YouTube reinstates Right Wing Watch(nbcnews.com)
nbcnews.com
YouTube reinstates Right Wing Watch
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-reinstates-channel-devoted-exposing-conservative-extremism-rcna1286
245 comments
I think fixing popular "mistakes" like this is problematic in its own way. Google/YouTube approach the problem of moderation by using unreliable systems and correcting mistakes when there is enough of a popular outrage. The problem is, people who can't generate the outrage are subject to Google's poor moderation.
If Google did not fix mistakes that generated a lot of outrage, then competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives. As is, if something popular gets banned, YouTube will "correct" their error while they ignore things below this threshold. This simultaneously subjects everyone to their poor moderation and stifles an advantage that competitors might enjoy.
If Google did not fix mistakes that generated a lot of outrage, then competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives. As is, if something popular gets banned, YouTube will "correct" their error while they ignore things below this threshold. This simultaneously subjects everyone to their poor moderation and stifles an advantage that competitors might enjoy.
I just assumed it was common knowledge that Google doesn’t even try to implement human support resources. From what I can tell, literally 100% of YouTube support tickets go to what is essentially a spam inbox with auto-reply and the only way to have your concerns be dealt with is to have a personal connection to someone in upper management.
I mean, it's pretty obvious why they don't do that. The only people that would benefit by such a policy are not stakeholders in the decision. All actual stakeholders (Google, the banned channel, and YouTube users who want to watch the content) benefit from a policy that use social and manual signals as one layer of defense against incorrect bans.
The problem with this logic is that most definitely "popularity" is already proxied by some data that they are collecting and thus could be acted upon by the machines. So either Google are poor coders or this is something different than popularity.
[deleted]
Would it be better if google/youtube didn't correct its mistakes?
A standard, uniformly applied, is more likely to be removed (when its seen to be bad) than one inconsistently applied on the basis of ideology or public outcry.
Is it possible to have a uniformly applied standard for content as diverse as YouTube's? We can't even find a consistent standard to identify pornography, much less all of the other content YouTube wants off its platform
And this is why public protests are good for governments. They channel a lot of energy into a few precise issues, away from broad structural changes.
Are you sure? Like the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer were about broad structural issues in policing. Unless you meant even bigger structural issues such as systemic racism which they were only tangentially about but definitely increased the awareness of.
So that's why Russia or Myanmar shoot or arrest protesters. Tiananmen Square was also just the government's attempt to help the protester's cause?
6f8986c3(2)
Yes, because right now it is effectively Google having a pretext to remove whatever they want, by only selectively overriding moderation.
Just yesterday, a group posting Xinjiang videos was censored from YouTube.[1]
Are their videos going to be reinstated? Unlikely. They will have to try their luck on some obscure platform
Imagine if you had video evidence of human rights abuses (lots of people do), just hope that you can raise enough outrage quickly enough before it gets flagged and removed.
I know that Google and Facebook are private platforms, but that should not excuse them covering for genocidal maniacs.[2]
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-youtube-takes-d...
[2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...
Just yesterday, a group posting Xinjiang videos was censored from YouTube.[1]
Are their videos going to be reinstated? Unlikely. They will have to try their luck on some obscure platform
Imagine if you had video evidence of human rights abuses (lots of people do), just hope that you can raise enough outrage quickly enough before it gets flagged and removed.
I know that Google and Facebook are private platforms, but that should not excuse them covering for genocidal maniacs.[2]
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-youtube-takes-d...
[2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...
I believe that was the point being made in the comment:
"...competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives"
"...competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives"
the problem is its mostly the dregs that get banned, and having a platform full of dregs is its own serious issue.
Yea and also having it as your initial content off puts a lot of viewers, and similar to people making and creating stuff.
While it might boost you initial user-base its gonna make growth slow to a crawl long term unless you have some clever way if dealing with it.
While it might boost you initial user-base its gonna make growth slow to a crawl long term unless you have some clever way if dealing with it.
I think your solution is to have people pay you to put up that content.
[deleted]
False dichotomy. Would be best if they didn't make them in the first place through employing naive censorship heuristics.
Banning conspiracy theories is such a slippery slope. Where is the line for something like the lab leak hypothesis? What had to change to allow it to exist? Weren't Woodward and Bernstein or Daniel ellsberg conspiracy theorists? Should they have been silenced?
>Banning conspiracy theories is such a slippery slope.
And not moderating them is a slippery slope to facilitating violent extremism, and to anti-science activists leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths.
There's no perfect solution, only compromises which have to be made.
And not moderating them is a slippery slope to facilitating violent extremism, and to anti-science activists leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths.
There's no perfect solution, only compromises which have to be made.
Should we entrust Google, Facebook or Twitter with deciding what compromises have to be made in the name of good science and good medicine?
I mean, we're trusting them with the hosting in the first place. Of course the problem of moderation also falls on them. I mean, let's suppose they only ban straight-up illegal content. Then a similar question could be formed: "Should we entrust Google with the execution of our laws? They are not the police after all!"
If you accept the premise, what mechanism do you suggest?
If I were allowed to rewrite all the rules at Youtube, I would simplify censorship. Only content that breaks the laws where Youtube is headquartered would be removed by Youtube. No exception. AI would be allowed to "flag" a video for review and a large crowd-sourced team of moderators would vote on whether or not the video is breaking a law. They would have to attest to which laws specifically are being broken. Moderators that false-flag will slowly lose points that count towards a quorum. When a quorum of moderators agree a video is breaking one or more laws, the video would become invisible to the public and handed off to a forensic interface for law enforcement to subscribe to. The forensic queue would summarize who is posting the most illegal material and give law enforcement officials the ability to search for specific content, IP addresses, geographic locations, etc... Law enforcement could un-flag a video if it is in fact legal. Verified law enforcement are also welcome to join the moderator queue and review process. This might be a good option for those having recently left the police force due to current events. If there are laws on the books that the district attorney does not wish to enforce, they could log in and gray them out. A comment will appear showing which district attorney muted those laws.
As for false information, quackery, etc... there would be icons that people could up/downvote to provide public opinion as to something being false information. Post a video of the earth being flat? No problem, go right ahead. People can upvote the "Cool story bro" icon. Quackery icons will slowly de-rank a video from showing up in suggested. There would also be industry specific icons and people verified to be from those industries could double-up-vote icons as well as post comments with a checkmark next to their name linking to their public credentials and contact information. Cost? The verification process would pay for itself. Being a verified subject matter expert provides exposure for the individual, so there is incentive to pay to be manually verified. Being a SME does not grant the ability to remove a video, only the ability to add a comment with a checkmark. Not all SME's will agree with one another. Let the merits of their conversations drive public opinion and emoji voting. Post a cure for covid or cancer? Go for it. Verified doctors and scientists can post checkmark comments and upvote the quackery emojis if they feel it is required. Or they could upvote the green checkmark if they agree. More verified checkmarks equates to higher rank in suggested content.
As for false information, quackery, etc... there would be icons that people could up/downvote to provide public opinion as to something being false information. Post a video of the earth being flat? No problem, go right ahead. People can upvote the "Cool story bro" icon. Quackery icons will slowly de-rank a video from showing up in suggested. There would also be industry specific icons and people verified to be from those industries could double-up-vote icons as well as post comments with a checkmark next to their name linking to their public credentials and contact information. Cost? The verification process would pay for itself. Being a verified subject matter expert provides exposure for the individual, so there is incentive to pay to be manually verified. Being a SME does not grant the ability to remove a video, only the ability to add a comment with a checkmark. Not all SME's will agree with one another. Let the merits of their conversations drive public opinion and emoji voting. Post a cure for covid or cancer? Go for it. Verified doctors and scientists can post checkmark comments and upvote the quackery emojis if they feel it is required. Or they could upvote the green checkmark if they agree. More verified checkmarks equates to higher rank in suggested content.
Accepting that premise is tantamount to admitting you don't have the judgement to be part of the conversation.
Lets choose the conspiracy theory videos then. Conspiracy theory is just a term used to dismiss unpopular thoughts. We should be able to talk about the lab leak hypothesis. We should be able to talk about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Discussing ivermectin as a covid treatment will get you banned from Facebook, but Oxford is studying it [0] and nations such as India [1] and Egypt approved it as part of their official protocol. Now, that's not to say that ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments--but the fact that you can be deplatformed for even discussing a treatment that has been administered to millions of people is really absurd. We can't expect Facebook or Youtube to understand medicine and decide which medicines are ok for us to talk about; more generally, we can't trust corporations to be the arbiters of reality.
[0] https://www.contagionlive.com/view/ivermectin-to-be-analyzed...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/11/indian-...
[0] https://www.contagionlive.com/view/ivermectin-to-be-analyzed...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/11/indian-...
As a counterpoint: if there is to be productive discussion about fringe drugs being used to treat diseases, it's going to be between medical professionals. There is no compelling reason that uneducated citizens with no medical expertise need to discuss them. I personally know several medical professionals that were aghast at the "discussion" around hydroxychloroquine.
Also worth noting hiding behind "just discussing" something is a slippery slope in its own right. There's a long history of people claiming to be "just asking questions" when they're transparently using "discussion" as a means to spread fringe ideology.
Also worth noting hiding behind "just discussing" something is a slippery slope in its own right. There's a long history of people claiming to be "just asking questions" when they're transparently using "discussion" as a means to spread fringe ideology.
Nah. There are many cases where the medical consensus was wildly wrong and outsiders were correct.
Limiting fat and protein in favor of carbs in one’s diet is a good example. This bad advice lead to an obesity epidemic that has killed millions of people.
