4 ms·

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

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.
soundwave106 10y ago
As I see it, Youtube's issue isn't left wing or right wing, it's the "conservative" nature of big business advertisers. (By "conservative" I mean that big business prefers not to have their brand next to any controversial topics of any sort, not the American political alignment.) Youtube is too big now, and is having to rely on these massive global companies that don't appreciate their brand being placed next to "controversy". Yes, hate speech of the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. variety will be a problem to these advertisers, and is the headline of most articles. But so will other forms of "hate speech" (eg: Islamic extremism). As noted in the article, even LGBT content in itself may be "controversial" enough for Youtube to have to tiptoe around. Veganism was also mentioned in the article; Googling, apparently activism that used graphic imagery has also been blocked too (http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=7970&catId=1 http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=7970&catId=1). I would expect the same of other content that is violently graphical, whether it is pure crass or not. If you believe that there is a successful business model out there for hosting explicitly conservative political videos, there is frankly nothing to prevent you from pursuing that path. From my perspective, though, the opening is frankly not necessarily political. If someone like PewDiePie is akin to the 1980s/1990s radio "shock jocks" (an allegory I kind of agree with), there is a parallel: many shock jocks (most famously Howard Stern, but also Opie and Anthony and Bubba the Love Sponge) were scooped up by Sirius or XM, after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident caused the FCC to clamp down on controversial radio content. In other words, there is an opportunity for other video hosts to compete with Youtube merely for not having quite as onerous of a content policy.
eaton 10y ago
It's called GodTube.com, and it's terrible.

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.

soundwave106 10y ago

As I see it, Youtube's issue isn't left wing or right wing, it's the "conservative" nature of big business advertisers. (By "conservative" I mean that big business prefers not to have their brand next to any controversial topics of any sort, not the American political alignment.) Youtube is too big now, and is having to rely on these massive global companies that don't appreciate their brand being placed next to "controversy". Yes, hate speech of the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. variety will be a problem to these advertisers, and is the headline of most articles. But so will other forms of "hate speech" (eg: Islamic extremism). As noted in the article, even LGBT content in itself may be "controversial" enough for Youtube to have to tiptoe around. Veganism was also mentioned in the article; Googling, apparently activism that used graphic imagery has also been blocked too (http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=7970&catId=1 http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=7970&catId=1). I would expect the same of other content that is violently graphical, whether it is pure crass or not. If you believe that there is a successful business model out there for hosting explicitly conservative political videos, there is frankly nothing to prevent you from pursuing that path. From my perspective, though, the opening is frankly not necessarily political. If someone like PewDiePie is akin to the 1980s/1990s radio "shock jocks" (an allegory I kind of agree with), there is a parallel: many shock jocks (most famously Howard Stern, but also Opie and Anthony and Bubba the Love Sponge) were scooped up by Sirius or XM, after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident caused the FCC to clamp down on controversial radio content. In other words, there is an opportunity for other video hosts to compete with Youtube merely for not having quite as onerous of a content policy.

eaton 10y ago

It's called GodTube.com, and it's terrible.