It’s a lot more banal, though. Youtube has to sell advertising, and advertisers don’t want to be next to discussions of rape or suicide. These restrictions are enforced algorithmically, hence the self-censorship. And in any case, it doesn’t achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.
I don’t think it’s right to divorce the censorship from the result just because the justification is different.
What I mean is that even though that conditioning is taking place for a banal reason it’s still true that it’s conditioning and will affect the acceptance of moves like this debate fact checking decision that are serious and do have consequences. So therefore it still matters and is still dangerous.
It’s a lot more banal, though. Youtube has to sell advertising, and advertisers don’t want to be next to discussions of rape or suicide. These restrictions are enforced algorithmically, hence the self-censorship. And in any case, it doesn’t achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.
Yet.
But I get what you are saying. I just find the similarities, although banal, kind of funny. In a scary kind of way.
I don’t think it’s right to divorce the censorship from the result just because the justification is different.
What I mean is that even though that conditioning is taking place for a banal reason it’s still true that it’s conditioning and will affect the acceptance of moves like this debate fact checking decision that are serious and do have consequences. So therefore it still matters and is still dangerous.