Limiting fat and protein in favor of carbs in one’s diet is a good example. This bad advice lead to an obesity epidemic that has killed millions of people.
If you can find evidence that the consensus was reversed by uneducated outsiders going with their "gut feelings" rather than published scientific study, you would have a point here.
As it stands, I am very skeptical that you could find any such evidence.
The way to change consensus is evidence-based advocacy by experts, not idle speculation by the domain-uneducated.
As it stands, I am very skeptical that you could find any such evidence.
The way to change consensus is evidence-based advocacy by experts, not idle speculation by the domain-uneducated.
I think you have your order of operations wrongs. The discussion happens, "gut feelings" are had, and then it is science.
Without the discussion many of the topis scientist study and figure out the truth would never have happened.
We need the conversations and even controversy help decide where we spend the resource of what scientist study.
edit: gatekeeping
Without the discussion many of the topis scientist study and figure out the truth would never have happened.
We need the conversations and even controversy help decide where we spend the resource of what scientist study.
edit: gatekeeping
You may need gatekeepers to feel safe in life. Feel free to find a safe, walled garden for yourself. The rest of us live in reality, and recognize that organizations of human beings have always been subject to groupthink and have suppressed new and unpopular ideas. They are also prone to fads and fashion. In the 90s, the medical establishment claimed eggs were as dangerous as cigarettes. They insisted that avocados were unhealthy.
The funding to eventually overturn this bad science was suppressed at mainstream institutions and had to be obtained from the very outsiders you condemn. Phrenology and scientific racism were embraved by the experts for decades. Lucky for us, people didn't follow your advice then.
The funding to eventually overturn this bad science was suppressed at mainstream institutions and had to be obtained from the very outsiders you condemn. Phrenology and scientific racism were embraved by the experts for decades. Lucky for us, people didn't follow your advice then.
>As a counterpoint: if there is to be productive discussion about fringe drugs being used to treat diseases, it's going to be between medical professionals
Notwithstanding the merits or lack thereof of your point, the videos about chloroquine and ivermectin that were banned WERE discussions by medical professionals. Have you seen them?
Notwithstanding the merits or lack thereof of your point, the videos about chloroquine and ivermectin that were banned WERE discussions by medical professionals. Have you seen them?
This is actually a great point that I'd never considered.
Its completely true based on my FB or twitter feed where you can find thousands of people who couldn't pass a GED test arguing a bout science that they don't understand.
Its completely true based on my FB or twitter feed where you can find thousands of people who couldn't pass a GED test arguing a bout science that they don't understand.
What a dystopian future you’re painting. Even “discussing” becomes “promoting fringe ideology”. Only “experts” can have these forbidden conversations.
Yikes. I can only imagine how little progress we would have made as a civilization with an a approach like that.
Yikes. I can only imagine how little progress we would have made as a civilization with an a approach like that.
gatekeeping
Isn't Oxford studying it and India and Egypt approving it mean that people are discussing Ivermectin? Whether we need to discuss Ivermectin on YouTube is a very different question than we need to discuss Ivermectin at all. Videos about Ivermectin often come with a lot of disinformation about the vaccine. If YouTube decides, "hey, I think all of this is going to cloud out information about a vaccine campaign that is proving increasingly effective", I don't think that's a bad move. That doesn't mean that Ivermectin is a subject discussed under only closed doors like Communism in the 50s though.
The censorship isn't limited to YouTube. Scholarly articles from large collaborations have been censored from peer-reviewed journals when they received too much public attention:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes...
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes...
> During review of the article in what the journal refers to as “the provisional acceptance phase,” Fenter says in the statement, members of Frontiers’s research integrity team identified “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.”
The statement continues: “Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”
The statement continues: “Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”
To be clear, your justification for why YouTube needs to censor themselves - "anti-science activists leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths" - is itself widely-believed misinformation. Here's the current top of the Covid-19 deaths per capita chart: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat... Peru, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czechia, North Macedonia. I'm not sure the USA has ever topped the chart. (Czechia is particularly interesting - they were the European "success story" the British press pointed to earlier in the pandemic as proof that the UK should be able to do better and our government failed us. In reality, they probably just got lucky the first time around. Actually, most of the success stories probably did.)
Now, a lot of less honest publications like to compare the total number of deaths in order to cynically take advantage of the fact that there are few countries as big as the USA, but of course that's a nonsense comparison. If the USA was instead split up into 50 countries, it'd be much further down that ranking even if the exact same number of people died.
Now, a lot of less honest publications like to compare the total number of deaths in order to cynically take advantage of the fact that there are few countries as big as the USA, but of course that's a nonsense comparison. If the USA was instead split up into 50 countries, it'd be much further down that ranking even if the exact same number of people died.
> If the USA was instead split up into 50 countries, it'd be much further down that ranking even if the exact same number of people died.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...
If states were countries, half of the top 20 per capita would consist of US States, with the other half essentially being developing nations.
In fact, I'd say that the only reason the US per capita rate is as low as it is is that states like California (itself accounting for over a tenth of the population) actually took things seriously and brought down that average.
Split hairs all you want, but the fact that the US at one point accounted for a quarter of all cases despite being 4% of the world's population is a stain on the whole country, and a significant argument that the US is directly to blame for the pandemic lasting as long as it did.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...
If states were countries, half of the top 20 per capita would consist of US States, with the other half essentially being developing nations.
In fact, I'd say that the only reason the US per capita rate is as low as it is is that states like California (itself accounting for over a tenth of the population) actually took things seriously and brought down that average.
Split hairs all you want, but the fact that the US at one point accounted for a quarter of all cases despite being 4% of the world's population is a stain on the whole country, and a significant argument that the US is directly to blame for the pandemic lasting as long as it did.
> states like California (itself accounting for over a tenth of the population) actually took things seriously
It has little to do with that. If that were the case, Florida would not have been within spitting distance of California. Why is New York at the top of list? They had a similar response as California.
The issue is far more complex than "taking things seriously". Population density, climate, age of population, and job types probably contribute more than simply "taking things seriously".
It has little to do with that. If that were the case, Florida would not have been within spitting distance of California. Why is New York at the top of list? They had a similar response as California.
The issue is far more complex than "taking things seriously". Population density, climate, age of population, and job types probably contribute more than simply "taking things seriously".
Maybe the reason for the large number of cases in the US is people are more mobile in the US. After all, one can travel to 50 states with no border checks. More mobility => faster spread.
It’s hard to argue that since the creation of the Schengen travel zone in Europe.
Travel between Schengen countries was heavily restricted for several months during the pandemic, much more so than travel between US states.
So: taking measures helps. Holding back does not help.
Note realistic measures. Has there ever been a case where the Federal government can fully restrict travel ? Does it even have that power over the citizenry?
The states certainly can, and what's to stop the federal government co-ordinating and supporting state action? Isn't that what it's for? Doing nothing was a choice. Arguably even a strategy.
> The states certainly can, and what's to stop the federal government co-ordinating and supporting state action?
The Federal Government cannot restrict citizens from traveling between the states. I don't know anyone, here in the US anyway, who would even suggest such an action.
The privileges and immunities clause, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, protects the interstate travel rights of US citizens.
The Federal Government cannot restrict citizens from traveling between the states. I don't know anyone, here in the US anyway, who would even suggest such an action.
The privileges and immunities clause, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, protects the interstate travel rights of US citizens.
Yes, you already made that point, and I responded by saying that the States can do this and the federal government could just co-ordinate it as part of a national strategy.
In fact travel rights were actually restricted in practice by the Federal Government and it's agencies, and states under both Republican and Democrat leadership. There are many well established exceptions that restrict access to constitutional rights under various circumstances, so the contention that this can't be done falls a bit flat. If nobody can do it, how come everybody did it?
In fact travel rights were actually restricted in practice by the Federal Government and it's agencies, and states under both Republican and Democrat leadership. There are many well established exceptions that restrict access to constitutional rights under various circumstances, so the contention that this can't be done falls a bit flat. If nobody can do it, how come everybody did it?
The highest death rate both in the US and Europe was this past winter, long after the virus had already spread to every part of both continents.
Christmas travel is a huge deal in the US. I recall at the time many people predicted the spike due to the holiday travel.
Here is some data for all 50 States.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
I'll let it speak for itself.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
I'll let it speak for itself.
>> top the chart in pandemic deaths
Well, the USA does top the chart in pandemic deaths. You instead just talk about deaths per capita, and call that misinformation. Ok, but that's not what the GP was talking about. A total straw man.
Then when you get around to mentioning total pandemic deaths, look at all the emotive words you pack into the sentence:
> less honest publications like to compare the total number of deaths in order to cynically take advantage of the fact that there are few countries as big as the USA, but of course that's a nonsense comparison.
Well, the USA does top the chart in pandemic deaths. You instead just talk about deaths per capita, and call that misinformation. Ok, but that's not what the GP was talking about. A total straw man.
Then when you get around to mentioning total pandemic deaths, look at all the emotive words you pack into the sentence:
> less honest publications like to compare the total number of deaths in order to cynically take advantage of the fact that there are few countries as big as the USA, but of course that's a nonsense comparison.
> Here's the current top of the Covid-19 deaths per capita chart: Peru, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czechia, North Macedonia.
I don't know where you got this list from. JHU's database[1] shows Peru and Brazil at the top for the per-capita statistic (not CFR). Brazil, conspicuously, has a COVID-denialist leader, refused a general lockdown, and is currently #3 in the world for deaths.
