Okay, a couple of responses. Sorry about the formatting and length, Father Time did a couple of posts and I can't make it pretty. I added a 1), 2), etc, before the things I want to address.Father Time said:1) It is. It doesn't violate free speech but it is censorship.Iridium Dawn said:People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.
2) Bullshit. Comments are an avenue to speak, and not everyone has a video to make a video response with or has a place that will publish an article.
[From a later response] Or he's looking at on a library computer.
3) Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them.
4) Allow comments. Not that hard. She says wants to foster dialogue but her actions say otherwise.
5) Oh and not all insults are ad hominems. It's only ad hominem if you use it to dismiss arguments. Calling someone a coward isn't ad hominem, saying "they're a coward so they must be wrong" is.
Father Time, I think in general you and some others are appealing to some pretty abstract ideals of censorship, free speech, desire for a completely open discussion, and it doesn't seem to get at any of the concrete events that led to Anita disabling comments. The problem with focusing on such abstract ideals is that it becomes easier to point out that they are being selectively applied.
What, exactly, do you want to happen as a result of comments on her videos being enabled? Will enabling comments actually cause those things to happen?
1) Disabling comments is censorship
I will grant you that disabling comments is, in some nebulous way, censorship. I should have said "not MEANINGFUL censorship". Youtube, hell, almost all websites have some limitations on content. An Escapist mod gave somebody earlier in this thread a warning for posting "Agreed". That is by far a more concrete method of censorship. If not allowing comments is a bigger upset than direct censorship, then how are you not taking issue with the basic idea that you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want?
2) Comments as an avenue to speak
Fine. Comments are an avenue for speech. They are not indispensable and everyone DOES has a place that will publish an article. There's WordPress, Blogger, GoogleBlog, WordSpot, BlogPress, FaceTube, YouBook. It's the Internet, there's LOTS, all free. As for the objection that not everyone has a computer, fine. There are people who only have consistent internet access at a library. They still have access to free blogging sites. And if somehow blocking comments is disabling their one avenue for speech, than you might as well say that Anita's videos not being translated into French prevents feedback. It does prevent feedback, but at that point it's not a useful objection and there's a much bigger underlying obstacle you're overlooking.
3) "Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them."
I agree, but saying this contradicts your argument. If people don't expect video makers to respond to comments, then what does it matter if comments are not allowed? If it matters, then what you are actually objecting to is them not providing a forum for discussion. But why should they, if you don't expect them to participate?
4) Fostering dialogue
Her actions don't say otherwise. She posts video that anyone is free to watch and people are free to use any other forum to discuss. By disabling comments, she's turned Youtube into a simple delivery medium, nothing more or less. If that is failing to foster dialogue, so is every book that doesn't have a website and forum.
5) Insults and ad-hominems
No, calling someone a coward is not inherently an ad hominem, but it does imply a character defect that disparages them. It doesn't dismiss their argument but in the absence of actual evidence of cowardice, you're using it to dismiss them.