-06-0613:19 >But that didn't happen.
The latter part definitely did. See Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave) and all the parts of Germany that were ceded to Poland.
And the expulsion of ethnic Germans living in non-German lands across Europe postwar was certainly a form of ethnic cleansing, even if you believe it was justified to remove the justification Germany had for prewar annexations like the Sudetenland.
> You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema
This meme needs to die. You absolutely can shout fire in a crowded theatre. If there is a fire or some other emergency or you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire or other emergency.
The context of the scenario, the meme if you will, is that there is no fire. You're just shouting it for the fun of it, to see the crush of panicked bodies running just because you willed it. That is why it was used as an example of speech that is harmful.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
By lupusreal 2025-06-0610:59 The context of the scenario is you are a war protestor who's telling people they should resist the draft. Obviously protected political speech, which was outlawed using the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument.
By ndsipa_pomu 2025-06-069:191 reply Quite - the nature of the speech has to bear some resemblance to reality. There's people complaining about the crackdown on completely false mis-information that gets shared amongst right-wing circles that ended up causing the Southport riots. Clearly that's hate-speech that is aiming to incite violence and it's only fair that people should be held to account for that.
By dfawcus 2025-06-0613:07 Except the official report stated something different.
Report here: https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/pol...
The below from the FSU page:
> However, HMICFRS explicitly found “no conclusive or compelling evidence” that the disorder “was deliberately premeditated and co-ordinated by any specific group or network.” Most offenders were local, often young, and had no ties to extremism. The report also cites the Children’s Commissioner, who similarly concluded that conversations with those arrested “do not support the prevailing narrative… that online misinformation, racism or other right-wing influences were to blame.” Although ‘harmful’ online content may have circulated, the report acknowledges the causal factors were “more complex than were initially evident,” including longstanding social deprivation, loss of trust in policing, and generalised political disaffection.
Found via: https://freespeechunion.org/southport-riot-report-undermines...
By carlosjobim 2025-06-067:431 reply In some countries you are not allowed to criticize the politicians.
In other countries you are allowed to criticize the politicians, but not their policy.
The difference is not that big.
By teamonkey 2025-06-067:57 But also not the case in the UK, where complaining about both politicians and policy is a national passtime
There are literally dozens of stories of people being jailed in the UK for tweets that are not threats or inciting violence, they're just "grossly offensive". I agree, they are almost all grossly offensive - but if you only allow speech you find acceptable, that's not free speech.
By ndsipa_pomu 2025-06-069:27 Please share some links to a handful of these cases
By Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2025-06-069:351 reply [flagged]
> which the new administration is rightly cracking down on according to you.
I've made no comment on that at all as I don't think it's germain to current the conversation and I have nothing useful to say about it.
I'm not sure which country you're actually talking about but your use of the word "administration" makes me think it's somewhere other than here; we form governments in the UK not administrations.
Pro-palestine events have been going on in public continuously in the UK since the current episode started. There are several today even and you could go to them if you want to, no one is cracking down on that here.
By Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2025-06-0613:18 The paraphrase "fire in a crowded theater" is from an American case so of course I used the American government, Trump, cracking down on Palestine supporters.
By ben_w 2025-06-067:37 The UK has problems, but it's not what you'd guess from its own media (left or right, both just have different errors), and everyone else's media is likely even more wrong.
When the Sex Pistols got "God Save The Queen" to number 2 in the charts (despite being widely refused broadcast or sale), the listings just left the number 2 slot blank that week. The band was arrested after performing the song on a boat on the Thames.
Decades later, an MP suggested playing the "God Save The Queen" (also the name of the national anthem) every night on the BBC, patriotically, in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Newsnight* agreed and trolled everyone by playing the Sex Pistols' instead of the anthem.
* "the BBC's news and current affairs programme, providing in-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines" to quote Wikipedia
It's always funny seeing Americans who have clearly got their news about the UK from questionable sources telling us how actually we live in a dystopian open-air prison.
In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process, but the UK is the one close to a loss of freedom of speech because checks notes you can be convicted in a court of law for actively calling for people to burn down hotels full of immigrants during riots.
This isn't new, of course, I remember some time back I was being told how white people couldn't go into Leicester... while I, a white man, attended University in Leicester.
