"Disappeared" is not the correct word. People who are disappeared dont write stories about it. If a journalist writes of a witness being disappeared it means a body is rotting in some swamp, not moaning about loss of personal data. It means that a political dissident got on the helicopter, but didnt step off at the destination. This article is about simple de-platforming. Leave the hyperbolic homicide terminology alone.
It does seem problematic that on some level we treat YouTube (and Twitter, and to a lesser extent other platforms like Spotify) as a sort of public square or generic "communications utilities"; the default virtual place we go to hear and be heard, open to all.<p>Of course, as they exist now, they are technically and legally nothing of the sort, which is a big reason why this <i>specific</i> complaint is tedious, absurd, and self refuting. Obviously he wasn't "disappeared", obviously there's no right beyond the terms of whatever contracts you have signed for arbitrary corporations to host video files for you, obviously all those videos he claims are "gone" still exist on the internet (hosted by a <i>different</i> corporation, at least for now...), obviously almost all of his claims are factually wrong.<p>Still...<p>...it feels like it'd be nice if we <i>did</i> have something a bit like the YouTube (and Twitter, and Apple App Store, and Spotify, etc.) that he seems to vaguely imagine exists? If I want to post my thoughts on my own space on the internet I can still throw up a website. That's good! And yet almost every other area I look, I see walled gardens and closed platforms that can (and do) censor their users at a drop of the hat.<p>I don't know if the Fediverse, as it exists today, is a step towards a solution for this, but man, I think we need one.
So a self proclaimed critic of American imperialism and corporate control is complaining that a trillion dollar American corporation won't help him spread his message.<p>No, you haven't been "disappeared". Your content still exists. YouTube just doesn't owe you anything. Go find somewhere else to distribute it.<p>In fact try being a free thinker in your beloved Russia and see how far that gets you.
I grow weary of people comparing not reviving free services from private companies to serious violations of human rights.<p>Even more so from someone who has associated themself with a media outlet created by a despotic nation who is busy violating human rights.
This piece lost me the moment I saw the image created to visualize the content.<p>The big "censored" banner across made me instantly regret clicking it.<p>If people, and (I need to use it here) so called "journalists" don't know the difference between a private corporation and a nation state I just can't tske anything they produce seriously.<p>You can't be censored by YouTube. You can be deplatformed if you would like to call it that way. But until a government forced YouTube to not show your content to their citizens you are not being censored.<p>The outcome might be the same, but there is still a structural difference between me showing someone the door as I don't like what they say on my platform and the government coming and gagging them.<p>Maybe I am just to sensitive to the usage of the term, but imho it denigrates the victims of actual censorship.
It probably wasn't even a choice some person at Google made, it was just a computer program deciding that this show is over.<p>There's no sign at all that Google has the slightest interest in its many years of abusing its customers and users.<p>When true competitive choices arise to Google products, people will jump at them.<p>The real outcome here is that Google must offer creators the ability to backup/download their videos. Does that exist already?<p>There might be an opportunity for a startup to create a service that downloads YouTube videos as backups for the owners of the channels.
This came up in several subcomments, but it's worth a headline: RT.com and its videos, and this guy's show, are <i>still available and streaming in America</i>, while <i>all of YouTube is banned in Russia</i>.
Deplatformed, not disappeared.<p>Freedom of speech is not protected within the context of corporate employment. Say or do something that crosses advertisers, people in power or generally the wrong persons and you’ll be fired. Same applies to creators who effectively work for youtube.<p>If they care so much about making this info available then time to re-upload to a new distributor.
Why butcher language like this? Your videos were deleted, you were censored. I get that it’s cute to say you’re ‘adulting’ and got ‘disappeared’ but please stop.
There are two points to make here:<p>1. If you're paying attention, you <i>know</i> this will happen at some point. Archive your own shit, because Google has made it more than clear there's no guarantee they'll do it for you forever.<p>2. This idea that you're being deplatformed or marginalised because years of your archives are no longer available in a free and easily accessible format from someone else is <i>not</i> supported by call outs to MLK, Malcolm X, etc. Even if you accept the idea that they had free and unfettered access to public broadcasting (ha!), there was absolutely no easy way to get access to the archives of that on demand! The speakers themselves, and their organisations, had to manage that.<p>People who think they're entitled to free unfettered video hosting on YouTube are dreaming. There's no historic precedent to indicate that it should be so, and YouTube has made it <i>very</i> clear that they can and will bounce you whenever they like. As of today, you are entitled to free speech, but no one has to give you their soapbox to stand on.<p>I think there's a valid conversation to be had about whether that's how it should be, but I don't think this article is that.
