Censorship on the rise. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Censorship on the rise.
in Politics

Nathaniel_B
https://www.blueletterbible.org/ Feel free to click my signature for Bible study. That's what it's there for!















Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Censorship is just a horrible thing to have. We live in a democratic society based upon the idea that differing opinions matter. How would we have gotten out of black slavery or achieved gender equality if we didn't have unpopular opinions varying from the status quo? And censorship of differing opinions is going to take away the benefits of democracy and make democracy utterly meaningless.

    And this isn't the only example of censorship happening. For example, Steven Crowder's videos are being censored for having what are considered "offensive" views. One time, a substitute professor at a university got in trouble for sharing Jordan Peterson's unpopular opinions on gender with the class. Not to mention political indoctrination in my home country Canada through ideas such as gender and homosexuality. The politicization of education is another huge threat to democracy.

    We need to fight back against the left's ideas of censorship.
    Applesaucewith_all_humility
  • @Agility_Dude Exactly. I don't support Mr. Jones, but I support his right to say that.
    Applesaucewith_all_humility
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/ Feel free to click my signature for Bible study. That's what it's there for!












  • This is not censorship, it is a right of a private company to establish its own rules.

    For example, if you invite someone to your house, that someone gets drunk and starts yelling drunken songs disturbing everyone, then you can see that person out. It is not censorship, it is exercising your right to manage your private space.

    And Facebook, Spotify, etc. are private spaces. They do not owe an open access to anyone, and they can freely select who they allow to make posts in their environment.

    It would be censorship if he was silenced by the government, or by an organization that explicitly vowed in its public contract to not silence anyone. As far as I know, none of the companies that banned Alex had made such a vow.

    ---

    That said, while it is their legal right to do so, and while it does not constitute censorship - it is a bit of a chicken move for an online platform. I say let Alex say whatever he wants, and let people who do not want to listen to him block his posts. 
    Nathaniel_Bwith_all_humility
  • @MayCaesar well let's define censorship:

    Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution.

    This is the wikipedia definition. This would mean that what YouTube is doing is censorship.
  • Censorship is just a horrible thing to have. We live in a democratic society based upon the idea that differing opinions matter. How would we have gotten out of black slavery or achieved gender equality if we didn't have unpopular opinions varying from the status quo? And censorship of differing opinions is going to take away the benefits of democracy and make democracy utterly meaningless.

    And this isn't the only example of censorship happening. For example, Steven Crowder's videos are being censored for having what are considered "offensive" views. One time, a substitute professor at a university got in trouble for sharing Jordan Peterson's unpopular opinions on gender with the class. Not to mention political indoctrination in my home country Canada through ideas such as gender and homosexuality. The politicization of education is another huge threat to democracy.

    We need to fight back against the left's ideas of censorship.
    Are you seriously going to compare Crowder and Peterson (I'm a huge fan of JP despite being a soc-dem/prog) to Alex Jones? They are not spewing hate and lies, Jones is.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • MayCaesar said:
    This is not censorship, it is a right of a private company to establish its own rules.

    For example, if you invite someone to your house, that someone gets drunk and starts yelling drunken songs disturbing everyone, then you can see that person out. It is not censorship, it is exercising your right to manage your private space.

    And Facebook, Spotify, etc. are private spaces. They do not owe an open access to anyone, and they can freely select who they allow to make posts in their environment.

    It would be censorship if he was silenced by the government, or by an organization that explicitly vowed in its public contract to not silence anyone. As far as I know, none of the companies that banned Alex had made such a vow.

    ---

    That said, while it is their legal right to do so, and while it does not constitute censorship - it is a bit of a chicken move for an online platform. I say let Alex say whatever he wants, and let people who do not want to listen to him block his posts. 
    I agree with this but what is happening is organised censorship. Facebook is not the same company as YouTube, it was a TEAM EFFORT and there was an arrangement between the two companies to do this. I believe in an Illuminati completely and I think Apple and Spotify are lower in the food chain than those two but they joined in for similar reasons.

    Jones was a puppet who has long overdue served his purpose. He got Trump elected and was too good at making people hate the Democrats. He did what he was paid by Time Warner Bros. to do and it's time he retired.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Agility_Dude

    Well, Wiki is not a reference, Wiki uses references to support its claims. Here is what Oxford says, for example:

    http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095558166

    So what happened in the story would be called "self-censorship", which is not really the same as "censorship" (although one could argue that it is a subset of a censorship).