The UK definitely has issues, even ones related to expression, but generally it's a very free place that does pretty well with respect to it. The US is in a much more dangerous place for freedom of expression right now.
By Glittergorp 2025-06-0611:502 reply Yes the American media overblow some of the issues for clicks. However you can be arrested for speech and it isn't just threats to violence.
> In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process.
This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You are falling for the same rage bait media (except it is left leaning).
> This isn't new, of course, I remember some time back I was being told how white people couldn't go into Leicester... while I, a white man, attended University in Leicester.
It depends which area of the city. The University will typically safer than other areas of a city. Most of the people there are students and there is campus security.
There are areas of Manchester (where I used to live) and where I am the only English guy (not white, there were Irish people there) on the street. There was significant racial tensions and fights as a result. The guy that bombed the Arianne Grande concert lived a 5 minute walk away. I moved out of Manchester because I didn't feel safe.
Again not a "no-go zone area", but there are problems with racial tensions. I've heard it is worse in some places in London.
> The UK definitely has issues, even ones related to expression, but generally it's a very free place that does pretty well with respect to it.
As someone that lived outside the UK for long periods of time and knew what the country was like before the 2000s. This isn't true.
> Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons.
Actually, most of the illegals being arrested didn't enter the country illegally; they legally entered the country (for example, to file an asylum claim), but for various reasons, they're no longer legally allowed to be in the country.
By Glittergorp 2025-06-0615:27 Ok maybe, I've read the opposite. But it certainly isn't as dramatic as what was presented by the OP.
In any-event, fuck this site because people will flag you/downvote for just disagreeing with someone if it is a politically sensitive topic.
> This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You are falling for the same rage bait media (except it is left leaning).
You say it isn't true, but then say "many", so it is true, just not in all cases? Just because others are being deported alongside you doesn't change that you are being sent to a foreign prison for speech, and with no due process anyone can be targeted.
> It depends which area of the city. The University will typically safer than other areas of a city. Most of the people there are students and there is campus security.
What are you talking about? I lived in the city—I rented a house with friends from my second year as most do rather than staying in halls (which are in Oadby), I went out all the time all over the place, as did everyone else. I didn't spend three years locked inside the University.
> As someone that lived outside the UK for long periods of time and knew what the country was like before the 2000s. This isn't true.
Given you are willing to claim it's rage bait media to point out people being extrajudicially imprisoned abroad for speech the admin in the US doesn't like, I'm not going to trust your judgement of how good freedom of expression is.
> You say it isn't true, but then say "many", so it is true, just not in all cases? Just because others are being deported alongside you doesn't change that you are being sent to a foreign prison for speech, and with no due process anyone can be targeted.
Reread what they quoted. The statement as a whole is not true, he was correcting the latter part of it that made it false.
By Latty 2025-06-073:08 What latter part? They did not get due process. They were targeted for their speech, the administration explicitly said so. The post-hoc rationalisation by claiming they are gang members with laughable evidence (mostly having completely and obviously unrelated tattoos) doesn't mean it wasn't for speech, and without due process they can grab anyone and make that claim without any proof.
By Glittergorp 2025-06-0612:14 [flagged]
By didntcheck 2025-06-068:492 reply I also live in the UK, and I in fact care about both of these. "Things are worse in America" is a tired and harmful cliché frequently used to deflect valid complaints about affairs here. Is the Trump administration really the low bar we're happy with?
And I'm afraid we're long past the point of dismissing police and state overreach into freedom of expression as an "American/right-wing myth". The Julian Foulkes case [1] is just one recent example - and no, the fact that they apologised in this one case, featuring an important person, that received substantial media attention, is not enough to reassure me that it was an error
By foldr 2025-06-0613:52 > "I am pleased that Kent Police has apologised to him and removed the caution from his record."
This is bad, but corrective action was taken. You can look through the news in pretty much any country and find some examples of the police abusing their power or arresting people for stupid reasons. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t bad or that it’s not worth drawing attention to. But cherry picking these kinds of incidents can give people outside the UK a deeply misleading picture of what life is actually like here (see e.g. the green account posting elsewhere in this thread for one example).
I explicitly said that the UK wasn't free of issues: my pointing out the US was worse wasn't defending our own, simply making the point that some Americans tend to massively exaggerate the UK's issues while pretending the US doesn't have any.
