8 ms·

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't t

by DavidSJ 10y ago

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

throwaway2048 10y ago
quite right, its not a first amendment issue, but it is certainly censorship.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gwright 10y ago
Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.
- braveo 10y ago
  Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
  - gwright 10y ago
    Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
    - braveo 10y ago
      If there's one thing I definitely don't care about, it's the exact definition of censorship. What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made. So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it. But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s
- ouid 10y ago
  How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored. It's stupid to restrict your definitions by intent. Treat the restriction of information as the problem itself, rather than the fact that it was done with any specific motive.
  - gwright 10y ago
    It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.
    - ouid 10y ago
      if my business is forfeit, because it operates on the platform that the government allows to be a monopoly which youtube absolutely is then it serves the same function as a fine, frankly it doesn't matter what my leverage is, as long as it works. More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > if my business is forfeit Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business. > monopoly which youtube absolutely is That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0] [0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/ http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. It's the original sense. > Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.) > When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion. > I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. That battle was lost centuries ago. What the censor librorum does in granting, or denying, the nihil obstat has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government. > Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form. It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.
  - gwright 10y ago
    I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues. In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  > editorial control exercised by private entities. I would agree with you, but Youtube isn't a place where 'editorial' happens. Youtube isn't a TV channel or a blog with a set of editors. It's a free-for-all place for hosting videos. While I have no problem with Youtube removing content they don't like (it's their website, they're free to do what they like), it does go further than exercising 'editorial control'
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Choosing what you publish on your platform based on your own content preferences is exactly editorial control.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- Ronsenshi 10y ago
  I'm working in media. We call editorial control "self-censorship".
- cel1ne 10y ago
  > Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car? No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in education of their citizens.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    That's a very bad analogy, you should stop. The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place. Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".
    - nafey 10y ago
      Don't misconstrue what is being said. Imagine the sign saying "Please paint my car but we reserve the rights to remove anything we want". That's essentially what the YouTube user license says.
      - mattmanser 10y ago
        Graffiti is done without permission. What exactly am I misconstruing? That's exactly why the analogy is so bad.
        cel1ne 10y ago
        Many user-licenses forbid things like spreading "hateful" (I actually don't like that word) content. Some users post such content, thereby doing something which they had no permission for. When that content is removed, in compliance with the agreement, they call that censorship. So my analogy still works. The difference is that on YouTube some "graffiti" are permitted while others aren't whereas on my car, none are permitted.
  - Ralfp 10y ago
- mtgx 10y ago
  So what do you call it when the governments ask companies like Google and Facebook to "volunteer" (or else) to do censorship - and the companies do exactly that?
- chmackenzie 10y ago
  > Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. YouTube is acting as a media company while pretending to be a platform. They're engaging in censorship since they're removing things on political grounds. Now, if the rules were always "no vegan videos, no violence, only kittens," it would be a different story.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... Read it. I promise it is worth your time.
snoman 10y ago
It sounds like you're making the implication that, in order to not be classified as censoring, YouTube is required to host anyone's content, regardless of how it is perceived by their stakeholders. That seems fishy. Revoking a service is not the same as censoring, I would argue.
- Natsu 10y ago
  There's some difference between removing individuals for specific behavior and in going after identifiable groups of people. As well as whether a service is some sort of public accommodation or not. So it's one thing to ban someone from some public accommodation for specific behavior and another thing entirely if you don't serve that kind of people or if you play games with the rules and enact a grandfather clause that somehow only applies to 'that' sort, but avoids spelling it out.
  - gwright 10y ago
    The phrase 'public accommodation' has some very particular legal meanings that have nothing to do with content hosting. Perhaps you are explicitly arguing that the legal framework of public accommodations should be extended to content hosting but you need to make that argument explicitly with full understanding of that framework and not by casually dropping that legal term into the discussion. Going after 'identifiable groups of people' is phrased to sound terrible but doesn't seem to be what is happening. The policy changes are about content not content creators. Not arguing for or against the policies just pointing out that they aren't targeting content creators in a illegal discriminatory manner. You may have a point about the rules changing but that is basic contract law. Nothing new there and in any case there needs to be a mechanism by which the hosting terms can evolve, they aren't immutable.