[1]: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I don't know where you got this list from. JHU's database[1] shows Peru and Brazil at the top for the per-capita statistic (not CFR). Brazil, conspicuously, has a COVID-denialist leader, refused a general lockdown, and is currently #3 in the world for deaths.
[1]: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Edited my comment to include a link. The chart you've linked only include the "twenty countries currently most affected by COVID-19 worldwide", whatever that means. Probably something to do with current cases or recent deaths. The numbers I found match that chart for the countries which are on it, but Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czechia, North Macedonia, and Bulgaria just weren't included even though they would've been higher than Brazil if they were. Edited: as someone pointed out, there's a sortable table further down which gives the same ranking as I quoted, except it includes a couple of additional micro-countries with only a few thousand people.
(Also, Brazil is probably pretty representative of South America as a whole, they just seem to have better testing than other countries there and likely report more of their Covid deaths than others. I know a while ago, there was some analysis suggesting Mexico had more Covid deaths than Brazil with a substantially lower population and was just massively under-reporting them due to missing testing.)
(Also, Brazil is probably pretty representative of South America as a whole, they just seem to have better testing than other countries there and likely report more of their Covid deaths than others. I know a while ago, there was some analysis suggesting Mexico had more Covid deaths than Brazil with a substantially lower population and was just massively under-reporting them due to missing testing.)
Check the Johns Hopkins link again (as an aside, JHU is the data source for the link whihch you've posted)
Underneath that chart they break down data for many more than those 20 countries.
Underneath that chart they break down data for many more than those 20 countries.
Are you certain about how those countries are reporting?
>leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths
The US is currently 74th of 203 countries when counting new covid cases per capita in the last week. So my perception is people have mostly switched to shaming the US for "vaccine nationalism" and the like, and downplaying accusations of poor handling of the epidemic.
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#wee...)
The US is currently 74th of 203 countries when counting new covid cases per capita in the last week. So my perception is people have mostly switched to shaming the US for "vaccine nationalism" and the like, and downplaying accusations of poor handling of the epidemic.
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#wee...)
And censoring public conversation to medical malpractice & issues with treatments is also a slippery slope that totalitarian regimes have regularly instituted on their own people.
There is a perfect solution, which is for the government & the corporatist state to defend our rights, which include the Freedom of Speech. Somebody is lying & the public has a right to all of the pertinent information & unrestricted conversation. The worst case is for the liars to have total control of the information. Those are the definitions of totalitarianism & authoritarianism.
---
Edit: I actually misspoke. The worst case is Technocratic control a la Brave New World, where autonomy is lost & cyber (regulatory) divisions take over all aspects of life. Nothing screams dystopia more than a technocrat with a God complex exerting one's will to control the lives of the population. Human life is sacred & spiritual and the Technocratic movement as it stands today spoils this light to create a horde of undead.
There is a perfect solution, which is for the government & the corporatist state to defend our rights, which include the Freedom of Speech. Somebody is lying & the public has a right to all of the pertinent information & unrestricted conversation. The worst case is for the liars to have total control of the information. Those are the definitions of totalitarianism & authoritarianism.
---
Edit: I actually misspoke. The worst case is Technocratic control a la Brave New World, where autonomy is lost & cyber (regulatory) divisions take over all aspects of life. Nothing screams dystopia more than a technocrat with a God complex exerting one's will to control the lives of the population. Human life is sacred & spiritual and the Technocratic movement as it stands today spoils this light to create a horde of undead.
People on this site can try to redefine the first amendment all they like, but never in the history of this country has it meant that we get to say what we want wherever we want. I can get fired for saying something offensive, but I don't moan about totalitarianism or the corporatist state, because that would be stupid. If people want to argue the merits of promoting a wider range of speech on social media, so be it, but please dispense with any comparisons to our first amendment right (which is not affected here).
"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech."
Benjamin Franklin
Bringing up the first amendment is a way to emphasize the importance of the free exchange of ideas. It only legally restrains the government, but now other powers have gained the ability to regulate speech. The principle is the same no matter who the censor is.
Bringing up the first amendment is a way to emphasize the importance of the free exchange of ideas. It only legally restrains the government, but now other powers have gained the ability to regulate speech. The principle is the same no matter who the censor is.
Conflating social media bans with a government's ability to punish citizens over speech is utterly absurd. The real complaint here is that folks want to express their opinions on a site with the biggest reach, and if they are relegated to a smaller site (of which there are many) then they pretend their rights are being violated. This notion is itself as anti-free speech as it gets.
The free exchange of ideas can be curtailed by other powerful entities other than government. This is still a problem for society.
For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored.
This is a net negative for everyone.
For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored.
This is a net negative for everyone.
The free exchange of ideas is curtailed everywhere, all the time. It's curtailed in private homes, in the workplace, and on social media. It has always been this way. Our first amendment right has never guaranteed the free exchange of ideas, because people have the right to reject such exchanges on their own property. Your issue and the issue shared by many others comes from a complete misunderstanding of what freedom of speech entails. It does not mean people should be forced to listen to you; that would be a horrifying dystopia that I want no part of.
You keep making assumptions about me. You don't know me. I made no such statements about the first amendment.
However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.
However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.
It's not about being legalistic. Some people believe the idea of free speech means that others should be forced to listen to them or carry their message. This is false, and anti-free speech.
Thanks for the response, I'm not making that argument. Platforms are legally within their rights to censor posts they don't like. My point is that this comes with a cost.
If we sit a team down to discuss the architecture of a software application or how to solve a problem in a general, is it better to get all opinions or for some opinions to be forbidden?
I believe the answer is it depends. If someone is being destructive to general collaboration, then censoring them would likely help the group reach a better decision.
If the censorship goes further and prohibits certain ideas, what is the cost? If it's a bad idea, probably not too much. What if it's a good idea? What if it's an idea that would have halved the effort for this particular solution? The cost of censorship starts to increase!
How do you know the value of an opinion that you don't hear? Silencing dissent is a component of group think. I found this example which shouldn't be controversial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports
If we sit a team down to discuss the architecture of a software application or how to solve a problem in a general, is it better to get all opinions or for some opinions to be forbidden?
I believe the answer is it depends. If someone is being destructive to general collaboration, then censoring them would likely help the group reach a better decision.
If the censorship goes further and prohibits certain ideas, what is the cost? If it's a bad idea, probably not too much. What if it's a good idea? What if it's an idea that would have halved the effort for this particular solution? The cost of censorship starts to increase!
How do you know the value of an opinion that you don't hear? Silencing dissent is a component of group think. I found this example which shouldn't be controversial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports
You keep saying "I'm not making that argument." If you're not making any arguments that are relevant to this particular thread about slippery slopes and overreaching governments, I'm not sure why you replied to me in the first place. Simply saying that censorship comes with a cost is so obvious and broad that it's not much of a contribution.
> And not moderating them is a slippery slope to facilitating violent extremism, and to anti-science activists leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths.
Have we really learned nothing over the last year and a half? What will it take to shake your faith in the media?
Four weeks ago, the idea that COVID-19 originated from a lab was a conspiracy theory, likely to get you banned with extreme prejudice for being a qanon white supremecist.
COVID-19 was a conspiracy theory. Then it was a conspiracy theory that human to human transmission was possible. Then it was a conspiracy theory that wearing masks was at all helpful.
What will be the next domino to fall? What will the new truth be a few weeks from now?
If anything, censoring "conspiracy theories" led directly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
If this was 2015, I think things would have gone much better for us. Citizens would have been able to fill in the gaps where journalists failed us. There might have been a panic for people to buy masks and close the borders, sure, but the pandemic would have probably been contained.
I was banned for spreading conspiracy theories in February 2020 when I pleaded with people to practice basic hygiene and postpone travel until we had figured out what was going on.
Have we really learned nothing over the last year and a half? What will it take to shake your faith in the media?
Four weeks ago, the idea that COVID-19 originated from a lab was a conspiracy theory, likely to get you banned with extreme prejudice for being a qanon white supremecist.
COVID-19 was a conspiracy theory. Then it was a conspiracy theory that human to human transmission was possible. Then it was a conspiracy theory that wearing masks was at all helpful.
What will be the next domino to fall? What will the new truth be a few weeks from now?
If anything, censoring "conspiracy theories" led directly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
If this was 2015, I think things would have gone much better for us. Citizens would have been able to fill in the gaps where journalists failed us. There might have been a panic for people to buy masks and close the borders, sure, but the pandemic would have probably been contained.
I was banned for spreading conspiracy theories in February 2020 when I pleaded with people to practice basic hygiene and postpone travel until we had figured out what was going on.
An entire subreddit was quarantined in February last year for spreading misinformation about what was considered fact just months later. As of today that subreddit is still quarantined, even after the last "misinfo", the lab theory, is no longer considered taboo to talk about.
Which subreddit?
/r/Wuhan_Flu
More info here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7jqbx/reddit-cant-quarantin...
Also here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/f6jpm7/what_i...
And a quote from /r/OutOfTheLoop about /r/WuhanFlu:
> The users of that subreddit believe in a conspiracy that the Wuhan Coronavirus is more serious than the governments of China and the United States are telling them. They believe the government is mismanaging the outbreak. They were quarantined because an admin believed the subreddit was spreading misinformation.
Note that /r/WuhanFlu was already talking about this mismanagement since mid-January.
Unfortunately @apostacy (who is getting downvoted) is from what I experienced back then mostly right.
More info here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7jqbx/reddit-cant-quarantin...
Also here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/f6jpm7/what_i...