Average people from the UK are going to assume that any pushback on speech controls is nutters if the message comes with absurd exaggerations and outright lies. There are legitimate cases of overreach from our legal system, but too often the focus is on someone actively calling for violence, and those are not the same.
> …while pretending the US doesn't have any.
As far as I can tell, the comment you replied to did not do any such thing.
They’re referring to the comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44198428
Yes, I’m aware. I should have said “referred to” instead of “replied to”.
By foldr 2025-06-0614:53 Hmm, to me that comment is clearly making a comparison between the US and the UK and suggesting that the UK is in a worse position with regard to freedom of expression (“from across the pond”).
By Glittergorp 2025-06-0611:59 [flagged]
By decremental 2025-06-068:46 [dead]
By haswell 2025-06-0611:40 Many of us are well aware of what’s happening in the US, and also deeply concerned by what we see abroad.
The comment that started this subthread gave no indication that they were unaware of the state of things in the US…you’re arguing against people and behavior that might be real but doesn’t exist in the comment in question.
By redeeman 2025-06-0610:00 [flagged]
By aa-jv 2025-06-069:46 Whether you are in the UK or the USA, your freedoms are being degraded even outside the media-consumption sphere.
Until GCHQ and NSA are properly reigned in, nobody is getting their human rights back.
With the base expectations for the abrogation of human rights being set at global scale by these heinous organizations, which subvert our democracies and corrupt them, there can be no expectation that the broader sphere of local human rights will ever recover from the damage caused.
We cannot fight for a free and open society, when that free and open society is being used to abrogate literally billions of human beings rights outside of our own state borders.
The issue will never leave the commons for as long as the military industrial complex is allowed to violate human rights at immensely despicable scales. The protection many claim are being provided, is a fallacy - the net effect of GCHQ/NSA control over our information and communications systems is, a deleterious effect on our ability to protect our rights at an individual level.
A government which promotes this abrogation of human rights at massive scale is never going to be brought to heel over those same rights being returned, locally - whether British, American, Canadian, Australian or Kiwi...
And still it's the "free-speech" USA that deports students for protesting against Israel war in Gaza and not UK.
There's the wording of the law, and then there's the practice of the government. Most communist regimes in Eastern Europe had pretty nice constitutions. It's just that everybody knew it doesn't matter what the constitution says - you complain = you're off to the national variety of a KGB prison.
When your government ignores courts and laws and just deport people as it sees fit for their protesting or their tatoos - you do not have free speech. No matter what your laws say.
BTW - USA arguably didn't have free speech for majority of its existence. If you were a slave you certainly didn't.
By Latty 2025-06-068:16 If that were true (which it isn't), when you don't get due process, they can just claim you aren't a citizen, and then—just as they have—'deport' (read: exile) you and claim there is no way to get you back when the "mistake" is found.
How can someone be so confident but also so wrong?
---
EDIT: Let's remind ourselves of where FEDERAL freedom of speech comes from. Firstly, of course, is the First Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You may notice that it doesn't say "free speech is for citizens", but rather that there is a negative-right against Congress from legislating to restrict speech. But what about the President, or the judiciary, or the States? Well, Gitlow v. New York established the following:
> Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/652/
Judges need to get better at this: it NEVER is just for that case. And so the case set a precedent that the 14th Amendment's due process clause contains within itself a more powerful version of the First Amendment. Now let's remind ourselves of what the due process clause says (with the equal protect clause for good measure):
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, to quote the notorious RBG:
> Nor shall any State deprive any person, not any citizen. And the choice [in] the word 'person' was quite deliberate. And similarly, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So, the United States constitution surely recognises the fundamental human rights of all persons.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=3925s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=3712s (timestamp for the question she's responding to)
Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether the due process clause should be so expansive, indeed I find the US's tendency to amend the Constitution via Supreme Court precedent to be deeply troubling, but even under a textualist reading of the First Amendment, the idea that Freedom of Speech in America is limited to citizens is deeply, deeply ignorant.
By Freedom2 2025-06-068:49 > How can someone be so confident but also so wrong?
Welcome to Hacker News, where "curious discussion" is more important than anything else.
By mattmanser 2025-06-067:09 [flagged]
By smeeger 2025-06-0612:28 saaaave the children!!!1
I like the way Jeff signed off the article, pointing out that whilst the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement, Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models.
