Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChaosDegenerate | Hacker News Reader

Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form.

We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. Situation in which they couldn't be sued for the stuff they air still making money on it -- that's the current situation with them. It's even worse because they can somehow censor the content they don't like for their own political reasons.

It's like with banks. Yes, we can make money. And yes when times are bad we can get money from the government/tax payers too. This is not freedom this is fascism.

View on HN

That definition of responsibility negates freedom in itself. I have literally seen it used by dictators who set libel laws to crush any negative stories.

The stance is absurd - tt is akin to saying that Kinkos should be liable for anything printed beyond "they knowingly used ink laced with weaponized anthrax" - and should be charged with terrorism because a customer who quietly printed a bomb threat formatted to look like a resume - just because they kick you out for openly printing Goatse.ck and every other old shock site which scares away the other customers.

Exactly my point. But for this to work, they need to be regulated by Government as utilities.

No one has the right to turn off electric grid on your house because they are "private company". No one has the right to turn off "running water" from your sink because they are "private company" and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or open your own. The same way, no one has right to censor me because they are "private company" and if I don't like it I can go ahead and open my own Youtube. They should be and will be regulated as utilities.

What precedent are you using to imagine that if Facebook/Youtube/etc were to become public utilities, that they would be barred from censorship? Public broadcasters are currently regulated by the FEC:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#OBSC...

> Indecent Material. Indecent material is protected by the First Amendment, so its broadcast cannot constitutionally be prohibited at all times. However, the courts have upheld Congress' prohibition of the broadcast of indecent material during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience, which the Commission has determined to be between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Indecent programming is defined as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Broadcasts that fall within this definition and are aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. may be subject to enforcement action by the FCC.

You're conflating right to receive a basic necessity with the right to distribute a non-necessity.

You may have a right to receive water. But you don't have a right to pee in the water supply.

Nor should the private water company be obligated to ensure that your pee goes into the tap water of every household.

A major difference between the utilities you've described and YouTube / Facebook / Reddit / Twitter is inescapable monopoly. Barring special cases like well-water or local power generation that most people don't have access to, if the utilities cut you off, there is no alternative source. If YouTube cuts you off, you can go to another video host (including but not limited to paying for your own computer to host your data). If Facebook kicks you off, you can use email. Hell, if Facebook or Twitter kick you off, you can go use Twitter or Facebook.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

And who decides what is responsible?

This may be helpful https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/

Power comes with responsibility, not freedom. Where did you even get that phrase?

And, does this imply that slavery comes with blissfull carelessness?

Freedom is the ability to make choices, which means having the power to choose. Great power is a great freedom in choices- and of course that freedom comes with a responsibility- you made choices, you are responsible for them.

And yes, if you have no freedom you cannot be considered responsible for what you do or don't. A slave cannot be held responsible for actions he's been ordered to perform. This might not be "blissful carelessness" but certainly is lack of responsibility.

that implies there 's a tradeoff between freedom and responsibility. freedom is a natural right - responsibility, while highly valued, is not required.

We are simply confusing two different meanings of "responsibility" and misunderstanding each other.

Responsibility is both a way of acting that is mindful of the consequences, and simply the fact that people will ask you to respond of the consequences of your actions.

The two are strictly connected but are not the same. You "act responsibly" when you are prepared to answer tough questions about your actions. The simple fact that you will be asked to answer those questions, independently from your actions, is the fact of "being responsible".

So responsibility as virtue is not required by freedom; but as a simple fact of life it is its consequence, people will consider you responsible for what you do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com