The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Should Youtube be allowed to censor information?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2019 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 177 times Debate No: 122890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Youtube can be defined as a Public Forum as it is clearly not a Publisher. It is in no way legally liable for its content. Only a publisher has the legal right to edit content. Hence, Youtube, Functioning as an online Public Forum, Must relinquish that right, Or face legal liability for everything it displays.
Youtube refuses to do so.
Youtube enjoys the ability to censor and restrict viewership, While also claiming deniability over its content.
This is equivalent to selling a product put together by people you chose, And paid, And denying responsibility if the product does not work.
Yet, Youtube has been doing so for the past couple of years.
What arguments can be placed as to the legal, Social, And moral implications of its actions?


I am your challenger for this debate.
While I respect your opinion, I possess an opinion in which I would like to voice.

I would like to exclaim that YouTube is owned by Google and that it is therefore Google who is censoring information. And that google is an independent company and therefore that it should be able to do whatever it wants in a free market.

Also, Some info in YouTube is illegal and rude and insane so YouTube should censor that info.

Finally, YouTube is the Publisher of the video the content creator is the writer, Which rebuttals your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


1- Google does not accept liability for the content that Youtube displays. In a free market, Where Google is free to do whatever it wants, It is also liable for the consequences of all its actions. For example, Youtube accepts no legal responsibility for copyright infringement in America. (Only in Austria). If, For example, Google were to accept payment from a political party to skew all search results in their favour, Being a public forum, It would have no legal obligation to publicise that transaction/agreement. This is not free market.
If you have the power to censor, You must also carry the responsibility of transparency.
2- If some Youtube content is "illegal", "rude", And "insane", Who determines their legality? Today, For example, Nudity might seem illegal. Tomorrow, Youtube could recieve a significant sum from nudists to make clothedness illegal. It is the responsibility of the consumer of the information to filter it according to his sensibilities.
3- Youtube is NOT a publisher, It is a public forum. NYTimes is a publisher as it is liable for the factual validity of its published content.
A youtube video which slanders Donald Trump without supporting facts, Or with fabricated facts, Cannot be used to prosecute Youtube, But a such article can be used to prosecute NYTimes.


Good day,

Firstly, I can adress that google doesnt nessesarily say it has YouTube, But YouTube is a part of Google and YouTubes moderators are payed by google so it is google that controls banning the content. It doesnt matter that google doesnt have any responsibility.

Secondly, nudism might not be harmful and illegal but bullying, Scamming and drug dealing is illegal, Rude, And insane. YouTube has a responsibility to stop these people and to make a safe platfirm for all.

To conclude my argument YouTube might be public service however YouTube has got it's terms and conditions in which it tells you that you have to listen to to be on the site and breaking those conditions should be able to make you censored.

Thankyou for listening.

Debate Round No. 2


1- Why does it not matter that Google does not have any responsibility?
How is ownership of concern here? Even if Youtube were a propreitership, Singly owned by someone, It could still not have the right to censor content without accepting the liability for it.
2- How can someone deal drugs using Youtube? Even if someone does, Youtube does not face the consequences, Does it? If I were to upload a video that condoned drug use, I'd have personal liability, While Youtube, Being just a public forum, Would not face any legal action. For example, If you sincerely believe that the legalization of marijuana for medical use is a true cause, Would that be illegal, Insane, And rude? If the moderators at Youtube were to judge it is insane and rude, And censor it, Would they not be infringing on your right to free speech?
3- Why does Youtube carry the responsibility of making the platform a safe one, When in fact it is not required to do so by law, And is infringing on basic constitutional rights in the process?
4- Youtube is NOT creating content, Right? Hence, The value in its product comes from open participation. It thus does NOT guarantee the quality of that product. If its product is defective, It cannot be held responsible.
Now, The general public is the consumer as well as the producer of the product. Thus, Youtube is just a market, For buying and selling.
Free market in literality, Means that the institution of the market shall not dictate production and consumption levels, But the laws of demand and supply will.
5- We do sign terms and conditions before joining, And are welcome to leave. This makes Youtube a limited Public Forum, Where one can present any views, But only on the topic dictated by the forum. (the terms and conditions)
A limited public forum, However, Must accept liability over the issue it intends to discuss. For example, If a limited public forum was discussing an issue and a speaker presented falsified information that was later circulated to a wider public, The forum is also liable to litigation.
In youtube's example, This is not the case.
6- Youtube has evolved to become a platform of social expression. Aside from being private property, It is a medium of communication for a vast number of people. Considering the fact that its policies violate our rights, It is necessory that we, As consumers, Demand change in its policies.
An apt analogy here would be education. If a private school, With no government funding, Were to select its students on the basis of race, It would be an abhorrant violation of the Right To Equal Treatment. (Indian Constitutional Fubdamental Right 4)
Thus, Youtube, Being a private corporation, Cannot violate a fundamental right, Unless it takes full responsibility of the consequences of its content.
That is, If a youtube video played some role in pushing a person to suicide, Youtube would be tried under Abatement to Suicide.
Or, Youtube could relinquish its right to censor content to assert denyablity.
What I am saying is, It cannot have its cake, And eat it too.


Good day,

Just because Google has not any legal responsibility, Doesn't mean doesn't have any moral responsibility. Ownership is a concern because if something happens to YouTube then Google would lose or win money. YouTube should censor evil mass murderers, Egregious bullies and illegal drug dealers.

a drug dealer can't do the money transaction, But they can advertise, Talk rates, And even host a dealing station on YouTube, As if this went viral YouTube would pay in demand, So YouTube has a moral responsibility to ban this such egregiousness. If someone wanted to protest for the legalization of marijuana, Then they would protest the right of people to use marijuana and I and YouTube would respect their debate. But selling it is illegal and banning it does not infringe on free speech.

YouTube attracts the monetary profit of demand when it is a safe forum and therefore the quality of the product does matter to advertisers. For this reason, YouTube has to guarantee that the content is at least legal.

The last few arguments do not answer the question to be 'no' but you are calling a compromise in which I agree with which is that hypothetically, If YouTube decided to ban conservatives/liberals ruthlessly then it shall be held to account of General Comment 34 in the United Nations (The Free Speech Debate by Justin Healey).

For the reasons of morality, Those of freedom, And those of safety, Let YouTube censor people who have been egregious to their site, And to the world.

Have a nice day, And I will see you next time!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Dylian 2 days ago
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=d6C6_NVj964

yup-ity yup yup nice source there buddy definitely not a skilled lawyer trying to convince people to dislike YouTube's acts and is also definitely not half your debate.
Posted by MrKrabs 1 week ago
YouTube is a private corporation. They can set the policies that they want.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brendo 6 days ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. To the instigator, I would have suggested explaining the premise of the debate a bit more. When I first started reading, I didn?t fully understand your position. In relation to conduct, I give the point to Dylian. Hello and goodbye at the start and end of his debate compared to simple dot points gives him the point for conduct. For spelling and grammar, I saw a few spelling errors made by Dylian. Points for spelling and grammar to Malayvardhan. Overall, arguments to Malayvardhan. No use of sources by either users.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.