And a quote from /r/OutOfTheLoop about /r/WuhanFlu:
> The users of that subreddit believe in a conspiracy that the Wuhan Coronavirus is more serious than the governments of China and the United States are telling them. They believe the government is mismanaging the outbreak. They were quarantined because an admin believed the subreddit was spreading misinformation.
Note that /r/WuhanFlu was already talking about this mismanagement since mid-January.
Unfortunately @apostacy (who is getting downvoted) is from what I experienced back then mostly right.
thank you hadn't heard of this. the quarantine process really works huh
It mostly destroyed that subreddit-community and prevented anything from that subreddit to ever reach the frontpage again. It is now just a shell of its former self. Back then it helped me and others to stock up on masks, sanitizers and other stuff early. We warned other people early about the upcoming virus as well.
Meanwhile the other corona-subreddits were and/or still are controlled by moderators that also control many of the other largest Reddit-approved (corona-)subreddits:
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1582202873483.jpg (Sorry, this 4chan archive of the image is all I could still find)
And this is all just one example of how crazy things can get and not even the worst (like people getting doxxed and personally harassed, getting banned on multiple sites en masse etc.). Many people who aren't in the right place at the right time within certain communities probably can't even imagine things like this could happen (like I couldn't 6 years ago) until it happens to them. They just call you a "conspiracy theorist". Not everyone who is skeptical of the mainstream story believes in "flat earth", is "anti-vaxx", thinks they want to "inject us with microchips" and "control us with 5G". Those are used as an example to censor and/or discredit other alternative views.
All we did on that subreddit was just trying to find out what was happening before everyone was talking about it (which was suspicious in itself).
Meanwhile the other corona-subreddits were and/or still are controlled by moderators that also control many of the other largest Reddit-approved (corona-)subreddits:
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1582202873483.jpg (Sorry, this 4chan archive of the image is all I could still find)
And this is all just one example of how crazy things can get and not even the worst (like people getting doxxed and personally harassed, getting banned on multiple sites en masse etc.). Many people who aren't in the right place at the right time within certain communities probably can't even imagine things like this could happen (like I couldn't 6 years ago) until it happens to them. They just call you a "conspiracy theorist". Not everyone who is skeptical of the mainstream story believes in "flat earth", is "anti-vaxx", thinks they want to "inject us with microchips" and "control us with 5G". Those are used as an example to censor and/or discredit other alternative views.
All we did on that subreddit was just trying to find out what was happening before everyone was talking about it (which was suspicious in itself).
> and to anti-science activists leading an otherwise-developed country to top the chart in pandemic deaths
Seems a bit crude to pick on Czechia, Belgium, Italy, Britain, Spain and France like that. Surely they're not so anti-science as you're suggesting.
Covid deaths per 1,000 population:
Czechia: 2.85 | Belgium: 2.2 | Italy: 2.11 | Britain: 1.93 | US: 1.84 | Spain: 1.73 | France: 1.65 | Sweden: 1.43
And if we were analyzing trends, Germany rather dramatically joined the Covid party toward the end (with an extreme death rate across a rough five month span). Was that due to a mass spontaneous national anti-science movement on their part? I don't think so.
Seems a bit crude to pick on Czechia, Belgium, Italy, Britain, Spain and France like that. Surely they're not so anti-science as you're suggesting.
Covid deaths per 1,000 population:
Czechia: 2.85 | Belgium: 2.2 | Italy: 2.11 | Britain: 1.93 | US: 1.84 | Spain: 1.73 | France: 1.65 | Sweden: 1.43
And if we were analyzing trends, Germany rather dramatically joined the Covid party toward the end (with an extreme death rate across a rough five month span). Was that due to a mass spontaneous national anti-science movement on their part? I don't think so.
> There's no perfect solution, only compromises which have to be made.
It doesn't matter. You should not be censoring peoples opinions or them asking questions. The lab leak hypothesis should have never been censored. Maybe if someone was claiming they knew it was true without providing sufficient evidence I could see a case for it. Calling something misinformation when they aren't presenting it as fact but a possibility is disgraceful especially when it comes to journalism.
It doesn't matter. You should not be censoring peoples opinions or them asking questions. The lab leak hypothesis should have never been censored. Maybe if someone was claiming they knew it was true without providing sufficient evidence I could see a case for it. Calling something misinformation when they aren't presenting it as fact but a possibility is disgraceful especially when it comes to journalism.
> Where is the line for something like the lab leak hypothesis?
Recent history seems to have an answer - thats off limits until it fits the narrative!
Recent history seems to have an answer - thats off limits until it fits the narrative!
> Weren't Woodward and Bernstein or Daniel ellsberg conspiracy theorists?
Not theorists. They researched and published actual conspiracies, based on government documentation.
Not theorists. They researched and published actual conspiracies, based on government documentation.
I don't care what other political values you have. If you are pro-censorship you're not on my side. It's as simple as that.
Hmm. I’m anti government censorship, but pro my ability to censor what people say in my house, just like probably everybody. Don’t know if I’m on your side or not.
Youtube flip-flopped because they rely on others (who also flip-flopped), which is exactly what they should be doing, right? Surely if youtube middle managers decided what's kosher all by themselves, that'd be worse?
Journalists use youtube to get a wider audience, but youtube is not really a mechanism of original reporting. It's not Physical Review Letters, it's Popular Science. If things were otherwise, if getting a true and important fact idea kicked off youtube could actually silence it, we'd already be screwed.
Journalists use youtube to get a wider audience, but youtube is not really a mechanism of original reporting. It's not Physical Review Letters, it's Popular Science. If things were otherwise, if getting a true and important fact idea kicked off youtube could actually silence it, we'd already be screwed.
Uh, how about they just don’t remove any video unless it contains pornographic or copyrighted content?
The problem isn’t who YouTube relies on for “the truth.” It’s that they’re removing “untrue” videos in the first place.
The problem isn’t who YouTube relies on for “the truth.” It’s that they’re removing “untrue” videos in the first place.
It's not a public service, it's a business; they delete covid misinfo because they get yelled at if they don't, not out of some misguided notion that they're wikipedia.
They have covid misinfo up while also removing accurate covid info. The problem is what is info vs misinfo has changed multiple times in the last year.
Of course youtube does a poor job of distinguishing misinformation from controversial-but-accurate scientific information. Why wouldn't they? Isn't that the expected result?
All the angst in this thread mystifies me. You might as well go to a strip bar and then act shocked and outraged that your steak is overcooked. Of course it is; you're in the wrong place. The solution is to not to demand that youtube do a better job of curating science information for you, it's to not get your science information from youtube.
All the angst in this thread mystifies me. You might as well go to a strip bar and then act shocked and outraged that your steak is overcooked. Of course it is; you're in the wrong place. The solution is to not to demand that youtube do a better job of curating science information for you, it's to not get your science information from youtube.
There is a range. They could be not banned, but also not algorithmically advertised for via recommendations or trending pages.
Slippery slope arguments aren’t good arguments.
They are good arguments as long as you can show evidence the slope is slippery. The slippery slope fallacy isn't that slippery slopes don't exist, it is that they are asserted without evidence.
Evidence of the slipperiness is also insufficient. Youre really lookingfor an inductive argument where each step implies the next one.
Showing that you can get n+3 via separate evidence for n+1, n+2, and n+3 says nothing about n+7
Showing that you can get n+3 via separate evidence for n+1, n+2, and n+3 says nothing about n+7
do political things not start, get normalized, then serve as a foundation on which new trends can build?
They absolutely do. Everything starts from today, regardless of what yesterday looked like. But the new trend can go in any direction, including a major reversal from whatever the last trend was.
Fair… but but even one cycle of cause/effect is difficult to provide evidence for, let alone a cascade of causes and effects which sum to a slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments would need entire dissertations of evidence to even be plausibly considered, and yet they’re one of the most common methods of naysaying.
While you’re technically correct, I’m functionally correct.
Slippery slope arguments would need entire dissertations of evidence to even be plausibly considered, and yet they’re one of the most common methods of naysaying.
While you’re technically correct, I’m functionally correct.
Youtube has become such a mindless distraction of mine. Like television used to be.
And their censorship really is loathsome. I don't need mega-corporations telling me what is and isn't ok to see and hear.
And their censorship really is loathsome. I don't need mega-corporations telling me what is and isn't ok to see and hear.
I don't think people really understand what happens to a website when it stops censorship/moderation. I suggest visiting 4chan.org, and thinking really hard about the experience. I personally tolerate its nastiness and am a fan of the website, but I don't have any pretension that it's the right sort of moderation policy for a profitable business.
This is not a good comparison. Youtube without censorship wouldn't look any different to you, unless you are interested in the kind of stuff that now gets censored. Remember that youtube had barely any censorship for a long time. Did your recommendations look like 4chan then? The reason 4chan looks the way it does is the bumping algorithm, which promotes controversial posts, not just the lack of censorship. A platform where the frontpage is based on a recommendation algorithm wouldn't look like that, and in fact didn't look like that before it started censoring at this scale.
Youtube has actually always had censorship. I found this from 2006:
> What kind of videos can I upload?
>> We accept any type of video content as long as it does not contain:
>>> Pornography or obscene material
>>> Copyrighted content (unless you own all the necessary rights)
>>> Hate or graphically violent acts
> What kind of videos can I upload?
>> We accept any type of video content as long as it does not contain:
>>> Pornography or obscene material
>>> Copyrighted content (unless you own all the necessary rights)
>>> Hate or graphically violent acts
You should always watch youtube in private mode so you don't get pigeonholed.
YouTube without censorship would turn into PornHub in about as long as it takes to upload a new video.