rodgerd 10y ago
I look forward to your principled commitment to opening your home to everyone with a bullhorn and an opinion to share with you.
- ouid 10y ago
  if that's your experience with youtube, I suggest doing something different.
cortesoft 10y ago
No, but they aren't doing anything to suppress the video, they are just refusing to host it. If you expand the definition of censorship to anyone who refuses to host a specific piece of content, then it basically loses all meaning. The New York Times is censoring me by not publishing my article. This science journal is censoring me by not publishing my paper.
- abraae 10y ago
  Except that Youtube's position is that they will host anything, of any quality, unless it crosses one of their red lines. Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    So the NYT just has higher editorial standards, but the practice is the same.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    >Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality You made me spit coffee.
- nemothekid 10y ago
  YouTube isn't refusing to host the videos - advertisers just aren't paying as much for that sort of content.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Actually, advertisers can't pay for adverts on anything vaguely political or controversial on YouTube full stop. Google won't let them, because the headlines in the press about <big brand> funding <terrifying-sounding characterisation of some obscure video> have cost them probably somewhere in the ballpark of a billion dollars as advertisers get scared and pull ads from YouTube as a whole. It's probably only a matter of time before the press figure out how to frame this in a way that forces them to pull the videos altogether.
naaaaak 10y ago
> for being politically too extreme YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. Google's News tab now promotes tmz, the onion, and buzzfeed as "news" over sites that actually break news and typically go against the "narrative". http://i.magaimg.net/img/co6.jpg http://i.magaimg.net/img/co6.jpg There's a reason I'm dropping all Google products and services from my life.
- ac29 10y ago
  >YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. I think you mean right of Fox News? Infowars is notoriously full of bullshit, and conservativetreehouse blocks google entirely [0]. [0]http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt
  - naaaaak 10y ago
    No, Youtube is demonetizing anyone who disagrees with the narrative. Do you think pewdiepie is right of Fox News? Do you think buzzfeed, printers of the 4chan fanfic "piss dossier" are not notoriously full of bullshit? Have tmz or mtv ever broken any story besides celebrity gossip? Every single "news" organization that printed fake polls for months claiming Hillary would win by huge margins is still considered "News" by Google and not demonetized by Youtube. You claim Infowars is full of shit, but they were spot on with the election coverage and calling the polls being fake and oversampled. Why is Google's censoring of differing views tolerated?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - thomask0 10y ago
      How were the polls fake when they were basically right? The state-polls for Wisconsin / Michigan in the end were wrong, but those states in the end were probably not polled enough to capture the volatility of unprecedented events like the Comey letter. And FYI national polls predicted a 1-4% popular vote win, those where pretty much on the money.
onion2k 10y ago
Censorship is the suppression of content in order to exercise political power and control. Refusing to show something because it means you'll make less profit is not censorship; refusing to show it because you have an ideological belief that the viewer shouldn't see it is. Consequently I guess it'd be next to impossible to demonstrate a business is actually censoring content rather than removing it for the benefit of the business. The end result is the same regardless of what you call it though. That's what needs to be addressed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jlebrech 10y ago
but if there was a right leaning "youtube" and they removed overt-lgbt, antifa, anti-trump videos then it's ok right? or is it wrong because they align with the current us-government?
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  I think the point is in the messaging. YouTube isn't "YouTube for the left wing", it doesn't advertise itself as being hostile to certain opinions. You could argue that the terms of service denote that "offensive" content is not allowed, but something being offensive is a subjective opinion. And then there's the issue of selective enforcement of things that _are_ banned. In other words, if a site was called "ConservativeTube" or "LiberalTube" I personally wouldn't consider it censorship for them to remove views from the opposite political wing because the service is openly politically biased.
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    but if it's offensive to someone on the biblebelt, it's offensive right?
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      you could argue the same for san francisco liberals.
      - Neliquat 10y ago
        Odd how the 2 groups have become so similar as of late.
        Baeocystin 10y ago
        Authoritarians all have the same stink, regardless of origin. When I was a child, I lived in a Communist country. It was a grim deal for anyone who did not toe the party line, and I do not like catching whiff of the same elements now in the US.
makomk 10y ago
The funny thing is that whenever someone leans on advertisers to pull ads from the mainstream press, they've never had any problem seeing this as an attack on freedom of speech, the media and journalism itself. Doing the same to upstart competitors like YouTube is just fine though.
FussyZeus 10y ago
Point of order: The idea of censorship only applying to Governments is from a time when the largest media network was the town square news board that had the printing press-produced news nailed to it. Here's a fun question for HN: Does a private entity that's of a given sufficient large size, i.e. YouTube or Facebook, that covers such vast swathes of the population have a civil responsibility to uphold freedoms of speech? Typically I err on the side of you have the right to speak, not to have someone provide you a podium and loud speaker but at the same time, if we're providing everyone the podium and loud speaker does it change the rules?

