Google makes a business case for making a certain percentage of their resources available without charge to users of their other services, but that isn’t a promise to provide unlimited storage and bandwidth. Now we don’t really know fully what happened here. Certainly you could make guesses and if you’re cynical enough, make a convincing case that what they engaged in here was censorship because of the content. If you check your worst impulses and apply Occam’s Razor though, you’ll probably think that the removal or at least access limitation was an economic decision, one that Google engages in all the time when users abuse the terms of their shared file hosting, and one which every service provider of shared file hosting you or I have ever heard of has had to make at some point if they’ve ever seen any real use.
It becomes some ill-defined ideal that's basically "freedom from consequences of speech" instead of the strict legal definition.
I'm free to speak, and make you speak what I want, and pay for my speech, but YOU can't make me say things I don't want to.
Huh? Stand on a soapbox. Get a group together to promote your ideas. You can do all of this without going to jail, but google doesn't have to pay huge amounts to pump out your BS.
Obviously? Freedom of speech that doesn't protect you from consequences, ex. prison time, is an utterly worthless "freedom".
"Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time.
Everybody wants those consequences to be personally beneficial, but that's not embedded within the right itself (and can't be, as that would result in a contradiction in terms between equally just and/or lawful expressions).
Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat.
If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.
At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat.
> If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.
I'm not excusing anyone. Freedom of expression is symmetric: anybody who belongs to an "online hate mob" is going to face the consequence of me not wanting to interact with them. For all I know, that's what they want too!
So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate.
Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech.
Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault, because assault is just a "consequence" of walking around in public.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished"
That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims.
And if you say something like that, you are probably a bad person.
Not sure what you mean by "valid". Sounds like a moral stance. Thoughts are a consequence of speech. A threat is an expression of a thought.
> Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault
No, it does not. Trying to abridge expression, to prevent misinterpretation is impractical. Defensively speaking to that end, is not an element to free speech. It's specifically in opposition.
> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished"
Or you will be rewarded.
> That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims.
I'm glad you have the right to express your beliefs, although I disagree with how you interpret speech.
Just because someone acts virtuously or within their rights, does not mean they are given privilege, nor guarantee that they will be rewarded, nor guaranteed that there will be no retribution. Speech rights do not solve imbalances of power. The philosophy of free speech, as I understand it, is not about individuals per se. Over time, enough people will have enough opportunity to solve their own problems (including power imbalance), by cultural change.
I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.)
I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.
> I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.
I don't think the platitude itself is a threat, I'm saying that it is the same as condoning illegitimate bad behavior as a response to people exercising their rights. It is condoning bad behavior, and in the sense that it is amplifying a potential threat and coercing someone to not exercise their rights, it does sound like a threat, in a small way.
For example, it is generally frowned upon to tell a woman that she should make herself less attractive because it is her fault if she is assaulted. Even if there might be a kernel of truth to it, it is a shitty thing to say, and one might even call it "invalid", because it is often outside of whether someone indeed has the right to walk in public or say what they please.
And, in our society, even the worst people should have the same rights as all of us. Because all of us are the worst people to someone. These tactics are themselves wrong; illegitimate. So it should give you pause when you see that you are doing the same thing as those who silence people speaking truth to power.
I'm sorry, I really thought my examples were helpful.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right?
Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers, but it's a "private" network, and they are a corporation, so not just do they get to be evil, but smug people will defend them from anyone even criticizing them.
A corporation was supposed to provide a public good in exchange for the privileges they are granted. I know that there isn't really anything we can do about it anymore. In many ways they have materially benefited from the public. I don't think it is too much to ask that we get something back.
...I was referring to the telegraph operators. Everything I said was true of them. Right down to the toadies that defend the rich and powerful.
But regardless, I think a good case can be made that Google, and the other tech giants, have a near monopoly.
That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.
I never said that YouTube was exactly like telegraph operators. I was making a much more general comparison between of communication magnates back then and now.
It seems like a pretty direct mapping to me.
Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past both benefited greatly from the government, and yet they like to claim they are "private platforms", and are therefore entitled to be as evil as they like, as long as it happens on their network.
Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past did evil stuff. And the free market did not stop them. The people and the government had to restrain them.
Facebook and Google are doing some really egregious things. And I think it is going to take direct government sanction to keep them in line.
And yes, I do think that effectively Google and a few other companies have a de-facto monopoly on video platforms, due to their vertically integrated infrastructure. I don't think there is a realistic way to exert market pressure against their agenda.
Just the tip of the iceberg, but independent journalists/podcasters that tried informing the public about horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses were systemically removed from YouTube. Only organizations deemed "legitimate" are even allowed to upload videos where people use the word "coronavirus" without having their videos demoted, or outright deleted. Independent journalists banned, but Fox and MSNBC are promoted to the front page.
Do I seriously have to connect the dots about how companies like Google and Amazon are starting to act very much like 19th century industrialists?
If youtube/facebook/etc were just platforms where people were spreading false information/hysteria/propaganda from other countries targeting the US during a crisis the government would step in and force its own censorship regime on these services.
These services are trying to prevent that from happening by being proactive about policing themselves. This is expensive. They wouldn't do it without a profit motive of keeping the government from getting involved, which would probably be even worse.
These private platforms want to be free of the consequences of their actions. They want to pretend to be neutral platforms, like a telephone carrier, but pick who gets to say what on their networks like a publisher.
Their censorship goes well beyond complying with the law, or even protecting users from harassment.
So, if they want to pretend to be completely private, then they should be treated that way.
The thing with YouTube is that its greatest power is its greatest weakness. They let anyone in the world serve 4k or 8k videos to an infinite number of users. They find advertisers for your videos and automatically run their ads on your videos, so that you can get cash money from producing them. And, there is a recommendation engine so that viewers can discover your video and channel. With those advantages, come disadvantages -- the service as a whole is called YouTube, and so a bad video on your channel reflects poorly on other channels and the service as a whole. So they have guidelines to protect their success, at the cost of not making all the advantages available to you. That is why there are "guidelines". I am sure if you buy a Google Cloud account and pay for the transfer and storage of your content, and find your own advertisers to fund it, you can host as many conspiracy theory videos as you want and nobody will stop you. But I think you'll find that you make negative money on this proposition.
(Also, I personally paid $200 for Windows 10, so I'm not sure how people are getting it for free.)
Additionally, you can download Windows 10 and never activate it and all it will do is show a watermark indicating it is not activated.
You can always pay for Windows.
I think Windows 10 Pro is pay only.
You own the storage space you use when using windows on your personal device.
The cost benefit analysis of massively upsetting users. If memory serves, they used to use this method to target Windows piracy.
They do block access, therefore suppressing freedom of speech.
Arguing with "they're just saving resources" is ridiculous, especially when considering Google's wealth.