    Regardless, I agree that the definition is not as clear-cut as I made it sound in my comment, so I rest my case.
  • This is censorship. I watch videos from both sides of the ideological spectrum. I am dead center in my views, centrist. There is no clear definition to being a centrist other than believing in views from both sides. I think a centrist is better evaluated person to person but i digress. That's for a different thread. 

    What they did to Alex Jones is and was censorship. They didn't like his views and they brought him down. If you watch his videos, and i have... he makes everything clear. When he said take down Mueller, he was referencing his career. When he did the Sandy Hook stuff... he pointed out inconsistency and said some facts "seem" faked. Although, the Sandy Hook thing i really didn't like how he covered. When he talks about 911 the fact that tower 7 came down is weird. He asks questions and talks about conspiracies. People know he is entertainment and a nut job. Sometimes he has good views and good points. I would rather be the one to decide that not big tech.  

    With that said, what they took him down for is all together censorship of someone they didn't like. How many times have the left portrayed cops in a way that contributed to people attacking them. There is a story where a person killed a cop bc he said he watched a TyT video. So, shouldn't that be an incident to violence? How many times has the left talked about Trump and his family in a way that would incite people to want to hurt them? How much hate speech is directed at the president? How many times have the left stood up for ANTIFA... a clear violent organization? The problem here is the double standards. It shows that these companies hold a view and are willing to silence people that don't agree with their views. There is no clear definition to hate speech. Incitement to violence you can define, but in this case they are defining it on the vaguest of its terms which can easily be applied to anyone on the left or right. 

    For now they are private companies but that isn't what people are concerned about. This is a 1st amendment issue that is currently not addressed. When 99% of our conversation happens online... these companies have become public utilities and should be regulated as such. You can't refuse to give people power bc they voted for Trump. This isn't like not baking someone a cake. Not everyone goes to that baker nor does everyone want a cake. Almost everyone uses the internet and only, i think it was 1%, of these are government sites. Just like the 2nd amendment has evolved, the 1st amendment should evolve too. That is ultimately what everyone that see's a problem with this is saying. And, everyone should see a problem  with this bc today its a person you don't like, one day it can easily be a person you agree with.   
    Applesauce
  • MayCaesar said:
    @Agility_Dude

    Well, Wiki is not a reference, Wiki uses references to support its claims. Here is what Oxford says, for example:

    http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095558166

    So what happened in the story would be called "self-censorship", which is not really the same as "censorship" (although one could argue that it is a subset of a censorship).

    Regardless, I agree that the definition is not as clear-cut as I made it sound in my comment, so I rest my case.
    I think it is very clear cut, it's legal censorship, so it's fine, but call it what it is, private people and companies can do it, the government can not.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce but that doesn't mean that it's ethical. In a capitalist society, a company could refuse service to black people, which may be allowed, but might not be ethical.
  • @Applesauce but that doesn't mean that it's ethical. In a capitalist society, a company could refuse service to black people, which may be allowed, but might not be ethical.
    what is ethical is a totally different game, ever buy a used car or received a call from a telemarketer?  While morality and legality do mix, they don't in this context, not yet anyway.  Much like @Outplayz said a couple of posts up, perhaps these entities need to be reclassified so they are bound by law on this issue.  Give that the platforms in questions are practically monopolies they should be held to a higher and different standard as it's not easy to just use a different product or service that is the same.  Here's an example.  A business can put up a sign barring you from coming in if you are carrying a gun.  That's ok because I can go to their competitor who will allow me to enter if I am carrying a gun.  Now imagine if you will this business is a grocery store and that form a kind of union and agree that they all will hang signs.  Now that's a problem when I no longer have a choice and they have collectively banned my 2A right.  It's no longer a reasonable restriction and they have collectively infringed on my right.
    OutplayzAgility_Dude
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • The guy violated YouTube's guidelines. So by your logic: Rightfully getting banned because of violating rules/guidelines = Censorship. Maybe your brain isn't working, I'm not too sure about it, but I'd definitely be happy having a controversial conspiracy theorist spreading lies and disinformation to be banned from YouTube, the children don't need it, and the intellectuals don't need it either. He simply violated the rules, and he got banned, he did the same for other platforms, and he got removed, its not censorship, its him being the typical moron that he is, and he got what was coming to him. 
    Agility_Dude
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • @Nathaniel_B

    Have you watched his videos? Can you give me an example of the rules he broke that countless other people aren't breaking? A cop was shot bc a person watching Tyt says he hated cops... isn't that incitement to violence? There are a ton of examples of others breaking the rules... shouldn't they get banned? Here... you know what, i'll just give you an example instead of talking about it.