Seems ironic that their AI models are getting their detection of "Dangerous or Harmful Content" wrong. Maybe they just need to infringe more copyright in order to better detect copyright infringement?
By throwaway290 2025-06-066:331 reply > Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models
If by "allegedly" you mean that google admitted it
> Google models may be trained on some YouTube content, but always in accordance with our agreement with YouTube creators (https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/14/google-veo-a-serious-swing...)
Where "agreement" likely means "you accepted some tos 15 years ago so shut up".
> the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement
the irony...
By consp 2025-06-067:20 > Where "agreement" likely means "you accepted some tos 15 years ago so shut up".
I am not a content creator or business on yt but i am 99.9% certain as soon as you enter your business credentials to make money they pretty much are allowed to do as they please and change the terms without notice (to which you must agree). And because as pointed out into the article, yt is a monopoly in all but name you have to agree to it as there are no viable alternatives.
By libraryatnight 2025-06-0618:25 The hoovering of data for ads went about the same. They consume my data and told me it was for better ads - the most visible result is that I get ads for things I've already bought and it conflates searches made only in the spirit of understanding with desire. On the bright-side it's produced quite a few good jokes. "I googled Breitbart and I'm getting ads for testerone treatment and viagra!" [my wife, 2014]
The least these creeps could do if they're going to treat us like this is deliver the experience they say the evil justifies.
Gemini doesn't need his video as train data, google can just torrent any content and use it as training data, just like facebook.
Uh? Veo 3 is arguably the result of owning YouTube and tapping into its content. No need to torrent much if you store the largest amount of footage on Earth.
The Veo demos I saw all looked like Hollywood productions. Not like YouTube videos which are 99% garbage you wouldn't want to train off of.
By davidmurdoch 2025-06-0616:36 Those Hollywood style videos are just more impressive, especially for people who will pay. Veo can produce any style or quality of video, it's just not impressive to demo a video that looks like one any run-of-the-mill YouTuber can make in their bedroom.
By extraduder_ire 2025-06-0713:49 If you want to use content-ID on youtube, you need to upload a copy of your content to youtube itself.
Both legit and illicit, there's all types of videos on youtube.
By Mindwipe 2025-06-0613:47 You mean in the way Meta is being sued for, and bluntly are almost certainly going to lose and have to pay out lots and lots and lots of money for?
This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share. I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content. YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity". Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone.
You can show silencer disconnected from firearm, connected to firearm but showing moment you screwing it to end of barrel and your video is banned. There are dozens rules that are so vague that if YT wants he can remove any gun related content.
This is problem YT is not willing to fix because collateral damage costs are peanuts comparing to beeing sued and loose because some real illegal content slip trough filter. I don't expect any improvement here because there is no business justification.
By freedomben 2025-06-0614:103 reply Indeed. A family member of mine had a helpful amount of income coming in from a channel of his that was gaining momentum. The point of the channel was to teach gun safety to people new to guns. Keep in mind that where we live, all of this is 100% legal and even encouraged, yet, YouTube threw so many ridiculous barriers in the way that he could not create much content That didn't end up getting removed. He eventually threw in the towel, and now people new to guns have less access to genuinely helpful information that might save their lives. It seems ironic to me that they had to aggressively remove anything that mentioned covid and didn't go exactly down the government line because otherwise it could get people killed, but they have no problem removing gun safety videos.
By ndriscoll 2025-06-0616:51 That's because they are not a platform for education. They are a platform for ads and encouraging hyperconsumerism. They merely allow educational material, sometimes. Expect more videos to be removed over time that don't align with their goals. e.g. I would not expect playlists of hour-long MIT lectures to stay there for the long term as the platform moves more toward shorts and algorithmic recommendations. Or their vast library of people's old random amateur videos that barely get any views/generate almost no revenue while costing them money.
But the tech companies all replaced the gun emoji with a squirt gun like a decade ago, I thought all gun violence ended after that?
By Spivak 2025-06-083:17 Emojis being so sterile is so funny from the perspective of human communication. The fact that there isn't an 18+ pack and shit like eggplant and water spray get co-opted to fill the gap is such puritan thinking. There's such a fundamental disconnect with the standards bodies and implementers about what real people actually want to say to one another.
