Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids? All expression isn't equal. They don't let you post child porn either. These things both cause about the same amount of damage.
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to thin
We are probably not worse off for that, but when naming a singular symbol of free expression, the criteria should be pretty selective. *Especially* if you are deciding to pat yourself on the back with the 'award'.
So one, ideally the extent to which the person is responsible is restricting speech should hurt their chances. So there's things like this and also some reports of inhibiting people trying to get directly funded without youtube getting a cut. It may be a fine thing and even responsible thing to curtail some speech on your platform, but it's certainly not advancing the cause of 'free speech'.
In terms of how someone could deserve such an award, one is how hard they worked to enable people to speak. Since she started in 2014, the answer is not particularly hard, the hard work was pretty well done by 2014. The role of youtube as a platform for speech cannot be denied, but people maintaining it when it is also a huge revenue generator aren't particularly award-worthy.
Another criteria could be how much risk you are taking on. A lot of civil rights leaders put their health and safety on the line to have their message heard. People in Hong Kong and China speaking out against their government are also examples of people who go to be heard despite great personal risk. The CEO of youtube doesn't really take on much risk, they follow the respective laws and never do anything to offend any government that has jurisdiction over them. Pretty much anything accepted on the platform is speech no one is trying to suppress.
So a company honors their own middle of the line CEO with an award claiming her to be a great symbol for freedom of expression, when she hasn't really done anything to advance that cause.
lol (Score:4, Informative)
as this happens. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids? All expression isn't equal. They don't let you post child porn either. These things both cause about the same amount of damage.
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to thin
Re:lol (Score:2)
We are probably not worse off for that, but when naming a singular symbol of free expression, the criteria should be pretty selective. *Especially* if you are deciding to pat yourself on the back with the 'award'.
So one, ideally the extent to which the person is responsible is restricting speech should hurt their chances. So there's things like this and also some reports of inhibiting people trying to get directly funded without youtube getting a cut. It may be a fine thing and even responsible thing to curtail some speech on your platform, but it's certainly not advancing the cause of 'free speech'.
In terms of how someone could deserve such an award, one is how hard they worked to enable people to speak. Since she started in 2014, the answer is not particularly hard, the hard work was pretty well done by 2014. The role of youtube as a platform for speech cannot be denied, but people maintaining it when it is also a huge revenue generator aren't particularly award-worthy.
Another criteria could be how much risk you are taking on. A lot of civil rights leaders put their health and safety on the line to have their message heard. People in Hong Kong and China speaking out against their government are also examples of people who go to be heard despite great personal risk. The CEO of youtube doesn't really take on much risk, they follow the respective laws and never do anything to offend any government that has jurisdiction over them. Pretty much anything accepted on the platform is speech no one is trying to suppress.
So a company honors their own middle of the line CEO with an award claiming her to be a great symbol for freedom of expression, when she hasn't really done anything to advance that cause.