    Start around 8 minutes showing TyT breaking the same exact rules he did. Should they be banned? 

    You clearly haven't watched any of his content bc if you did, you will always notice he hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Twitter understands this right now... they won't ban him bc they are being honest... he hasn't broken any rules. Same with Android, bc he hasn't broken any rules other than being an unpopular voice to those that don't like conspiracy theories and those on the left that he criticizes. 

    So, when it is a coordinated attack... when it is a specific attack on one's views... when it is an attack on one person countless others are breaking the same rules of... that is censorship. 

    ApplesauceNathaniel_B
  • MayCaesar said:
    This is not censorship, it is a right of a private company to establish its own rules.

    For example, if you invite someone to your house, that someone gets drunk and starts yelling drunken songs disturbing everyone, then you can see that person out. It is not censorship, it is exercising your right to manage your private space.

    And Facebook, Spotify, etc. are private spaces. They do not owe an open access to anyone, and they can freely select who they allow to make posts in their environment.

    It would be censorship if he was silenced by the government, or by an organization that explicitly vowed in its public contract to not silence anyone. As far as I know, none of the companies that banned Alex had made such a vow.

    ---

    That said, while it is their legal right to do so, and while it does not constitute censorship - it is a bit of a chicken move for an online platform. I say let Alex say whatever he wants, and let people who do not want to listen to him block his posts. 
    I don't believe your argument holds.  If I used your same argument for regular commerce and with large corporations like Walmart and Exxon that provide a service that impacts almost everyone everyday life. There are laws that do not allow these type of companies to refuse service to anyone they so pleased nor are they usually allowed to charge whatever price they want as well.  

    The problem with Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets is that they have double standards.  One standard for liberals and another standard for conservatives.  

    Example: The New Times hires Sarah Jeong’s who has post racist tweets; yet Candace Owens, the communications director for conservative activist group Turning Points USA, on Saturday sent out a pair of tweets quoting Jeong’s anti-white statements — which did not earn her a Twitter suspension — but swapped out the word “white” with “Jewish” and “black.” and Twitter on Sunday suspended Owens’ account for 12 hours, citing her tweet about Jewish people as a violation of Twitter rules. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/05/twitter-suspends-candace-owens/ ;

    Why the double standard?  Why does Twitter allow derogatory racist comments toward whites, but when a person changes the word "white" to black or Jewish it is no longer acceptable.

    Why did the liberal left demand for Roseanne Barr to be fired for her comments to Valerie Jarrett that was made in jest according to Roseanne?

    Here's article on how the left has pressured social media giants to censor content they don't agree with.  http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/27/google-facebook-advertisers-censor-content/ ;

    So, there is a blatant double standard in the social media industry when it comes to what is and is not acceptable speech and therefore they are acting censors.   
    Applesauce
  • @with_all_humility

    The reason those companies cannot refuse service to anyone they please is because their commercial activity is done via public service advertisement. If they advertise themselves as a store selling product to people, then, regardless of who those people are, they have to act on the public contract they are advertising and sell them the product.
    They are free, however, to specifically point out in their public contract, "We do not serve Jewish people". There are some laws in some states prohibiting some of such statements, and I disagree with those laws, despite seeing such statements as utterly disgusting: my belief in private freedoms surpasses my disgust at discrimination.

    Facebook, Twitter, etc. do not provide commercial services and public business contracts to every user. There is no public contract that says "Our service is providing a platform to let you write posts on it with no limitations, requiring in return $0 a month from you". Facebook owns entirely what its users post and retains the right to remove/restrict any posts it deems fit. People do not own anything, strictly speaking; they are simply leasing the platform for free, but everything posted on that platform is the property of the company.

    It is similar to private land. If you walk over someone's lawn, you probably will not be outright removed - but ultimately it is up to the owner to decide if you can remain on their lawn, or take a gun out and yell, "Get off my lawn!"

