Some people call #YouTube demonetizing certain vidoes an impediment to freedom of speech. This is not the case. #FreedomOfSpeech means you can say whatever you want and *not* go to jail because of your political stance. It doesn't mean people still have to do business with you or allow you on their property. Your videos are still on YT, unless you're doing something that is unlawful or against CoC. Also - YT is a privately owned place and their "security" can kick you out for any or no reason.
@frankie @unfa You’ve addressed this in terms of 1 specific legal implementation of #freeSpeech: #1A (US Constitution 1st amendment). But in the platforming/deplatforming context the impediment is to free speech principles not a legal implementation thereof. It boils down to an #equivocation fallacy: your opponent refers to a body of principles & philosophy & you superimpose the legal definition
@koherecoWatchdog @unfa
I'd argue that it's not an "impediment" at all. Quite the contrary. YouTube's choice of who to associate with is an expression of their 1A rights, the very same rights you have on your property.
The free marketplace of ideas is where this is decided. If people don't like YouTube's moderation decisions, they're free to stop using YouTube's service. If enough people do that, it hurts YouTube's bottom line, and they're forced to change or die.
@LouisIngenthron @unfa The principle of free speech relies on a “marketplace” of ideas whereby good ideas are carried further and bad ideas fall with unpopularity. A moderator stepping in is counter to that principle as the moderator ensures that the ideas do not get tested by the public.
@unfa @LouisIngenthron The idea that ppl would leave Youtube due to poor moderation does not bring back the free speech trial of ideas; it’s simply people leaving b/c free speech isn’t happening. It’s also severely flawed to think the masses would even be aware of the moderation. Moderation on centralized control-freakish platforms is performed in the least transparent way precisely for retention.
@koherecoWatchdog The idea that people who use social media aren't aware of moderation is silly. It's pervasive and necessary for the platforms to function. Hence the constant complaints of "shadowbans".
But if people actually do want to remain uninformed about how those systems work, that's their choice too 🤷♂️
@LouisIngenthron The idea that there is transparency on the moderation actions is silly. The masses think moderation is being used against spammers and extremists. They’re unaware of the extent of moderation being done to control the narrative. When the moderator of r/Brussels censors a story about Brussels police forcing people to use Facebook, no one knows except the person who was silenced.
@koherecoWatchdog I never said it was transparent. You don't need transparency to make value judgements about the results.
@LouisIngenthron You can’t make a value judgement about an event you don’t know about. Readers of r/Brussels don’t know that the story about police forcing Facebook on people was suppressed, so no value judgement is made.
@koherecoWatchdog That's true, but nobody is owed this information either. It's incumbent on all of us to educate ourselves.
Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on information. People who choose to only consume information there are choosing to accept Facebook's version of events.
@LouisIngenthron It’s not about “owing”. I don’t give a shit about who owes what. It’s about free speech principles being disregarded, coupled with the deception of concealing the moderation actions from the public. The public cannot make good informed decisions if it’s not informed.
@koherecoWatchdog I agree with your last sentence. Where I disagree is who bears responsibility for that. The public is responsible for becoming informed.
People using Facebook uninformed about what that involves are like Elon buying Twitter and waiving due diligence.
It's not Facebook's fault that they haven't done the work to become informed.
@LouisIngenthron You’ve placed the burdon on the party least capable of carrying the burdon. Reddit doesn’t just block posts like crazy, it conceals its moderation actions to an unverifiable extent. And when a suppressed user posts about the suppression, Reddit blocks that too. It’s silly and reckless to say Reddit is not accountable for that.
@koherecoWatchdog They're only as accountable as their customers choose to hold them. That's free choice.
@LouisIngenthron It’s not an informed choice. Hence why there’s a problem.
@koherecoWatchdog So because the customers refuse to educate themselves, the business should have its rights trampled upon?
What kind of logic is that?
@LouisIngenthron How perverse of you to frame users who are unwittingly in a bubble as “refusing to educate themselves”. They are open to information that the platform is blocking their access to. The information is choked off and kept unreachable.
@LouisIngenthron We also call that victim blame. You’re blaming the victims for the wrong doing of the platform admins & owners.
@koherecoWatchdog Oh, these poor victims, getting free entertainment services. How ever will they survive?
@LouisIngenthron They’re victims of deception. Some states have outlawed that, btw. If a business deceives you about a product or service it’s legally actionable. The blame rests squarely on the party doing the deception.
@koherecoWatchdog Lmao, you're really stretching now.
@LouisIngenthron Deception is far from acceptible in the marketplace. It’s rightly illegal in some states. It’s not unreasonable to expect vendors & suppliers to be honest & truthful. States that have enacted laws to that effect have done the right thing.
@koherecoWatchdog 
It's not "deceptive" to allow a degree of subjective judgement in moderation decisions.
Your persecution complex is showing.
@LouisIngenthron You’re the one who brought up rules & presented the idea that both parties have some kind of structure by which they can derive expectations on how the service works. It’s clearly not the case. Not only is it one-sided (as if that’s not fucked up already), the party with the benefit of drafting the rules is also deviating from them at will.
@koherecoWatchdog The rules are very simple: If you don't like how they run their property, nobody is forcing you to be there.
@koherecoWatchdog Great, so ask for your money back.
Oh. Wait.
