Re:YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
by roenxi on Monday January 11, 2021 @02:40AM
(#25725900)
> Some people think that the companies have ulterior motives.
It isn't just ulterior motives, there is an argument to be made that they do not have the competence to police their own policies. Twitter's argument for what constituted incitement had nothing to do with the words Trump used and everything to do with the context in which they were typed.
It is impossible to use that standard of evidence for action and get fair results. If it were possible, "oh yeah everyone knows that" would be a normal standard in the court system. It isn't, because we have established through countless moral panics and knee-jerk reactions over history that higher standards are needed to get fair results.
Media companies as powerful as YouTube using substandard evidence to moderate political debate is huge news. With this standard they aren't half as suitable a platform for political news as they used to be.
It isn't just ulterior motives, there is an argument to be made that they do not have the competence to police their own policies. Twitter's argument for what constituted incitement had nothing to do with the words Trump used and everything to do with the context in which they were typed.
It is impossible to use that standard of evidence for action and get fair results. If it were possible, "oh yeah everyone knows that" would be a normal standard in the court system. It isn't, because we have established through countless moral panics and knee-jerk reactions over history that higher standards are needed to get fair results.
Media companies as powerful as YouTube using substandard evidence to moderate political debate is huge news. With this standard they aren't half as suitable a platform for political news as they used to be.