Right. I think part of the problem is the recommendation algo. Reputable brands do not want their videos to be linked to more questionable content . The problem is, extreme political stuff does not generate much $, so YouTube does not stand to lose much much by purging it.
I understand what that argument is asserting and I'm sure that brands believe it, but as a consumer of YouTube content I just don't think it's true. I have absolutely no association between the YouTube ad that plays and the content of the video. Maybe children and older people used to traditional tv make that association? I just find the whole argument frustrating personally.
A majority of respondents disagree with you. Advertising placed next to offensive content has a negative effect on brand perception.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/698821/influence-offensi...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/698821/influence-offensi...
The companies that buy ads are vain and obsessed with cultivating a brand image, and Google is more than happy to indulge them. It doesn't matter that nobody is actually going to get outraged and stop shopping at (e.g.) TJ Maxx just because a game streamer said the word "die", it only matters that TJ Maxx bought the ad and the managers can be reassured that they've mitigated their risk.
[deleted]
Without moderation youtube is unusable. It would be a defunct site within months.
How would it be unusable? I would still be able to click on links and watch videos.
If you could find the links and videos you want. An unmoderated IOU to the work kid be overrun with porn in seconds because 1. It’s YouTube and to upload porn at what was once a forbidden place is very appeal 2. Where porn can fit , porn will go.
4chan is moderated to death. worse than twitter. probably also full of feds. good luck posting from tor, VPNs, datacenter proxies, open proxies, etc. good luck posting more than a few times, creating new topics, etc. /biz/ will not display your posts if they don't like your isp or IP even if not using a proxy. Not that I have much desire to anyway. Tried it a few times. nOt impressed.
4chan sucks because it is too moderated in everything but the speech.
I would prefer just having rules about what speech is allowed or not and then give users full capability to use the site. Twitter does this pretty well.
4chan sucks because it is too moderated in everything but the speech.
I would prefer just having rules about what speech is allowed or not and then give users full capability to use the site. Twitter does this pretty well.
>4chan sucks because it is too moderated in everything but the speech.
>I would prefer just having rules about what speech is allowed or not
I'm not sure if you're serious. 4chan has an incredibly tiny amount of rules, one of them being no racism outside of /b/. Half of the forums are constantly bombarded by anti-black, anti-asian and anti-jewish racism. These posts do not get removed.
>I would prefer just having rules about what speech is allowed or not
I'm not sure if you're serious. 4chan has an incredibly tiny amount of rules, one of them being no racism outside of /b/. Half of the forums are constantly bombarded by anti-black, anti-asian and anti-jewish racism. These posts do not get removed.
I wonder whether 4chan is the way it is purely as a consequence of there being minimal moderation, or whether the lack of moderation combined with extreme moderation of such content on other platforms is driving it all towards 4chan. Would all platforms wind up the same way if all moderation were removed? Or would it end up being far less obviously concentrated?
4chan isn’t minimally moderated. The rhetoric you see is curated I have been banned from 4chan a number of times for reasons I’m not sure of other than the fact that I don’t share the same, let’s call them political, beliefs as most of the posters there. It’s a white supremacists echo chamber by design, not coincidence.
Indeed. It's a nice branding trick they pulled off by making people think it's free speech, it's not, it's moderated so that the political viewpoints of the moderators are replicated.
Moderation is also why you won’t see comments which are impolite or heretical but may be obviously true. 4chan is moderated, but the goals are just very different from sites that want to avoid the hassle of vigilante activists by enforcing orthodoxy in content. 4chan also goes to some effort to ensure easy identification of its pseudo-anonymous users. It’s also useful fodder to trick people into rage-donating to the right party. Always ask what the business model is for popular web properties. If you can’t figure it out or nobody else can make money in the same domain, then there is probably a side channel being monetized.
4chan moderators absolutely care about enforcing an orthodoxy. If your content is not received positively they won't bother, but the moderators do act against content that isn't politically useful to their goals.
And what would you say that those goals are?
4chan is moderated specifically to encourage the views it harbors. The state it is right now is the result of censorship by white nationalist moderators and coordinated action.
EDIT: This happened to me thrice. I got 3 temp-bans from /pol/ for having politics the mods didnt like.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7aap8/the-man-who-helped-tu...
EDIT: This happened to me thrice. I got 3 temp-bans from /pol/ for having politics the mods didnt like.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7aap8/the-man-who-helped-tu...
This experiment was real in the earlier era of the Internet. And the answer is: When censorship isn't universal, and there are lots of more or less free spaces to speak in, extreme views don't get concentrated and exist everywhere but at a much lower level of intensity. The mainstreamers are less ignorant too because they actually have some exposure to arguments and counterarguments against these views as opposed to just vilifying and banning the others.
Lots of other benefits to this model - names that people don't get trapped in extremist bubbles as much when they're not literally banned from everywhere else.
Lots of other benefits to this model - names that people don't get trapped in extremist bubbles as much when they're not literally banned from everywhere else.
What? Without censorship a single line of thought, the most vocal, comes to dominate while a majority of people who disagree decide to leave for a new place. This happened all the time in the early internet, it happened to 4chan after Obama became president and it happens in subreddits everyday.
[deleted]
4chan has better moderation that YouTube.
I’ve seen 4chan. I honestly mean no offense to you, but I can’t imagine there is anyone who contributes here who could tolerate that.
There are very smart people on 4chan. A well known example:
> Fans were arguing online about the best order to watch the episodes, and the 4chan poster wondered: If viewers wanted to see the series in every possible order, what is the shortest list of episodes they’d have to watch? [...] In less than an hour, an anonymous person offered an answer — not a complete solution, but a lower bound on the number of episodes required. [...] The proof slipped under the radar of the mathematics community for seven years — apparently only one professional mathematician spotted it at the time, and he didn’t check it carefully. [...] Then Robin Houston, a mathematician at the data visualization firm Kiln, and Jay Pantone of Marquette University in Milwaukee independently verified the work of the anonymous 4chan poster [1].
This example tells us a few things. One is that 4chan has users who can come up with new complicated mathematical proofs in a matter of hours. Two - that there are professional mathematicians who read 4chan and can spot those proofs.
Also anecdotally, but on two separate occasions I accidentally discovered that a "smart and well-adjusted" person I know lurks on 4chan. In one such instance the response was similar to "reddit is where dumb people try to act smart, while 4chan is where smart people try to act dumb". I think there is at least some truth in that.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/how-an-anonymous-4chan-post-help...
> Fans were arguing online about the best order to watch the episodes, and the 4chan poster wondered: If viewers wanted to see the series in every possible order, what is the shortest list of episodes they’d have to watch? [...] In less than an hour, an anonymous person offered an answer — not a complete solution, but a lower bound on the number of episodes required. [...] The proof slipped under the radar of the mathematics community for seven years — apparently only one professional mathematician spotted it at the time, and he didn’t check it carefully. [...] Then Robin Houston, a mathematician at the data visualization firm Kiln, and Jay Pantone of Marquette University in Milwaukee independently verified the work of the anonymous 4chan poster [1].
This example tells us a few things. One is that 4chan has users who can come up with new complicated mathematical proofs in a matter of hours. Two - that there are professional mathematicians who read 4chan and can spot those proofs.
Also anecdotally, but on two separate occasions I accidentally discovered that a "smart and well-adjusted" person I know lurks on 4chan. In one such instance the response was similar to "reddit is where dumb people try to act smart, while 4chan is where smart people try to act dumb". I think there is at least some truth in that.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/how-an-anonymous-4chan-post-help...
Why can you not imagine it? As much as I don't care for 4chan I can see why it attracts some people. It's almost entirely uncensored and everyone is completely anonymous. The only driving factor to contribute is for the sake of enjoyment. I would like to be part of such a board, albeit slightly cleaner...
I've been banned from /pol/ three times for political content the moderators disagreed with.
It's far from entirely uncensored.
It's far from entirely uncensored.
I suspect there are many users here that visit 4chan regularly. It's got a lot of hate, but some of the content there is entertaining enough.
There is no reason censorship/moderation has to be done server-side. It can be done at the client level with subscribable mute/block lists.
Of course, this requires big tech to relinquish their power to shape worldwide discourse, which is unlikely to happen voluntarily.
Of course, this requires big tech to relinquish their power to shape worldwide discourse, which is unlikely to happen voluntarily.
4chan and other imageboards already allow client-side moderation.
it's an interesting approach, since you can personalize the moderation, that I see used in some communities but is not perfect. The implementation that I see requires good tagging (where you mark what tag are you not interested in) or has poor discoverability and high manageability cost (where you have to find the correct blocklist, and this blocklist has to be constantly updated).
More importantly, it doesn't solve the other problem: I don't want to use a website that supports a certain ideology or promotes dangerous content. So the website operator needs to have some sort of serverside moderation otherwise part of the community will not comfortable using it.
Some imageboards use both system, a client-side taglist that hide undesirable comment, and some "server-side" rules about what is generally allowed. I don't think client-side only moderation is sufficent
More importantly, it doesn't solve the other problem: I don't want to use a website that supports a certain ideology or promotes dangerous content. So the website operator needs to have some sort of serverside moderation otherwise part of the community will not comfortable using it.
Some imageboards use both system, a client-side taglist that hide undesirable comment, and some "server-side" rules about what is generally allowed. I don't think client-side only moderation is sufficent
I like the idea in theory, but I fail to see how subscribable lists don’t cause a larger echo chamber than what we have now.
Instead of Reddit’s “news” subs banning the pulse night club shooting, you have “popular tastemakers” driving the list doing the same.