    Everything else you said constitutes a moral issue, not a legal one. People are free to exercise their private freedom however they see fit; does not mean that they will always exercise it in a moral way. Censorship or not, people can take sides, they can be intellectually dishonest, they can be hypocrites, they can defend their political camps' worst sins while criticizing the opposing camps for the slightest missteps. This is life, this is humanity. Our beliefs and actions often lack consistency, and we should be criticized for it - but we should not be punished for it. It is also our right, to be inconsistent. 

    ---

    In my eyes, as long as there is no censorship on the government's part, everything is as it should be. Once this primary condition is satisfied (and according to the US Constitution, it has to be satisfied - even if in practice it is often restricted), we can start looking at dishonest behaviors of private businesses and criticize them. But I do not see it as something requiring a solution. Not any more than people using curse words requires a solution: it is something to talk about, but it is not something that impairs people's ability to live their lives in full.
  • Outplayz said:
    @Nathaniel_B

    Have you watched his videos? Can you give me an example of the rules he broke that countless other people aren't breaking? A cop was shot bc a person watching Tyt says he hated cops... isn't that incitement to violence? There are a ton of examples of others breaking the rules... shouldn't they get banned? Here... you know what, i'll just give you an example instead of talking about it.



    Start around 8 minutes showing TyT breaking the same exact rules he did. Should they be banned? 

    You clearly haven't watched any of his content bc if you did, you will always notice he hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Twitter understands this right now... they won't ban him bc they are being honest... he hasn't broken any rules. Same with Android, bc he hasn't broken any rules other than being an unpopular voice to those that don't like conspiracy theories and those on the left that he criticizes. 

    So, when it is a coordinated attack... when it is a specific attack on one's views... when it is an attack on one person countless others are breaking the same rules of... that is censorship. 

    Whatever video he uploaded before he got banned is what got him in trouble. You get THREE STRIKES, oh gee I wonder how many the Young Turks got..probably ONE! Alex Jones continued to be disobedient and wanted to do what he wanted to do, he got carried away, which lead to his banning. He had not been foolish, he wouldn't have gotten banned, simple as that. The Young Turks are not stupid as Alex, he's downright insane, and insane people have trouble or difficulty following rules, its not YouTube's problem or  their fault, its his own stupidity that got him banned. When you get warnings, you listen, I bet that's exactly what the Young Turks did, but Alex? He doesn't care, he's too stupid to care. 
    Outplayz
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • @Nathaniel_B

    Your either lying or a dunce... bc now i am sure you have never watched his channel. He went as PG as it gets after the first strike. Did you know this... he doesn't cuss on his channel? He actually makes a conscious effort to not have one video with cuss words. So, you're telling me... after getting a strike, that he just got spiteful and kept breaking the rules bc he has something to prove. The guy isn't an idiot. He has videos with over a billion views. That makes him a millionaire from ad revenue. Why in the world would he not care for his channel getting taken down? That is basically all he talked about after then ban... that he is about to get banned. He has sister channels that does live stuff and he just happened to be on them like he always is. There is nothing he did that warrants a ban bc guess what... i didn't see it and i watch his content. The millions of people, including Jimmy Dore that hates AJ, that are coming to his defensive are doing so for a reason. I think you are just spiteful of his content like the rest of them and are buying the MSM propaganda against him... you're def. sounding like one of those parrots. 
    ApplesauceMayCaesar
  • Outplayz said:
    For now they are private companies but that isn't what people are concerned about. This is a 1st amendment issue that is currently not addressed. When 99% of our conversation happens online... these companies have become public utilities and should be regulated as such. You can't refuse to give people power bc they voted for Trump. This isn't like not baking someone a cake. Not everyone goes to that baker nor does everyone want a cake. Almost everyone uses the internet and only, i think it was 1%, of these are government sites. Just like the 2nd amendment has evolved, the 1st amendment should evolve too. That is ultimately what everyone that see's a problem with this is saying. And, everyone should see a problem  with this bc today its a person you don't like, one day it can easily be a person you agree with.   
    This is what free market is about. If you dislike the way these companies operate, you are always free to create your own company and to provide everyone with a service on which anything can be said with absolutely no censorship. A private company is a private company, no matter how many people use its services, 0% or 100%; nothing makes a private company into a public utility, aside from nationalization by the government.

    Some people just cannot handle the idea that different companies have different ethical stances. They want all companies to play their personal moral tune, and to restrict those companies that do not. It is the same what socialists want to do, just from the opposite side of the spectrum.