At least with letters we're free to say and invent words as we see fit but emojis have to be filtered by companies that consider ketchup to be spicy. You can say the most fucked up sexual shit with letters no problem but an emoji butt would be a bridge too far.
Guns are not safe. No matter what you do, accidents will happen.
I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education, and neither does youtube apparently.
It’d be pretty bad if someone watched youtube videos and thought they could handle guns safely and ended up hurt.
That doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me.
> Guns are not safe. No matter what you do, accidents will happen.
By that reasoning, nothing is safe. Not a useful statement.
Guns are certainly safer than e.g. cars - you control everything about your gun, but have no control over the environment you drive in.
> I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education, and neither does youtube apparently.
Then you're horribly wrong of course. Youtube just hosts videos, which are a medium like any other. There's no reason why some piece of information couldn't be encoded in a video instead of in a book.
> It’d be pretty bad if someone watched youtube videos and thought they could handle guns safely and ended up hurt.
This is different from learning from literally any other source how?
It's worth mentioning that gun safety rules are super simple and obviously correct, so there's nothing to get wrong anyways:
#1 Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
#2 Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy.
#3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
#4 Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.
There's more to it of course, but these go a long way.
By const_cast 2025-06-090:151 reply > By that reasoning, nothing is safe. Not a useful statement.
The difference is, I think, that guns are specifically designed to be destructive. Their purpose is to kill things, and not only is that their purpose, it's actually their only purpose. They can't do anything else.
This is in direct contrast to, well, everything. Knives, automobiles, you name it.
By freedomben 2025-06-0916:58 > The difference is, I think, that guns are specifically designed to be destructive. Their purpose is to kill things, and not only is that their purpose, it's actually their only purpose. They can't do anything else.
Strange, I've been to the shooting range maybe hundreds of times in my life and I've never seen anything killed (or even injured), and a siginificant number of people got a lot of enjoyment and entertainment out of it. Perhaps alumnimun cans, plastic bottles, and paper targets are actually alive?
By amrocha 2025-06-0718:31 You can have as many rules as you want, accidents still happen, and with guns they’re often lethal.
Guns can never be safe.
> No matter what you do, accidents will happen.
This is an objectively false statement. There are just four simple safety rules that prevent all unintentional gun injuries, _even if you violate some of the rules some of the time_.
> I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education
I'm in 30s and have learned probably about as much from Youtube as I did from my entire schooling.
By trogdor 2025-06-070:31 > There are just four simple safety rules that prevent all unintentional gun injuries, even if you violate some of the rules some of the time.
Rules don’t prevent accidents. Trying your best to always follow the rules helps to prevent accidents.
I agree with GP: where guns exist and humans interact with them, accidents will occasionally happen.
Humans are imperfect. Some people who know the four rules that you are referring to and who try their best to always follow them will still experience accidents.
I own multiple guns, including a machine gun. No matter what I do, there is risk inherent in my decision to be a gun owner.
By christophilus 2025-06-0611:112 reply Same for tobacco stuff. I follow a few pipe-tobacco reviewers, and YT has begun to tighten the clamp there, too.
It wouldn’t bother me if YouTube wasn’t basically a monopoly. I know some of them have been switching to Rumble, but to be honest, the competition is so fragmented that I don’t see any of them gaining critical mass.
By mvieira38 2025-06-0613:48 We should host a tobacco related Peertube instance at this point. Get Muttnchop, Snus at Home and some other guys on it and we would be free from youtube
By threetonesun 2025-06-0613:481 reply Host your own content, monetize your own blog. I get that not as many people can do it without access to the big platforms but... that's ok?
By mousethatroared 2025-06-0614:54 And break the big tech monopolies is also... ok?
By philistine 2025-06-0617:411 reply Are you aware that gun laws are not the same around the world and that YouTube likes to enjoy revenue worldwide?
I see all the rules you describe as an American company trying to marry the gun culture of the US with the far more reserved stance of the rest of the world.
By Rebelgecko 2025-06-0722:28 Much of the world actually has less restrictive rules on silencers than the US, I think in a lot of European countries they're regulated comparably to or even law then firearms. I think the restrictions are more closely tied to the state where YouTube is based than to the overall gun laws of any particular country.
