I firmly support one's right to contract, and I believe contracts should be legally binding (of course). But I don't see how any corporation can be said to enter into a contract with "society as a whole." Only individuals can enter into contracts. I don't see how it can logically be otherwise.
I also support government arbitration when a contract has been breeched. This is no regulation of the market. Now, if the government were to tell YouTube that they couldn't censor content when such a contract had never been established by YouTube and its users, then this would be a restriction contrary to a Free Market.
Corporations are not like private, personal property; they don't enjoy the same protections, and they shouldn't.
How not? Why not?
You are making some pretty lofty statements here, but I'm unconvinced. Just because an entity doesn't enjoy certain protections doesn't mean it shouldn't.
A better analogy might be if the phone company started to censor what you could say over their lines. Well, they can't, and they shouldn't be able to.
Again, why not? If my phone company started censoring my conversations, I would simply switch providers, or find other means of communication. Of course, if you are afraid of a free market, then I can see how you might want to force corporations to do your bidding.
Most of us aren't criticizing the article because we condone YouTube's censorship. I, for one, am criticizing the use of such rhetoric as "freedom of speech" when such a phrase simply does not apply.
Many people still view private censorship as a violation of their "freedom of speech." Such a misconception is dangerous. If we start conflating "rights" with "privileges," then how are we going to distinguish between the two?
This alone justifies such criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably a tired thread. So I'll leave you with just one more comment...
I support laissez-faire capitalism, which I equate with a free market. Call what we have now a "free market," but that doesn't make it so.
I firmly support one's right to contract, and I believe contracts should be legally binding (of course). But I don't see how any corporation can be said to enter into a contract with "society as a whole." Only individuals can enter into contracts. I don't see how it can logically be otherwise.
I also support government arbitration when a contract has been breeched. This is no regulation of the market. Now, if the government were to tell YouTube that they couldn't censor content when such a contract had never been established by YouTube and its users, then this would be a restriction contrary to a Free Market.
Ditto!
I am relieved that there are those among us who still understand what rights actually are.
Corporations are not like private, personal property; they don't enjoy the same protections, and they shouldn't.
How not? Why not?
You are making some pretty lofty statements here, but I'm unconvinced. Just because an entity doesn't enjoy certain protections doesn't mean it shouldn't.
A better analogy might be if the phone company started to censor what you could say over their lines. Well, they can't, and they shouldn't be able to.
Again, why not? If my phone company started censoring my conversations, I would simply switch providers, or find other means of communication. Of course, if you are afraid of a free market, then I can see how you might want to force corporations to do your bidding.
Most of us aren't criticizing the article because we condone YouTube's censorship. I, for one, am criticizing the use of such rhetoric as "freedom of speech" when such a phrase simply does not apply. Many people still view private censorship as a violation of their "freedom of speech." Such a misconception is dangerous. If we start conflating "rights" with "privileges," then how are we going to distinguish between the two? This alone justifies such criticism.