Comment

Comment on Indigenous creators are clashing with YouTube’s and Instagram’s sensitive content bans.

Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

The content creators freedom to express directly opposes the hosts freedom of affiliation. Not that I want to defend either company but they do have the right to say what is and is not allowed in their spaces using the same idea of “fundamental human rights”.

It is either that or we have to agree that “fundamental human rights” cannot exist because one groups rights can override the other on social whim.

Every other creator on the planet has to abide by these rules if they want to remain on these platforms and every creator has an option not to use them.

source

Sort:hotnew top

grue@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Real people’s rights trump fake corporate “people’s” rights every single time.

source
- Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  When does a platform cross the line between “group of people making money hosting other peoples content” to “fake corporate ‘people’”? Does everyone working in any corporation automatically lose their rights?
  
  source
  - grue@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    When it incorporates, obviously. That’s what incorporation is! You’re trading the rights you get as a full-liability general partnership for the privileges of limited liability and separated tax treatment.
    
    It is the epitome of entitlement to demand those privileges without giving society anything back in return.
    
    source
    Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    Does everyone working in any corporation automatically lose their rights?
    
    I asked two questions.
    
    source
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Frankly, I was mostly mouthing off here, not trying to voice deep moral reasoning but I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I’m actually not sure that fundamental human rights do exist—at least not in all circumstances. As you point out, they sometimes conflict and we need to adjudicate whose rights are more fundamental in a given circumstance.

You have a good point and I generally agree that there does exist a tension here. I think where it breaks down is when a platform becomes so large and dominant that there isn’t really any significant alternative. I think morally, this shifts my reasoning away from just a collection of individuals deciding what they want on their platform towards an almost state-like entity. And with that power dynamic I am much more skeptical of their unilateral authority to control what is or isn’t posted on their platform. Given the size and structure of YouTube, it makes more sense to think of it as space that belongs to and should be managed by the community and with respect for individual rights of expression. And I feel strongly that non-sexual nudity is not only not harmful, but that it is very harmful to repress, as we see in this specific example.

source
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
The issue is that when companies are able to get large enough to control the virtual town square, them censoring people has the same impact as the government censoring people. And especially given the fact that they’re all companies held by literally millions of people, who don’t get input into the speech allowed on the platform, allowing them the “freedom” to restrict speech how they see fit doesn’t make sense.

You don’t have the option to not use major platforms and have your voice heard, because they’ve done the work to make it virtually impossible.

source
- Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Every consumer has input in to what a company does by simply choosing to support the company or not. Companies tend to move really quick to fix shit when they see profit margins start to dip.
  
  No one is being forced to use either platform, and it is the platforms choice who they allow to use it. Don’t like their rules, go else where.
  
  Kind of like Lemmy instances. Don’t like the rules, go somewhere you can agree with them.
  
  source
  - conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Your choices are “follow YouTube’s rules” or “don’t distribute video content”.
    
    YouTube has a monopoly.
    
    source
    lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    There’s like [checks notes] 2 more video platforms on the internet!
    
    No reason these people can’t post on those, or host their own.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Compelling argument.
    
    I will just go and do a quick search to find plenty of alternative hosting platforms and choose to use one of them to immediately distribute video content and nullify your only point.
    
    Youtube only maintains a monopoly if people choose to use the platform. Alternatives exist. Self hosting exists. Doing something more productive than posting “content” online exists. Lets not forget about the film industry.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments