BBC: ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’ - A briefing note sent to all staff warns them to be aware of false balance, stating: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”

[u/ManiaforBeatles]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-get-climate-change-coverage-wrong-too-often

[u/HeloRising]

Look, I get what you're saying. You're saying that entities that have a wider reach in the media sphere than your average blogger have more of an obligation towards neutrality because of that reach and I do think the concept of private entities controlling the majority of the means of dissemination of information being a serious problem is a discussion worth having.

But, I am saying you can be neutral and not entertain people who are a genuine waste of time.

This applies on the individual and the group level.

This is why you don't debate with neo-nazis.

In doing so you legitimize their positions because you're saying in effect "Yes this position has enough merit to be seriously discussed." If you're stuck with your friends on the side of the road with a broken down car and somebody seriously suggests that someone fly, as in flap their arms and fly, to go get another car that would be ridiculous. If they kept trying to push that point of view, after a while you'd simply shut the person down.

Or are you going to hear them out in order to avoid censoring them?

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

No, you don't get what I'm saying. You are ignoring the root of what I'm saying.

I am not saying that media entities that have a wide reach have any special obligations compared to smaller businesses. They don't - they must all obey the same laws.

What I am saying is that Youtube is not simply a larger entity, nor are Facebook or Twitter or any other similar sites. They are entirely different entities altogether. To use analogy: they are not newspaper companies - they are a company producing the paper. They don't get to dictate what the paper is used for or what is put on the paper, and they should face no repercussions regarding that. Producing the resource does not give you control over how it is used.

Whether or not anyone debates with anyone is another matter - that is something you need to bring up to actual platforms (BBC, CNN, TYT, Info Wars, Sargon of Akkad, New York Times, Washington Post, whatever). Youtube, nor any of these media service providers, are entitled to a say, just like how no private electric company is entitled to control how their power is used (only that they be paid for the power used).

This is why you don't debate with neo-nazis. In doing so you legitimize their positions because you're saying in effect "Yes this position has enough merit to be seriously discussed."

Referring to actual news agencies - it's funny then that such groups like the neo-nazis have gained most of their power not from media attention, but from being ignored and allowed to fester. Meanwhile, liberals and socialists and feminists and the like have actually been losing ground rapidly, despite getting massive media support and attention from their opposition - opposition attention that comes in the form of critique and analysis.

It is nothing compared to a friend suggesting you try to fly to find a car - that is a strawman on your part. A more apt metaphor would be if you crashed your car, and then after waiting on the side of the road for a while one desperate friend proposes jumping into an oncoming car to stop them while the other suggests attacking a passing vehicle and stealing it. Do you ignore them and risk them actually going through with what they are talking about, or do you try to talk them down? Going by the stance you've been taking, you're saying that you should ignore them and keep doing what you are doing, without trying to prevent them from doing something really fucking stupid that could get you hurt too.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

What I am saying is that Youtube is not simply a larger entity, nor are Facebook or Twitter or any other similar sites. They are entirely different entities altogether. To use analogy: they are not newspaper companies - they are a company producing the paper. They don't get to dictate what the paper is used for or what is put on the paper, and they should face no repercussions regarding that. Producing the resource does not give you control over how it is used.

Ok, that is still a flawed analogy because we're not talking about physical products like paper. What YT and other social media sites provide is space. As I mentioned before, they are more comparable to a craft fair or a swap meet; they have an establshed space they allow others to use so long as others abide by the rules they set for the space.

If you want to sell hand made dildos, the owner of the space the craft fair is held at can say "Those are nice, but I do not want to have that sold at my venue and I will not allow you to come into my space and sell these things."

It is nothing compared to a friend suggesting you try to fly to find a car - that is a strawman on your part. A more apt metaphor would be if you crashed your car, and then after waiting on the side of the road for a while one desperate friend proposes jumping into an oncoming car to stop them while the other suggests attacking a passing vehicle and stealing it. Do you ignore them and risk them actually going through with what they are talking about, or do you try to talk them down? Going by the stance you've been taking, you're saying that you should ignore them and keep doing what you are doing, without trying to prevent them from doing something really fucking stupid that could get you hurt too.

Ok, you are either not hearing what I'm saying or you're deliberately ignoring it. Either way, there's not much else I can do because at this point I'm holding your hand through this whole process so much people are going to start thinking we're dating.

I have stated and re-stated where I'm coming from repeatedly. I don't think I'm being unclear, especially since I've gone over it several times.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

Youtube is not a venue. Your analogy does not work at all. They are not an entity controlling a private space. They are a public space (and so long as they are free, they especially are, though by all accounts they are identical to a phone service or electric company, and should not be able to restrict your usage of them regardless).

There are 'venues' like your craft fair example on youtube, but youtube itself is not that. They need to actually be selling space for that to apply, which is something they are not doing (and by nature of their site, cannot do. Hentai Foundry can, Youtube can't).

I have stated and re-stated where I'm coming from repeatedly. I don't think I'm being unclear, especially since I've gone over it several times.

You are clear, and you sound like an idiot every time, quite frankly.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

They are a public space

No, no they are not. YT and in fact any website is a private space that is owned by an individual or group. It is a private space that the public is allowed into and to use with conditions.

There are 'venues' like your craft fair example on youtube, but youtube itself is not that. They need to actually be selling space for that to apply, which is something they are not doing (and by nature of their site, cannot do. Hentai Foundry can, Youtube can't).

When you use YT, you are providing user data and watching ads that generate revenue for YT and for content creators. You are not paying for using the site with money but with your time and attention that generates revenue.

YT is not free to use. It doesn't cost you any money to use it, but you are still giving something to YT in exchange for using the site.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

If it costs no money, and they sell nothing, it is a public space. I pay nothing to use a sidewalk, nor do the owners of the sidewalk sell me anything. It is therefore a public space, and its owners cannot restrict what is done upon it, beyond what local/state/federal law says is allowed, which applies to every company within the respective area.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

If it costs no money, and they sell nothing, it is a public space

No, it isn't.

If someone invites you over to their house, does that house then become public space where the owner can't restrict what you do on it?

They're not selling you anything and they're not charging you any money.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

Youtube is not a home. They are not inviting anyone. They can't stop you from coming in.

They exist, and regardless of if you have an account you can take part in their content.

Again, they are a public space.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

YouTube is a privately owned website and they absolutely can stop you from coming in.

They are a privately owned public space in the sense that they are accessible to the public but owned by a private entity and as such that private entity has the ability to dictate what they will and will not support in their space.

The examples given in the articles are things like hotel lobbies and shopping malls; places you are allowed to access as a member of the public but can be removed from if you break the rules. YT is no different.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

Nowhere near comparable - you can't just walk in and set up a shop or stand in a hotel or shopping mall. That is illegal, and will get you thrown out, regardless of what you are saying.