@LouisIngenthron Bingo. Time is money... uh, oh shit, guess your time isn’t money. Fucked indeed.
@LouisIngenthron Courts don’t recognize time lost as damage that you can claim. So even though Reddit is breaking the law, the teeth of the law can’t sink into Reddit when the damage done is to user’s time spent.
@LouisIngenthron But in any case Reddit cannot be regarded as lawful or honest. So yeah, those rules you were talking about, you can disregard those. Like a lot of US corps, they are willing to break the law to the extent that it won’t be enforced against them.
@koherecoWatchdog Wait, so they gave you a free entertainment service that you chose to use for years, and when they decide to change the rules a bit in an effort to make it better, you think *they* owe *you* for that?
That is some seriously supreme entitlement right there.
@LouisIngenthron The time wasted is actually an understatement. The worst part of the damage is not the user’s time, but rather that due to networking effect the platform’s perception of credibility is based on user count and activity. Users are deceptively baited into platform, & their presence and contributions add value to the platform.
@LouisIngenthron It’s like thinking you’re working for Green Peace but later discovering that your labor actually served Amazon or some shitty organization.
@LouisIngenthron After you discover you were deceived into contributing to a socially harmful organization, you can’t take back the value you put into it.
@koherecoWatchdog Next you're going to tell me that WoW players should be able to sue for all their past subscription fees back because Blizzard released an update they didn't like. 🤦♂️
@LouisIngenthron If a mid-term update downgrades the platform, suing for the pro rata unused portion of the subscription would be fair enough.
@LouisIngenthron That’s a much easier case because Blizzard games and subscriptions are not gratis. And you aren’t the product… you’re a user in the true sense of the term.
@koherecoWatchdog You're a user in both senses. The difference is whether you pay in cash or data. Either way, you're paying for a service you enjoy, and you're not owed that back just because the service changes later.
@koherecoWatchdog We're not talking about future time that's been prepaid for. We're talking about sunk time. That's what you argued was lost.
@LouisIngenthron In a gaming platform, the invested time has less of an impact on the value of the network. If you’re a gamer, you don’t care if there are 1000 players or 10000 players, you just care that 3 others show up to start a game with you. If you could retroactively go back in time and not play, your contribution amounts to zero anyway.
@LouisIngenthron Compare that to a discussion forum, where you join because there is a community of thousands who (you think) you can reach, and where your own presence adds value to the platform because you also add to that count.
@LouisIngenthron With the game, your presence and contribution adds close to nothing, because someone waiting for a game to start will eventually have 3 other players joined up. There is no archival value of past games either.
@koherecoWatchdog That is exactly 0% true for MMOs like WoW.
@LouisIngenthron i’m only familiar with warcraft 1, 2 & 3. WoW could be quite different, in which case I could very well be wrong about damages done to a player in the scenario you give.
@koherecoWatchdog Then, to use a more modern example: Fortnite or Call of Duty. The player base is half the attraction. These games don't sell on their single player modes.
Even Warcraft 2 & 3 derived a great deal of value from the community on Battle.NET.
The point is, you don't get to blame other people for how you choose to spend your time.
@LouisIngenthron There’s another factor that makes gaming an unsuitable comparison: community division & network effect are more impacting on forums. People don’t want to have to participate in ~10-20 different forums for an isolated topic, such as your local city or village. They select 1 or 2. That means when a deceptive platform baits people in, they reduce the audience of better platforms.
@LouisIngenthron So when you discover you’ve contributed to a harmful platform, not only was your time wasted but you added value by way of /network effect/ to the harmful platform, which has rippling consequences for the platform you ultimately end up on.
@LouisIngenthron Not everyone goes against the moderator’s narrative, so many users will incidentally never get suppressed & thus be unaware that they are helping a bad actor recruit participants who could be benefitting (and drawing benefit from) an honest platform.
@LouisIngenthron Someone who never posts a criticism of the police dept don’t know that such criticisms were suppressed from their view. So there’s also damage done by that lack of awareness. That is, the huge number of people in that Reddit forum will never know that the police now impose Facebook on people. It’s not sensible to fault those people for not going to many sources.
@koherecoWatchdog I honestly can't take any more of this.
You're not entitled to others amplifying or hosting your speech.
You're not entitled to 3rd party remuneration for the consequences of your own decisions.
If you don't want to "lose" time you put into things, then don't put that time onto a foundation that someone else owns.
@LouisIngenthron Consumers are entitled to damages that result from deception, but only money damages. So yes, my own decision can entitle me to compensation when the decision is based on misinfo by the suppler. The only reason it’s not actionable is b/c money was not lost.
@LouisIngenthron Your final solution is essentially “go unplug & live in cave”, instead of holding bad actors accountable. Feel free to do that yourself if you want, but I prefer to name and shame the bad actors, and take actions when the law supports it.
@LouisIngenthron An anti-activist approach -- effectively a do nothing approach, is weak, useless, & makes someone part of the problem.
@LouisIngenthron When you’ve been burnt because the property is not being run as advertised, the damage is done. It’s too late to then decide whether to contribute content to their asset.
@LouisIngenthron Insufficient. If you discover that the property is not being run as advertised, you’ve been deceived. Your time has been wasted & there are damages. If you know in advance that you don’t like how the property is being run, there’s no issue there because you don’t sign up in the 1st place. The problem is you are baited by deception.