Except probably with less transparency or accountability. When /r/news bans a topic, I know roughly which couple of clowns did it, when I never see something because my list-makers pre-decided I shouldn’t, we’ll, who ever are those people?
Instead of Reddit’s “news” subs banning the pulse night club shooting, you have “popular tastemakers” driving the list doing the same.
Except probably with less transparency or accountability. When /r/news bans a topic, I know roughly which couple of clowns did it, when I never see something because my list-makers pre-decided I shouldn’t, we’ll, who ever are those people?
It only seems like a good idea until somebody abuses it to do despicable things. You don’t even need to go that far imagining such things when the story about Near/kiwifarms happened just yesterday. If shit like that happened with something I made, I’d just fucking take down the site and never make open platforms again.
There are very real business reasons they don't do that though. One, is that algorithms that decide what you as a viewer want to look at are very successful at keeping you on their platform. Two, once any company chooses to filter content to make it more palatable to users, they start taking on the legal and PR risks for it.
Agree, but, the power to choose what you want to watch, the breadth of ideas allowed, and the accessibility for almost any content creator is a vast improvement over TV, IMHO.
Part of it is now data collection is significantly more accurate than it was with just cable. Now that some people can see how radical their viewership may be, it could scare advertisers knowing they're associated with say, Oregon seperatists or Black Panthers.
I mean it's not different than cable back in the day. We're just alive to see the polices get put into place.
Exactly. I'm not sure how many more 'accidents' or 'mistakes' does it take to realise that they are the problem and it's time to seek alternative platforms instead of YouTube to combat this.
It has gotten to the point where it is affecting everyone, no matter the content.
They just happen to be one of the most aggressive ones and the best part is they frequently change 'The Algorithm' which is a nickname for YouTube's 'recommendation's engine' to enforce this. Thus, the smaller creators are meant to lose against the established channels (Which are the TV, cable networks)
It has gotten to the point where it is affecting everyone, no matter the content.
They just happen to be one of the most aggressive ones and the best part is they frequently change 'The Algorithm' which is a nickname for YouTube's 'recommendation's engine' to enforce this. Thus, the smaller creators are meant to lose against the established channels (Which are the TV, cable networks)
Their attempt at defeating adblockers on mobile successfully removed that distraction for me at least on that medium. I think 15 years of browsing the web with adblockers and not watching TV made me ad-intolerant, and I just browse away on the first commercial.
What mega-corporatio is telling you what's OK to see and hear?
There are billions of videos hosted outside of YouTube. YouTube is not trying to get them taken down.
Why don't you complain when your favorite news channel fails to include a Communist guest pundit? Because it's their medium and they have editorial control.
There are billions of videos hosted outside of YouTube. YouTube is not trying to get them taken down.
Why don't you complain when your favorite news channel fails to include a Communist guest pundit? Because it's their medium and they have editorial control.
I am not a communist but I think we could use more Communist guest pundits.
Fine. But no private org should be forced to broadcast ideologies they find morally repugnant unless they're using a finite public resource (like the radio spectrum that network news channels use).
Yeah definitely.
I do believe in "the marketplace of ideas", even for ideas I don't hold (how else is one to rethink things?) But without agreed upon facts and, dare I say it, truths, such a marketplace can't really operate. We unfortunately are living in such times.
I do believe in "the marketplace of ideas", even for ideas I don't hold (how else is one to rethink things?) But without agreed upon facts and, dare I say it, truths, such a marketplace can't really operate. We unfortunately are living in such times.
They need to become a dumb pipe...
This is what YT used to be, some place to host video files and where people could just add comments.
But then, they weren’t making money, and now, they are. Google is an advertising company, and YouTube will be moderated in whatever way they think is going to sell the most advertising.
Yes it's essentially CorpTube now for any kind of news topics, they promote all the content providers who already have tremendous societal reach over everyone else by default.
[deleted]
Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. No way around it, they have a responsibility to moderate and monitor.
[deleted]
> I am not that familiar with embedded software, but does that value really difficult to achieve?
What is the percentage?
What is the percentage?
Um, did you post this in the right place? It doesn't seem related to the discussion here...
> Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics.
Two things:
A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control.
B. Lack of access to good counterarguments/innoculation to the radical ideas is a consequence of those ideas being supressed. If people don't even know what a radicalized person believes how can they help dig them out of the hole they are in? It's one of the reasons why "scientific racism" continues to grow.
Two things:
A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control.
B. Lack of access to good counterarguments/innoculation to the radical ideas is a consequence of those ideas being supressed. If people don't even know what a radicalized person believes how can they help dig them out of the hole they are in? It's one of the reasons why "scientific racism" continues to grow.
Who is the central arbiter of truth here? Twitter and facebook have made similar policies.
Eventually the government. So many people (including in this thread) keep advocating that the decider on what to censor should be the government.
I'll also point out that the deciders in Twitter, Facebook, etc are not the most ideologically diverse bunch, so one could argue that the so-called blue tribe is being the central arbiter.
I'll also point out that the deciders in Twitter, Facebook, etc are not the most ideologically diverse bunch, so one could argue that the so-called blue tribe is being the central arbiter.
> A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control.
"The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."
"The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."
I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these:
"And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m
pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of
violence on themselves.”—That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be
given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might
contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they
think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard any
thing else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of
consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely, moral
majority"
On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics.
I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so.
It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so.
It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
That works the other way too, no? If you're trying to build the next regime, censorship is one of your tactics.
Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance comes to mind, but my issue with that is who gets to decide what is intolerant? I don't like the idea of some unelected board or career politician deciding what is suitable for me to read or view.
Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance comes to mind, but my issue with that is who gets to decide what is intolerant? I don't like the idea of some unelected board or career politician deciding what is suitable for me to read or view.
But you can decide it based upon certain principles.
I strongly believe that one of those principles should be that hate speech is intolerable and unacceptable. And yes, there are grey areas in determining what is hate speech (this isn't a silver bullet that removes all need for human judgement and discussion), but there are also very large areas that are not grey in any way, shape, or form.
I strongly believe that one of those principles should be that hate speech is intolerable and unacceptable. And yes, there are grey areas in determining what is hate speech (this isn't a silver bullet that removes all need for human judgement and discussion), but there are also very large areas that are not grey in any way, shape, or form.
For sure, I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says:
Perhaps we'll be able to set up elaborate simulations one day to see how things play out.
... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know
what they think they already know.
Perhaps we'll be able to set up elaborate simulations one day to see how things play out.
So Hitchens doesn't, even for a moment, consider that there might be harm from that? It just doesn't enter his mind as a thought; he doesn't even dismiss it. For a person who prides himself on considering all the options, "What's the worst that can happen?" isn't an option he considers.
If Hitchens had said, "I've weighed the two potential worst cases against each other, and I believe that the harms of protecting Holocaust denial are something that we can all live with", then I'd consider it a valid opinion. As it is, this quote strikes me as shallow and poorly thought out.
He's reduced a complex balance to a simplistic decision by excluding any input from the people at the most risk of harm. If he were Jewish, I doubt he'd have written that paragraph. The strongest advocates of unrestricted speech always seem to be those who have the least at risk, and the risk to others seems completely invisible despite their supposed attachment to hearing from everybody. He's taken refuge in exactly the opposite "false security of consensus".
If Hitchens had said, "I've weighed the two potential worst cases against each other, and I believe that the harms of protecting Holocaust denial are something that we can all live with", then I'd consider it a valid opinion. As it is, this quote strikes me as shallow and poorly thought out.
He's reduced a complex balance to a simplistic decision by excluding any input from the people at the most risk of harm. If he were Jewish, I doubt he'd have written that paragraph. The strongest advocates of unrestricted speech always seem to be those who have the least at risk, and the risk to others seems completely invisible despite their supposed attachment to hearing from everybody. He's taken refuge in exactly the opposite "false security of consensus".
Hitchens has fallen into the category of "verysmart" persons, who are cited by "verysmart" persons when they want to sound "verysmart".
The argument comes from a place of privilege, is egregiously reductionist, and completely ignores simple precepts like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The argument comes from a place of privilege, is egregiously reductionist, and completely ignores simple precepts like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Ironically, you come off as one of those "verysmart" persons you mock since Hitchens addresses the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy in the same video I linked. At the beginning I might add.
That's my point about ignoring it. He immediately moves to justifying the yelling part, while ignoring the underlying logic of harm-causing.
I'm fairly certain he has considered it. I don't think it's possible to have a debate on free speech where that's not addressed. I touched on it in one of my other replies below:
"I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says:
"I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says:
... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know
what they think they already know.
I was pointing out that he doesn't seem to have considered it within the text you mentioned. Perhaps it appears elsewhere, though it doesn't appear to be tending that direction.
The problem, as I see it, isn't even about incitement to violence. There's plenty of Holocaust denial that isn't an incitement to violence, unless by stretching that term far past its breaking point. It's not even really hate speech, in a strict reading of that term -- it only becomes defined as "hate speech" because we know that it originates from people who have had more explicit hate speech restricted.
But that doesn't mean it's without harm. These "questions" are really assertions that rather than being killed en masse, Jews have in fact inflicted great deception on the world. That creates mistrust -- sometimes violent, but more often merely prejudicial. Those prejudices can take effect in myriad ways, impossible to trace to the questioner, but nonetheless real.
Would a smart person like Hitchens be fooled by this? Surely not. But then again, he doesn't even seem to consider that it's a possibility. As you say, he seems to think that violence is the only way harm could be inflicted, and nothing else seems to be involved. That's a blind spot.
That blind spot is important here, because his entire argument is based on "Let people make their arguments and surely we'll come to the right conclusion". I don't believe he himself is capable of coming to the right conclusion because he's missing something right in front of him -- something somebody must surely have pointed out at some point, but which he doesn't even consider to be a problem worth mentioning.
The problem, as I see it, isn't even about incitement to violence. There's plenty of Holocaust denial that isn't an incitement to violence, unless by stretching that term far past its breaking point. It's not even really hate speech, in a strict reading of that term -- it only becomes defined as "hate speech" because we know that it originates from people who have had more explicit hate speech restricted.
But that doesn't mean it's without harm. These "questions" are really assertions that rather than being killed en masse, Jews have in fact inflicted great deception on the world. That creates mistrust -- sometimes violent, but more often merely prejudicial. Those prejudices can take effect in myriad ways, impossible to trace to the questioner, but nonetheless real.
Would a smart person like Hitchens be fooled by this? Surely not. But then again, he doesn't even seem to consider that it's a possibility. As you say, he seems to think that violence is the only way harm could be inflicted, and nothing else seems to be involved. That's a blind spot.
That blind spot is important here, because his entire argument is based on "Let people make their arguments and surely we'll come to the right conclusion". I don't believe he himself is capable of coming to the right conclusion because he's missing something right in front of him -- something somebody must surely have pointed out at some point, but which he doesn't even consider to be a problem worth mentioning.
That's the most gish gallop I've ever seen crammed into a single sentence... I've given up writing rebutals to the 8 different tangents, insinuations, conflation, etc. and will instead focus on a single point:
Every single ideology will say their opponents are responsible for countless lives lost. (And if they lump everyone who disagrees with them together can probably make such a case) Just for an example, capitalism vs communism. I'd rather not be stuck in a China like situation where arguing against government beliefs like "this new virus in Wuhan is nothing to worry about citizen" gets censored or we get eternally stuck in a suboptimal state because arguing for anything different is considered dangerous.
Every single ideology will say their opponents are responsible for countless lives lost. (And if they lump everyone who disagrees with them together can probably make such a case) Just for an example, capitalism vs communism. I'd rather not be stuck in a China like situation where arguing against government beliefs like "this new virus in Wuhan is nothing to worry about citizen" gets censored or we get eternally stuck in a suboptimal state because arguing for anything different is considered dangerous.
The solution is simple either remove all moderation including AI/ML based from YouTube. And let people deal with it.
Or if you will moderate content, then be held liable for your mistakes. Both censorship or recommending false information should make YouTube liable for damages.
Or if you will moderate content, then be held liable for your mistakes. Both censorship or recommending false information should make YouTube liable for damages.
>No way around it, they have a responsibility to moderate and monitor.
i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator.
these guidelines are what dictate the citizens perceived reality in many cases; is it sane&safe to compel corporations with biased motivations to be the ones who decide on that perceived reality?
Personally I disagree with corporations controlling thought and dissent; I believe it to be outside of their scope, and I think that their acting as moral judge is both biased and dangerous to society-at-large -- this isn't to say I disagree with the control, I disagree with who is at the reins and what their (probably temporary) priorities may be at the time of control.
i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator.
these guidelines are what dictate the citizens perceived reality in many cases; is it sane&safe to compel corporations with biased motivations to be the ones who decide on that perceived reality?
Personally I disagree with corporations controlling thought and dissent; I believe it to be outside of their scope, and I think that their acting as moral judge is both biased and dangerous to society-at-large -- this isn't to say I disagree with the control, I disagree with who is at the reins and what their (probably temporary) priorities may be at the time of control.
If youtube was "just a dumb pipe," it would make sense for them to not be responsible for the content. But they don't just host videos; they also recommend them.
> i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator.
I share your discomfort, but I'm even more uncomfortable with government doing it. At least Youtube has a few alternatives. My national government? Not so much. (I mean, yeah, but I have to leave the country to get them...)
I share your discomfort, but I'm even more uncomfortable with government doing it. At least Youtube has a few alternatives. My national government? Not so much. (I mean, yeah, but I have to leave the country to get them...)
Isn't the opposite true? We see this in cults. One person or group of people only allow the approved of message. In time sexual and other radicalized ideas get introduced and because you must trust the leader...
Free thought is the gateway to a healthy educated population.
Free thought is the gateway to a healthy educated population.
Should they allow porn? What kinds?
Anything that is legal should be allowed (what's wrong with porn?)... They already track you a lot and know your age even if you don't tell them so it would not be a problem to prevent kids from seeing it (nothing is foolproof but it is not a reason to restrict free speech)
I'm okay with YouTube allowing porn, so long as it's legal. Why not? I mean, I understand why they don't want that as a business, but I feel it would benefit most consumers. You could just choose not to use it. I think there are far worse things (from an outrage perspective, obviously subjective) than porn on YouTube already.
The domestic porn industry on the web is facing a lot growing pains right now. PornHub, arguably the poster child for "doing it right," was forced to remove all unverified user-uploaded videos last year[0].
Porn on YouTube cannot exist, legally, in the same way your ideal scenario implies.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115
Porn on YouTube cannot exist, legally, in the same way your ideal scenario implies.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115
Pornhub didn't do it right.
They choose being able to process Mastercards over any other consideration.
A ban on underage rape videos followed by hiring mods to enforce this would have been doing it right.
I'm surprised they made that choice it must have been the most profitable path. I guess the producers left are the big businesses who create premium streams who pornhub can upsell to.
Did they kill their brand?
A ban on underage rape videos followed by hiring mods to enforce this would have been doing it right.
I'm surprised they made that choice it must have been the most profitable path. I guess the producers left are the big businesses who create premium streams who pornhub can upsell to.
Did they kill their brand?
I don’t see a way of pornhub realistically fixing its problem with human moderators. They would have to comb through thousands of already existing content AND combat against incoming content. And this isn’t something they can take time to do (time I don’t even believe is physically possible with human mods). It’s either they immediate and effectively remove all child porn off their site or lose even more Potnetial revenue AND run into legal trouble. The only absolute way to ensure that they have no child porn is to nuke every unverified video on the site.
I have no idea if pornhub as a site would be as successful without it’s unverified model in the beginning.
I have no idea if pornhub as a site would be as successful without it’s unverified model in the beginning.
Shall we also start devoting resources towards investigating all of the sneakernet crimes that are occurring?
[deleted]
There are already plenty of dumb pipes if you don't like YouTube. Torrent sites are actually exactly what you're looking for in that case.
YouTube is a monopoly and needs to be regulated. Period. End of story. They dominate online video and too many people are dependent on them and because of their monopoly position, they can do whatever they want without accountability.
If they had competition, they would not be able to get away with having no customer support. The fact their customer support (which any other company like theirs would have) is practically non-existent is proof that they are using their monopoly position to the detriment of their customers who have no choice but to use them. It’s the same as them raising their prices. Except what they do instead is instead of explicitly raising prices, they cut services so that they are themselves more and more profitable. This is a direct result of their monopoly.
YouTube and other Google properties needs to be regulated by the government. They need to reinstate competent customer support and have a viable appeal system that isn’t a black hole. They need to be explicit with what constitutes a strike or a violation, and they need to be more effective in combatting fraudulent notices of copyright violation.
If they had competition, they would not be able to get away with having no customer support. The fact their customer support (which any other company like theirs would have) is practically non-existent is proof that they are using their monopoly position to the detriment of their customers who have no choice but to use them. It’s the same as them raising their prices. Except what they do instead is instead of explicitly raising prices, they cut services so that they are themselves more and more profitable. This is a direct result of their monopoly.
YouTube and other Google properties needs to be regulated by the government. They need to reinstate competent customer support and have a viable appeal system that isn’t a black hole. They need to be explicit with what constitutes a strike or a violation, and they need to be more effective in combatting fraudulent notices of copyright violation.
My question odd how does this work? As far as I can there’s no anti-comp or nefarious means of stopping a competitor from rising. It’s just hard as hell for to get the capital for even storing the data and getting a user base and profiting from them. YouTube works because it can be “free” with ads, and have paid options we don’t have to use. A complete paid version of a YouTube competitor is never going to work because the public will never pay for an inferior product they regularly use for free with no hassle
They got two strikes, before the third (and IMO a very suspicious one, as it was for a years old video) got their channel removed. Does it mean that all strikes are now void, or just the last one?
Sorry if I'm asking the obvious, but I'm not a content creator on YT.
Sorry if I'm asking the obvious, but I'm not a content creator on YT.
Google/YouTube is so predictable.
Make an uproar on social media for their unjustifiable action and they would reverse it.
Make an uproar on social media for their unjustifiable action and they would reverse it.
RWW should upload to BitChute and Odysee. Why not?
Because the issue is not putting content online. It's the discoverability and organise marketing only YouTube can provide in the foreseeable future.
Because no one wants their content appearing alongside white supremacist propaganda?
This is a serious problem imo. Not sure how to fix it if you say you are less censored than YouTube (or any widely known tech company) “libertarians” and right wingers flock there and before long it becomes 4chan meets (YouTube, Twitter, Reddit) thus no one wants to visit and it becomes a loop/downward spiral.
Yes.
We should be promoting these alternatives rather than complaining to tech giants that will never change or keep repeating the same 'mistakes' or 'accidents' all over again.
We should be promoting these alternatives rather than complaining to tech giants that will never change or keep repeating the same 'mistakes' or 'accidents' all over again.
I had never heard of them so I just went and took a look at the front page of BitChute, and holy shit, that's gonna be a no from me.
I just took a look and yeah I'm going to take the hardest possible pass on that website. Yikes.
I do not care. It could be from BitChute, Odysee, Streamable, PeerTube, whatever. Some creators chose other alternatives over BitChute or another platform over that same reaction and still ignored YouTube.
If they complain to YouTube, that they got their channel de-platformed again, for no reason other than 'The guidelines', I'm just going to laugh anyway.
Just recently, another user on HN got a suspension notice on their YouTube account without warning. They would be wise not to go with YouTube again and find another alternative [0]
And No, Vimeo is not even an option for some creators. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27669715
[1] https://twitter.com/thedak/status/1395367583503851524
If they complain to YouTube, that they got their channel de-platformed again, for no reason other than 'The guidelines', I'm just going to laugh anyway.
Just recently, another user on HN got a suspension notice on their YouTube account without warning. They would be wise not to go with YouTube again and find another alternative [0]
And No, Vimeo is not even an option for some creators. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27669715
[1] https://twitter.com/thedak/status/1395367583503851524
It's a self perpetuating problem, though. The first people to migrate to new platforms are the first ones who got dejected from YouTube, and then the inner circle at Wikipedia label the platforms as "far right" in order to scare off the rest of society.
In the case of BitChute, I think it'd merely be funny if RWW and possibly some other left-leaning channels decided to post there just to stick it to Google. Otherwise it's both a dumpster fire in terms of content and what they offer technologically speaking. They've made tons of promises over the years and never delivered. (it used to use WebTorrent, and they promised streaming years ago and that never happened either)
In the case of BitChute, I think it'd merely be funny if RWW and possibly some other left-leaning channels decided to post there just to stick it to Google. Otherwise it's both a dumpster fire in terms of content and what they offer technologically speaking. They've made tons of promises over the years and never delivered. (it used to use WebTorrent, and they promised streaming years ago and that never happened either)
RWW themselves lead the charge when it comes to smearing Alt-Tech.
It would be extremely hypocritical of them.
It would be extremely hypocritical of them.
I think one of the worse problems with YouTube is the fact that they actively avoid hiring and using human beings to curate the content on the site. I've seen all kinds of stuff get approved that I think most folks would've at least sent to another mod to review before approval and I've seen stuff just categorically demonetized and removed that wasn't even a big deal (Example: someone who's doing a Let's Play of Fallout 3 and they stumble upon a radio playing the licensed soundtrack.). The only reason why folks tolerate this stuff because it's the only viable platform to post content on if you want to make money off of advertising dollars. Otherwise, good luck. :)
I'm ambiguous about the need to create laws to regulate services like youtube. In my view, it is a private service and they have their right to instate their own rules.
What we really need, I think, are options. Peertube seems like a good one.
What we really need, I think, are options. Peertube seems like a good one.
> it is a private service
Should there be a certain size threshold after which they can't claim "private" anymore? It has a huge effect on society.
> What we really need, I think, are options
Yes, but they don't want to allow those options to exist. It's not in their interest.
All this said, if YT would vanish from the internet I'd be devastated. So many technical talks that are not mirrored anywhere else, great courses, hobby stuff, documentaries, not to mention the breadth of music. Together with Wikipedia and arXiv I think it's one of the fundamental resources of the internet. And the content is, like Google search, generated by the users, it's our work.
Does that still qualify as "private" when it gets to hoard so much of our creations? Is it their right to assert their massive size and power against content creators who are many and small, and can't coordinate to mount a meaningful opposition?
Should there be a certain size threshold after which they can't claim "private" anymore? It has a huge effect on society.
> What we really need, I think, are options
Yes, but they don't want to allow those options to exist. It's not in their interest.
All this said, if YT would vanish from the internet I'd be devastated. So many technical talks that are not mirrored anywhere else, great courses, hobby stuff, documentaries, not to mention the breadth of music. Together with Wikipedia and arXiv I think it's one of the fundamental resources of the internet. And the content is, like Google search, generated by the users, it's our work.
Does that still qualify as "private" when it gets to hoard so much of our creations? Is it their right to assert their massive size and power against content creators who are many and small, and can't coordinate to mount a meaningful opposition?
I'm interested to know what would be the trigger point for you here that might demand regulation. are you fully libertarian and willing to endure serious negative societal effects to preserve this one type of freedom? If you could see that the lack of moderation on youtube was causing societal collapse because everyone believed things that were not true(lets say here for the sake of argument that this fact is not disputable in this example) would you then be in favour of some kind of regulation?
If youtube knowingly helps to spread disinformation, specially while making money with it, they should be held accountable for the harm they do to society. For the content they themselves choose to restrict... this seems more complicated.
The old use-mention distinction rears its ugly head:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...
Twitter has this problem too. I just accidentally got my account limited for 12h for mentionimg that somone else was making death threats. Apparently their algorithm isn't the best at telling the difference.
Does the YouTube appeal process actually do anything? It sounds like it never checks for mistakes like this.
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/140949874315881267...
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/140949874315881267...
I've always imagined the appeal process to be "we ran it through the computer again and it said the same thing".
Computer says no.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no
How is this newsworthy? This channel has 50k subscribers. This is nothing in YouTube subscriber numbers.
From the accounts of what RWW is, I think I can see how this happened. Are they functionally any different from an aggregator? If YouTube's content guidelines are taking on the self-imposed duty of restricting their amplification of calls to right-wing violence, genocide, etc, to what extent does RWW communicate that it is critical of the views of the extremists it apparently seeks to amplify?
[deleted]
Trias11(2)
dukeofdoom(4)
beervirus(1)
Context [0]
Of course... another 'Accident' as all ways with these tech companies with dangerous levels of power.
I can't believe that they can just sit there and 'trust' these tech giants because they 'think' that they are on their side.
They can do it to anyone for any reason and they were already rejecting their appeals (Because of the guidelines). Probably will happen again to someone else previously banned. Like I said before, they are not you friends; accident or not. On the side of profit.
To Downvoters: What alternatives do you suggest to move away from platforms like YouTube and to avoid these so called 'accidents' from happening?
How on earth do you continue to trust these platforms by tech giants to not flag your account because of another 'accident'? This is not the first time this has happened and it will only get worse unless you find an alternative.
Don't take my word for it, this user [1] RIGHT NOW on HN has their YouTube channel suspended, for NO REASON, other than "The guidelines". [1] It will only get worse and worse for everyone.
[0] https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/140949874315881267...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27669715
Of course... another 'Accident' as all ways with these tech companies with dangerous levels of power.
I can't believe that they can just sit there and 'trust' these tech giants because they 'think' that they are on their side.
They can do it to anyone for any reason and they were already rejecting their appeals (Because of the guidelines). Probably will happen again to someone else previously banned. Like I said before, they are not you friends; accident or not. On the side of profit.
To Downvoters: What alternatives do you suggest to move away from platforms like YouTube and to avoid these so called 'accidents' from happening?
How on earth do you continue to trust these platforms by tech giants to not flag your account because of another 'accident'? This is not the first time this has happened and it will only get worse unless you find an alternative.
Don't take my word for it, this user [1] RIGHT NOW on HN has their YouTube channel suspended, for NO REASON, other than "The guidelines". [1] It will only get worse and worse for everyone.
[0] https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/140949874315881267...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27669715
I'd rather use a moderated platform with a few moderation mistakes than a completely unmoderated "anything goes" cesspool like Voat, 8Chan or Parler.
YouTube doesn't have a "few" mistakes. They consistently ban people incorrectly and will often times not reverse it as quickly or have temporary bans that last weeks.
Still better than unmoderated.
I liked slg's post, in the earlier thread on RWW being banned:
> Has anyone else noticed that most complaints like this about Youtube's moderation fail Hanlon's razor? I'm just not sure I believe these type of conspiracies that attribute specific and nefarious reasons for these moderation decisions.
> It is natural to try to see patterns in the moderation, but I think the largest pattern is that there is little pattern. They instead have an job that is impossible to do at the scale they do it at the budget they do it at.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666611
> Has anyone else noticed that most complaints like this about Youtube's moderation fail Hanlon's razor? I'm just not sure I believe these type of conspiracies that attribute specific and nefarious reasons for these moderation decisions.
> It is natural to try to see patterns in the moderation, but I think the largest pattern is that there is little pattern. They instead have an job that is impossible to do at the scale they do it at the budget they do it at.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666611
Hanlon's razor exists as plausible deniability for one party's bad faith actors by marks who want to ignore the larger pattern of bad faith actions.
the enormous difficulty of the task seems dead obvious apparent to me. this situation got corrected real fast. it's hard as heck for me to imagine large secret conspiracies or top down machinations to manipulate this stuff. it's not bottom up. if it were top down I feel like the thousands & thousands oflwer level employees would taddle on it real fast. almost all obviously shit decisions get corrected quickly.
buying into the sourest, meanest, most anti-corporate party line is ultra popular. but I think Hanlon's describes things well. there is enormous difficulty applying tasteful moderation at scale.
buying into the sourest, meanest, most anti-corporate party line is ultra popular. but I think Hanlon's describes things well. there is enormous difficulty applying tasteful moderation at scale.
When car exceeds a certain speed, it becomes impossible to control it reliably. That's why we have speed limits.
Perhaps, we should have size limits for such platforms as well?
Perhaps, we should have size limits for such platforms as well?
If the "incompetence" didn't so ppredictably fall in certain political directions, we might invoke Hanlon's Razor, but it overwhelmingly seems to favor what we could broadly call "left of center".
YouTube permanently bans Right Wing Watch - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27665188 - June 2021 (172 comments)