    The free market is there for everyone to play on. You do not like Facebook - go ahead and make Freebook or something else. You cannot force certain rules on Facebook just because you do not like its business practices. Other people might like them, and this is why they use Facebook.

    No one is obliged to provide Alex Jones with a private platform to express his views. But everyone is free to do so if they so desire. This is freedom, this is lack of censorship. "Everybody should have the right to say anything on Facebook and not be censored" is not lack of censorship; it is actually what censorship is, forcing companies into the rules on the information handling which a certain entity thinks are "right".

    It is not a very difficult concept. Censorhip = suppression of freedom of speech. You can't fight alleged suppression of freedom by suppressing freedom.
  • MayCaesar said:
    Outplayz said:
    For now they are private companies but that isn't what people are concerned about. This is a 1st amendment issue that is currently not addressed. When 99% of our conversation happens online... these companies have become public utilities and should be regulated as such. You can't refuse to give people power bc they voted for Trump. This isn't like not baking someone a cake. Not everyone goes to that baker nor does everyone want a cake. Almost everyone uses the internet and only, i think it was 1%, of these are government sites. Just like the 2nd amendment has evolved, the 1st amendment should evolve too. That is ultimately what everyone that see's a problem with this is saying. And, everyone should see a problem  with this bc today its a person you don't like, one day it can easily be a person you agree with.   
    This is what free market is about. If you dislike the way these companies operate, you are always free to create your own company and to provide everyone with a service on which anything can be said with absolutely no censorship. A private company is a private company, no matter how many people use its services, 0% or 100%; nothing makes a private company into a public utility, aside from nationalization by the government.

    Some people just cannot handle the idea that different companies have different ethical stances. They want all companies to play their personal moral tune, and to restrict those companies that do not. It is the same what socialists want to do, just from the opposite side of the spectrum.

    The free market is there for everyone to play on. You do not like Facebook - go ahead and make Freebook or something else. You cannot force certain rules on Facebook just because you do not like its business practices. Other people might like them, and this is why they use Facebook.

    No one is obliged to provide Alex Jones with a private platform to express his views. But everyone is free to do so if they so desire. This is freedom, this is lack of censorship. "Everybody should have the right to say anything on Facebook and not be censored" is not lack of censorship; it is actually what censorship is, forcing companies into the rules on the information handling which a certain entity thinks are "right".

    It is not a very difficult concept. Censorhip = suppression of freedom of speech. You can't fight alleged suppression of freedom by suppressing freedom.
    is facebook a free market or a monopoly, what about youtube and twitter?  if it's a monopoly does change things?
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @MayCaesar

    You have a poor understanding of the issue right now. Or, you just can't see the bigger picture. Tell me this, what other platform can i use? Why is it that Wassap made their own platform and were bought out by facebook? Is it bc they are a monopoly? Is it bc it is near impossible to compete with them at this point. They have a monopoly on the social media platforms right now. Simple. They either need to be broke up or regulated as public utilities. When you can name me a viable platform where i can reach people other than Youtube... i will change my mind and not care. Facebook i am less concerned with, but even they have a monopoly on the exchange of ideas. However, there is no other viable platform for video content other than Youtube. Bitchute, Steemit, etc. do not have nearly the same level of visitors so you are essentially invisible on those platforms. They need to be regulated and turned into public utilities... Bc at this point that is what they are. There is essentially no way to compete with them so your little ... "just make your own company" is the fallacy here.   
  • Monopolies are a subject to the antitrust laws, which are created specifically to prevent powerful companies from using anti-business practices to bring down any possible competition. That is the role of these laws. It has nothing to do with forcing monopolies to alter the publicly advertised services they provide, nor should they.

    Facebook, Youtube and others are not monopolies, but they are definitely leaders in their segments by a large margin. Why? Because their product outclasses their rivals. There are many alternatives out there; I, for one, have not used Facebook in ages, and I use Skype and Steam to connect to people instead. If I disliked these services, I would use different services to connect to the same people. Nobody owes me a platform, and I do not demand a platform from anyone whose product happens to be the best on the market.

    Nobody prevents you from making your website and expressing your opinion there. If your opinion is interesting to people, they will visit your website and listen to it. If it is not, they will not. Alex Jones has Infowars; Sergey Brin has Youtube. Alex Jones is free to not allow Sergey Brin to post on Infowars; Sergey Brin is free to not allow Alex Jones to post on Youtube. Anyone on the Internet is free to visit both Youtube and Infowars and to listen to whoever they choose to listen.

    There is no monopoly and lack of choice, there is just desire to force companies to abide by the ethical rules you would like them to abide. Sorry, however, since in our system individual desire constitutes no legal grounds for taking action against the free market.

    And yes, even monopolies are a part of a free market. If a company achieves incredible success with its business model and becomes very wealthy, then there is nothing wrong with it. It is what free market is for: to allow everyone a platform to implement their business idea. Censorship would be forcing such companies to give up control over their informational space, and not the other way around.

    ---

    To summarize, you advocate for introducing censorship to deal with censorship. I do not think a detailed explanation of why this is wrong is needed.
  • @MayCaesar

    I understand what you are saying. They aren't literal monopolies bc that would be against the law... but, they most def. control the social media platforms. I said i don't believe this involves Facebook bc i do believe there is sufficient amount of other platforms like it. Youtube on the other hand has no viable competition. It is the main streaming platform. But, the bigger picture here is that almost all of these main platforms censored him and basically colluded to get his content off. Besides the handful of social media platforms there is nothing. I'm not saying these companies need to do anything... it's well in their rights to do whatever.

    I believe social media should be a public utility bc i believe the 1st amendment needs to evolve. I'm an absolutist when it comes to our rights, and i don't think our rights should be in the hands of a few billionaires whims. One can't cut someone's telephone line bc of their views. Social media is the evolution of communication. As i mentioned before a significant amount of our communication is online. Therefore, i am not looking at these companies as just business' that could do whatever. I'm sorry, but i don't think they should have this power. It isn't censorship making them into public utilities... it is regulation making sure that our 1st amendment isn't in the hands of a couple people. Bc the communication that happens on these platforms effects every citizen. It is how we get our information... just like if someone wanted to call me to inform me of something they can, the same should be said for these platforms. Even before this debacle i was of the opinion they should be utilities. Every time something like this happens, that reinforces my belief that they should be.  

    Plus... they should want to become public utilities at this point bc they just opened up a can of worms for themselves. They do not have the man-power to control what is about to come their way. They will fail at being the arbiters of speech on their platforms. They will simply not be able to keep up with it.   
  • @Outplayz

    Here is the type of argument I tend to make in response to this kind of reasoning. I see what you are saying - however, I do not think you attribute the responsibility for the situation to the right entities.

    Consider the world 20 years ago, in 1998. Youtube did not exist. Streaming services were not really a thing. Video uploading services existed, however, and were somewhat plentiful - but there was no video hosting website outshining everything everyone has ever created. People lived just fine.

    Now, Youtube is the dominant video hosting website. Not the exclusive one, not even close - but by far the dominant one. However, just like in 1998 many smaller services existed, nowadays many smaller services existed. Youtube by no means has stolen the industry from them, it simply provided a much more convenient and popular alternative. Nothing was taken away, but something was added.

    What you want to do is to take a certain service someone else created - and to assume a degree of control over it because it is more successful than other similar services. My question is: what are the grounds for it? Why do you think it reasonable to take a piece of something someone else created, something that did not hurt anyone, that did not infringe on anyone's rights? What right do you have to someone else's property who created that property all by themselves, with no participation from you? I am sorry, but no matter how just it might seem from a certain perspective, it is not reasonable in the right-based (read: freedom-based) perspective.

    ---

    If you do want to have a public utility like this, then I could accept such a service created at the expense of taxpayers. Let the government create a video hosting service that ensures no censorship of any kind. Let it exist alongside Youtube and other similar services. And let Youtube and the other services to introduce any kind of censorship they, as private companies, might want to introduce.

    In my opinion, it would be economically unjustifiable and wasteful - but from the right-based (freedom-based) perspective, it would not violate anything.

    It however would create a different problem, and that problem comes from the same source as one of my objections to your idea. Namely, the government controlling such a popular and vital service will necessarily gain a lot of power with it. If it decides to use that service for governmental propaganda, then nobody will be able to stop it. No public backlash will make it non-viable, since, as a non-profit organization, it would be by default funded by the taxpayers, even by those who do not want to fund it and/or use it.

    I am strongly against the government having this kind of power, and any private corporation, even a fully-monopolic one, is a better alternative in my eyes.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch