This article was originally published by Chris Menahan at Activist Post.
CEO Susan Wojcicki said Tuesday that it’s “more important than ever” for YouTube to remain an “open platform” just one day after going on a massive banning spree targeting right-wingers for so-called “hate speech.”
YouTube CEO @SusanWojcicki says it’s “more important than ever” to let people upload anything they want.
That means the video platform is okay with “content that is outside the mainstream, controversial, or even offensive.” https://t.co/SeWY6finNr
— Vox (@voxdotcom) August 27, 2019
Amazingly, this is not satire.
Can the world’s largest video company continue to let its 2 billion users upload anything they want, whenever they want?
Yes, says the woman who runs that company: In a letter addressed to creators on YouTube, CEO Susan Wojcicki says the platform is committed to remaining open because she thinks the upside of that approach very much outweighs the downside.
This isn’t a new idea, and it’s one that Wojcicki, along with people who run other giant tech platforms, say in private all the time. But Wojcicki is saying it again, today, as critics are increasingly questioning if it’s a philosophy that works for tech companies at a global scale. […]
“I believe preserving an open platform is more important than ever,” Wojcicki writes in a quarterly note aimed at YouTube’s most ardent users, who upload videos onto the site for fun and profit. While that note is usually dedicated to celebrating YouTube’s wide swath of creators, this one spends most of its time defending the idea that YouTube will continue to keep its doors open to anyone who wants to post just about anything on the site.
We’re reaching levels of propaganda never before thought possible.
From Activist Post:
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s absolutely appalling that the vast majority of Americans are fine with censorship and force being used against other human beings as long as their view is the only one that gets attention. YouTube is definitely lying and pushing propaganda. It is not an “open platform” if people can be banned for saying things the establishment doesn’t like.
HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Inalienable Rights) dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about “hate speech vs. free speech,” showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that “hate speech” — which has no generally accepted definition — is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows the government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, the government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy.
Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that “hate speech” laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion, and predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous “counterspeech” and activism.