by DavidSJ 10y ago

throwaway2048 10y ago

quite right, its not a first amendment issue, but it is certainly censorship.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gwright 10y ago

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.

braveo 10y ago
Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
- gwright 10y ago
  Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
  - braveo 10y ago
    If there's one thing I definitely don't care about, it's the exact definition of censorship. What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made. So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it. But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s
ouid 10y ago
How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored. It's stupid to restrict your definitions by intent. Treat the restriction of information as the problem itself, rather than the fact that it was done with any specific motive.
- gwright 10y ago
  It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.
  - ouid 10y ago
    if my business is forfeit, because it operates on the platform that the government allows to be a monopoly which youtube absolutely is then it serves the same function as a fine, frankly it doesn't matter what my leverage is, as long as it works. More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > if my business is forfeit Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business. > monopoly which youtube absolutely is That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0] [0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/ http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. It's the original sense. > Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.) > When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion. > I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. That battle was lost centuries ago. What the censor librorum does in granting, or denying, the nihil obstat has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government. > Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form. It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.
- gwright 10y ago
  I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues. In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.
madeofpalk 10y ago
> editorial control exercised by private entities. I would agree with you, but Youtube isn't a place where 'editorial' happens. Youtube isn't a TV channel or a blog with a set of editors. It's a free-for-all place for hosting videos. While I have no problem with Youtube removing content they don't like (it's their website, they're free to do what they like), it does go further than exercising 'editorial control'
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Choosing what you publish on your platform based on your own content preferences is exactly editorial control.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Ronsenshi 10y ago
I'm working in media. We call editorial control "self-censorship".
cel1ne 10y ago
> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car? No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in education of their citizens.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  That's a very bad analogy, you should stop. The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place. Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".
  - nafey 10y ago
    Don't misconstrue what is being said. Imagine the sign saying "Please paint my car but we reserve the rights to remove anything we want". That's essentially what the YouTube user license says.
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      Graffiti is done without permission. What exactly am I misconstruing? That's exactly why the analogy is so bad.
      - cel1ne 10y ago
        Many user-licenses forbid things like spreading "hateful" (I actually don't like that word) content. Some users post such content, thereby doing something which they had no permission for. When that content is removed, in compliance with the agreement, they call that censorship. So my analogy still works. The difference is that on YouTube some "graffiti" are permitted while others aren't whereas on my car, none are permitted.
- Ralfp 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
So what do you call it when the governments ask companies like Google and Facebook to "volunteer" (or else) to do censorship - and the companies do exactly that?
chmackenzie 10y ago
> Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. YouTube is acting as a media company while pretending to be a platform. They're engaging in censorship since they're removing things on political grounds. Now, if the rules were always "no vegan videos, no violence, only kittens," it would be a different story.
Baeocystin 10y ago
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... Read it. I promise it is worth your time.

snoman 10y ago

It sounds like you're making the implication that, in order to not be classified as censoring, YouTube is required to host anyone's content, regardless of how it is perceived by their stakeholders. That seems fishy. Revoking a service is not the same as censoring, I would argue.

Natsu 10y ago
There's some difference between removing individuals for specific behavior and in going after identifiable groups of people. As well as whether a service is some sort of public accommodation or not. So it's one thing to ban someone from some public accommodation for specific behavior and another thing entirely if you don't serve that kind of people or if you play games with the rules and enact a grandfather clause that somehow only applies to 'that' sort, but avoids spelling it out.
- gwright 10y ago
  The phrase 'public accommodation' has some very particular legal meanings that have nothing to do with content hosting. Perhaps you are explicitly arguing that the legal framework of public accommodations should be extended to content hosting but you need to make that argument explicitly with full understanding of that framework and not by casually dropping that legal term into the discussion. Going after 'identifiable groups of people' is phrased to sound terrible but doesn't seem to be what is happening. The policy changes are about content not content creators. Not arguing for or against the policies just pointing out that they aren't targeting content creators in a illegal discriminatory manner. You may have a point about the rules changing but that is basic contract law. Nothing new there and in any case there needs to be a mechanism by which the hosting terms can evolve, they aren't immutable.

rodgerd 10y ago

I look forward to your principled commitment to opening your home to everyone with a bullhorn and an opinion to share with you.

ouid 10y ago
if that's your experience with youtube, I suggest doing something different.

cortesoft 10y ago

No, but they aren't doing anything to suppress the video, they are just refusing to host it. If you expand the definition of censorship to anyone who refuses to host a specific piece of content, then it basically loses all meaning. The New York Times is censoring me by not publishing my article. This science journal is censoring me by not publishing my paper.

abraae 10y ago
Except that Youtube's position is that they will host anything, of any quality, unless it crosses one of their red lines. Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  So the NYT just has higher editorial standards, but the practice is the same.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  >Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality You made me spit coffee.
nemothekid 10y ago
YouTube isn't refusing to host the videos - advertisers just aren't paying as much for that sort of content.
- makomk 10y ago
  Actually, advertisers can't pay for adverts on anything vaguely political or controversial on YouTube full stop. Google won't let them, because the headlines in the press about <big brand> funding <terrifying-sounding characterisation of some obscure video> have cost them probably somewhere in the ballpark of a billion dollars as advertisers get scared and pull ads from YouTube as a whole. It's probably only a matter of time before the press figure out how to frame this in a way that forces them to pull the videos altogether.

naaaaak 10y ago

> for being politically too extreme YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. Google's News tab now promotes tmz, the onion, and buzzfeed as "news" over sites that actually break news and typically go against the "narrative". http://i.magaimg.net/img/co6.jpg http://i.magaimg.net/img/co6.jpg There's a reason I'm dropping all Google products and services from my life.

ac29 10y ago
>YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News. I think you mean right of Fox News? Infowars is notoriously full of bullshit, and conservativetreehouse blocks google entirely [0]. [0]http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt http://www.conservativetreehouse.com/robots.txt
- naaaaak 10y ago
  No, Youtube is demonetizing anyone who disagrees with the narrative. Do you think pewdiepie is right of Fox News? Do you think buzzfeed, printers of the 4chan fanfic "piss dossier" are not notoriously full of bullshit? Have tmz or mtv ever broken any story besides celebrity gossip? Every single "news" organization that printed fake polls for months claiming Hillary would win by huge margins is still considered "News" by Google and not demonetized by Youtube. You claim Infowars is full of shit, but they were spot on with the election coverage and calling the polls being fake and oversampled. Why is Google's censoring of differing views tolerated?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - thomask0 10y ago
    How were the polls fake when they were basically right? The state-polls for Wisconsin / Michigan in the end were wrong, but those states in the end were probably not polled enough to capture the volatility of unprecedented events like the Comey letter. And FYI national polls predicted a 1-4% popular vote win, those where pretty much on the money.

onion2k 10y ago

Censorship is the suppression of content in order to exercise political power and control. Refusing to show something because it means you'll make less profit is not censorship; refusing to show it because you have an ideological belief that the viewer shouldn't see it is. Consequently I guess it'd be next to impossible to demonstrate a business is actually censoring content rather than removing it for the benefit of the business. The end result is the same regardless of what you call it though. That's what needs to be addressed.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jlebrech 10y ago

but if there was a right leaning "youtube" and they removed overt-lgbt, antifa, anti-trump videos then it's ok right? or is it wrong because they align with the current us-government?

beaconstudios 10y ago
I think the point is in the messaging. YouTube isn't "YouTube for the left wing", it doesn't advertise itself as being hostile to certain opinions. You could argue that the terms of service denote that "offensive" content is not allowed, but something being offensive is a subjective opinion. And then there's the issue of selective enforcement of things that _are_ banned. In other words, if a site was called "ConservativeTube" or "LiberalTube" I personally wouldn't consider it censorship for them to remove views from the opposite political wing because the service is openly politically biased.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  but if it's offensive to someone on the biblebelt, it's offensive right?
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    you could argue the same for san francisco liberals.
    - Neliquat 10y ago
      Odd how the 2 groups have become so similar as of late.
      - Baeocystin 10y ago
        Authoritarians all have the same stink, regardless of origin. When I was a child, I lived in a Communist country. It was a grim deal for anyone who did not toe the party line, and I do not like catching whiff of the same elements now in the US.

makomk 10y ago

The funny thing is that whenever someone leans on advertisers to pull ads from the mainstream press, they've never had any problem seeing this as an attack on freedom of speech, the media and journalism itself. Doing the same to upstart competitors like YouTube is just fine though.

FussyZeus 10y ago

Point of order: The idea of censorship only applying to Governments is from a time when the largest media network was the town square news board that had the printing press-produced news nailed to it. Here's a fun question for HN: Does a private entity that's of a given sufficient large size, i.e. YouTube or Facebook, that covers such vast swathes of the population have a civil responsibility to uphold freedoms of speech? Typically I err on the side of you have the right to speak, not to have someone provide you a podium and loud speaker but at the same time, if we're providing everyone the podium and loud speaker does it change the rules?