Ok... I'm gonna go through this. Quotes will be time-stamped.
"We're not silencing dissenting opinions, we're just silencing dissenting opinions that we don't like!"3:48:21 said:I've seen some questions from people like, "Ok, is Linus just like silencing dissenting opinions?" No, it's just like actual wastes of characters on YouTube's servers.
Look, I never said that those dissenting opinions are always going to be shining examples of humanity's intelligence. In fact, some of them may be downright misleading, but the second you start judging a post based on subjective values instead of objective ones, you immediately step onto very shaky ground. Further, when you ban anyone, you are shutting down any chance of them being shown what's wrong with their post.
"Well, not my problem," you might say. Ok, but if you're actually taking the time to go through hundreds of YouTube comments to find people to shadowban, then you are, in fact, making it your problem after all. You're assuming the position of one who decides which communication can or cannot be replied to or even read. And since you are, you now have a huge responsibility of being a fair arbiter, and a fair arbiter is one who tries to fix a problem if they can instead of automatically launching a cruise missile at it.
The spirit of free speech isn't just about those who have the right things to say. It's also about giving other people a chance to have the wrong things to say as well, assuming there is ALSO a dialogue in progress that allows the party with the wrong idea to grow and learn. By banning those people instead, you are actively choosing to completely deny them that opportunity.
And while we're at it, let's talk about the ethics of shadowbanning. For those not in the know, shadowbanning is a technique employed that, in theory, should deter a user from ban-evading by making all their future posts invisible to everyone else but site staff for a set amount of time or indefinitely and not letting the user know that this is happening. Now, having thought about this some, I think this technique could be warranted for those who have a proven track record of ban-evasion, but for anything else, it definitely seems like a coward's move, automatically assuming that the user WILL ban-evade and making them suffer even more instead of just vanilla banning them and moving on.
Actually, let's address the commonality of this happening as well. When he first brought this up I don't know how many moons ago, he was talking about comments that, for the life of me, I've never once read nor was able to find simply because they're just... Buried. Simple as that. So this supposed AWFUL problem of this utter horde of stupid misleading trolly comments coming in is, in actuality, a storm in a teacup, wildly blown out of proportion. And now guess what? You didn't actually get rid of the problem, Linus. You just shoved it over somewhere else to some place that you WON'T have any control over, and there, the commenters may just fester if they don't get anyone to talk to them or anyone that disagrees with them anyway. Banning doesn't actually solve the root of a problem. It is simply enforced exile. Nothing more. And it should only be an option you take when all other options are no longer viable.3:49:14 said:Bit by bit, I'm cleaning up our comment section and I'm actually noticing a difference... It is a shockingly small number of users contributing to the vast majority of the stupidity in the comment section.
"We HAVE to censor. We just have to!"3:49:27 said:Like, a decade ago or something, I used to be against that type of stuff, but I think, in the modern web, you just have to. I think it just is what it is. And I think, honestly, an argument to the other side is just an argument asking for... A bad experience.
No, you don't. See my argument against that here starting at 28:51 and also 29:44. So no, it isn't just "what it is."
"You're fighting for a worse experience."
According to who? Who says a (generally (that "generally" is important)) free-for-all environment is automatically worse? You? And again, see the arguments above. I know that I, personally, love such an environment when posting stuff. You need to understand that not everyone is the same as you.
Putting all that aside now, if Linus had just simply said, "You know what, I know this is not ethically correct at all, but I just don't care at the end and I'm tired of reading this stuff and we're not a free speech forum." Fine. I'd disagree on his stance with this still of course, but I can at least understand that at the end of the day, it's his restaurant and it's his right to run it however he wants to. But let's not come up with nonsense about how "right" and "amazing" it is to do this. Maybe it's amazing for you and maybe even LMG as a whole, Linus, but this shadowbanning is, by reason of its implementation and the explanation given, detrimental to some individuals in your community.