Was it preserved on archive.org? The government doesnt want things that allow a Russian entity to profit from it, and YouTube decided to take the same tack. But, without ads paying RT, I doubt any attempt would be made to remove it from the way back machine.<p>In fact I wonder why YouTube didn’t just remove ads from that content.
You weren't disappeared or censored, Chris. If you were, we couldn't hear you calling yourself a victim.<p>Sorry working for foreign governments cost you your free hosting. Upload it somewhere else.<p>We spend way too much time pretending that people have some kind of right to be on a private platform.
Julian Assange still gets occasional contact with the outside world.<p>Julian Assange has yet to be 'dissappeared'.<p>You sir,<p>are talking to us from your SubStack.<p>Which still pays you money.<p>YouTube kicked you off?<p>Line up behind all the devs who've lost their livelihoods because a bot hicupped.
Interesting that this post is now flagged, or "disappeared" from HN. Shame, as the conversation around it is enlightening. Just wondering, do people think it's OK to curtail reasoned discussion around a topic prompted by a post of this nature?
I'm not familiar with the author, but I see he's well known enough to have a Wikipedia page [1].<p>I just can't help but to appreciate the irony of complaining about censorship on one major tech platform while publishing on another major tech platform. It seems Substack is much looser on censorship than other social media, but at the end of the day, anyone can be "deplatformed" from any managed service / platform for many reasons at any time, and they may never even find out why.<p>Why not run your own (e.g., Ghost) instance and mitigate that risk to protect your content and business upfront?<p>> I received no inquiry or notice from YouTube. I vanished. In totalitarian systems you exist, then you don’t. I suppose this was done in the name of censoring Russian propaganda, although I have a hard time seeing how a detailed discussion of “Ulysses” or the biographies of Susan Sontag and J. Robert Oppenheimer had any connection in the eyes of the most obtuse censors in Silicon Valley with Vladimir Putin.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges</a>
I’m a free speech absolutist - i.e. I believe in the first amendment, including the idea it should protect you from corporations. If you host a public square you must allow the speech.<p>There’s a very simple reason for that, freedom comes at a price. The price is an open, but critical mind. It would and is easy to silence opposition, it has been done for the past few years increasingly in the US. Truly it’s been happening even longer, the internet changed that dramatically.<p>To those that say “it’s enemy propaganda” who’s the enemy? Those striping you of rights — no? It’s fair to argue aggressors in a conflict are an enemy as well. Both can be true.
There are many naive and misinformed posters in these comments, as well as many thoughtful ones.<p>The basic truth is, you are entitled to free speech in the US, but you are not entitled to a platform from which to speak it. This is especially true if the platform is privately owned, as just about all platforms are. (I can't think of an exception offhand.)<p>It doesn't matter in the slightest if some platform has monopolized the market. They are still not obliged to carry your speech. End of story.
I waffled on my response to this piece, or rather if it even deserved one.<p>First of all, you are not disappeared -- just by the mere fact of you being able to post this. Want to give it a go and redeem yourself? Try writing some anti-war stuff in Moscow (you can even join your role-model).<p>Second, you are not Edward Snowden. And your comparison to him in the latter parts of the article do not do your point any justice. You risk very little by posting this, whereas Mr. Snowden became exiled from his home country by exposing illegal surveillance and is now wanted for treason.<p>Third, pick better friends and maybe don't work for propaganda outlets? I'm no saint myself, and I understand sometimes you have to put food on the table. But don't claim you're innocent (no snowflake ever feels responsible in avalanche, as the saying goes). Move on, do something better and be remembered for doing good things?
I get the argument.<p>Not everything on RT is a 100% propaganda. Maybe the low watermark is around 60% (as defined by Dr. Joseph Goebbels), and this channel accounted for the majority of the content in that 60%.<p>However, the world is currently at war with Nazi Russia. At war, you do not risk reviewing the enemy propaganda content. You block anything related to this propaganda, and deal with it later. Sorry. Also, you should have picked your friends better.<p>Disclaimer: I am Russian. I know wtf I am talking about.
Complaining about censorship when you've thrown in with the Russian state media is just absurd.<p>Here's an experiment for Chris Hedges: try doing a show on RT denouncing Putin and his war on Ukraine. At the very least RT will do exactly what Youtube has done and refuse to carry it. Or how about doing a show on RT denouncing the <i>much worse</i> censorship going on inside Russia right now?<p>Hedges is practically the definition of the "useful idiot".
Elon Musk needs to create competitors to Twitter / YouTube / Reddit that won't censor people like Twitter / YouTube / Reddit does.