6 ms·

I think youtube needs to consider backing off regulating political content. The fact is politics and morality are inherently intermingled. One can use words li

I think youtube needs to consider backing off regulating political content. The fact is politics and morality are inherently intermingled. One can use words like extremist, but sometimes the extremists are the "correct" ones (like our founding fathers who orchestrated a revolution). How could any system consistently categorize "appropriate" videos without making moral judgements?

secfirstmd 9y ago
Agree but it's far easier for politicians (May, Rudd, Trump, Turnball, Putin, Netanyahu, Xi Jinping, Mugabe, Zuma, Chan-ocha, el-Sisi, Erdoğan, Khamenei, Maduro - the list is endless) to blame videos on Youtube for radicalising people then it is to tackle the long running political, historical and socio-economic grievances that fuel the fire.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  Not only politicians, unfortunately.
- hammock 9y ago
  Hillary Clinton/Benghazi...
  - snakeanus 9y ago
    He did say that the list is endless.
    - hammock 9y ago
      Too bad my comment got flagged by HNers who disagree
      - secfirstmd 9y ago
        Lol. I still support your free speech (right or wrong) :)
anotherbrownguy 9y ago
Do you think any rich established British company supported the American revolution? Why do you expect Google to help anything new or different regardless of how "correct" it is? Big established players can't afford revolutions, too risky for them.
- syshum 9y ago
  Rich Established French Companies did, as did Nations and people outside the British Empire. Your comments would have to mean YouTube/Goolge is a Syrian Company not a American Company when it pertains to the Topic at hand. Your Analogy is simply defunct on many levels, further your switch from British Companies supporting the revolution, to "Google Supporting anything new or different" is nonsensical. Google supports all kinds of "New and Different" things that will likely change the face of society in profound ways, things like AI, Self Driving Cars and other Moonshot Programs. No I really do not understand what point your driving at here
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    >Rich Established French Companies did, as did Nations and people outside the British Empire. Yes, because there was little or no risk for them. Google will happily side with the revolution in Bangladesh or Gambia, not in the US.
    - syshum 9y ago
      But we are talking about them taking down footage as it pertains to a revolution / civil war / conflict in Syria not the US. Did I miss something? Is there massive Conflict in the US? Is their an active Violent Revolution happening? Because if you think the clashes that have occurred at protests between Anti-Fa and the Nazi;s equate to "Violent Revolution" then you will be in for a shocking awakening if the unthinkable occurs and the US does find itself in an actual violent revolution or civil war again. The last US Civil war took the lives of 2% of the population, to put that into context if happening today that would that would be 6.5 Million people killed. No, the US is not involved in a Violent Revolution Google needs to pick a side over, and you should pray that day never comes
sqeaky 9y ago
A decision not to decide is still a choice. A decision to attempt to remain neutral should be carefully considered.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Sure, but whether the choice has any political content depends on whether YT considers themselves publishers or infrastructure. If they just want to be the world's video hosting site then they're not taking any political stance by staying out of it and just hosting what people upload.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    They don't have to decide anything like that. They could prohibit cat videos for no reason tomorrow, and suffer whatever the consequences of that are. They have chosen to try to stop ISIS recruitment by videos hosted on their site. That is their prerogative.
kenjackson 9y ago
Aren't you always making moral judgments on non-political videos too? Which videos are "adult", which videos are scams, which videos are inappropriate, etc...
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  So I think the distinction here is that "what is porn?" (again, a deep question that the supreme court has addressed, considering how much nudity there is in art) does have a non-moral answer, even if it's arbitrary (such as whatever arouses 10% of people). The other distinction is that with political speech is that if you screw up that line you hamper criticism of authoritarian regimes (for example). If you set the bar too tight on your porn filter, it's much less likely you stifling political progress.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> The fact is politics and morality are inherently intermingled. > How could any system consistently categorize "appropriate" videos without making moral judgements? Politics and morality are inherently intermingled, I agree. Appropriateness and morality are the same concept.
- Spivak 9y ago
  I disagree with your last statement. A video featuring gratuitous violence is not appropriate for YouTube Kids but there's no moral statement there.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > A video featuring gratuitous violence is not appropriate for YouTube Kids Why not? Answer without making a moral statement.
    - mdpopescu 9y ago
      I'll try an utilitarian argument: because my younger daughter (13) has nightmares after seeing a violent video. (Not blaming YT for that, just saying that you can make a non-moral argument against violent videos in kids' channels.)
      - thaumasiotes 9y ago
        That argument will easily prove that all videos are inappropriate for Youtube Kids. An actual utilitarian argument would balance your daughter against the kids who liked seeing violent videos, and she would lose. Furthermore, utilitarianism is a moral position. Why would you prefer a world where your daughter doesn't have nightmares over one where she does? Your daughter would probably stop having nightmares if you gave her more exposure to that kind of video, too.
        KekDemaga 9y ago
        An alternative, advertisers who target children don't want to be included on videos that feature graphic depictions of violence so violent videos (or overly sexual, vulgar, etc) on YouTube Kids will be a net negative for YouTube.
clarkmoody 9y ago
Interesting that we have a whole vocabulary of words reserved for those on the "wrong side": insurrection, sedition, traitor, deserter, criminal, smuggler, terrorist, extremist, rebel, revolutionary, etc. But from the "right side" of an ideology, those are the freedom fighters, visionaries, defenders, Founding Fathers, Underground Railroad, idealists, etc. Controlling vocabulary is a very powerful tactic in politics, as illustrated in 1984. People respond in very predictable ways to certain words, hence their power.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 3131s 9y ago
  Why doesn't Youtube remove this "extremist" content I wonder... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsnYxJ1ghA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsnYxJ1ghA
  - throwaway0255 9y ago
    It's surprising to me how sanitized that footage feels. You watch a hundred people get killed, but it's not really striking a nerve the way a single beheading can. That's probably why footage of the American military usually doesn't get taken down. Our military kills from a thermal view half a mile away.
    - Retric 9y ago
      US military spends a lot of time and effort on propaganda. Lines like "bring our boys home" are literally inserted into hundreds of movies. They also release a lot of this type of footage to portray combat as less horrific than it actually is.
  - CamelCaseName 9y ago
    It is removed now.
    - 9y ago
tenpies 9y ago
> I think youtube needs to consider backing off regulating political content. They can't. We've entered an era where a disagreeable tweet is - in the mind of some people - a good reason to dox you and destroy your life. This extends to companies. Your ad shows up next to an opinion piece that they disagree with? Time to start a #activist campaign to boycott your company and mention how you would probably sell your goods to Hitler and your board is full of white patriarchs who are probably racist, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrants, anti-women, and closet Neo Nazis. The companies are also to blame since they've been mostly spineless. Save a few companies, they fold and pull their advertising the minute these #activists put them in their sights. To an advertising delivery company like Youtube, which is probably barely at breakeven, losing advertising dollars is crushing. Over the years they've been slowly reducing how much money they bleed, so a reversal of the trend is grounds for alarm. So Youtube has to either ween itself off advertising (virtually impossible, since Google is an advertising company) or make sure the content is advertiser friendly.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  I think you bring up an interesting point. Big corporate advertisers are demanding of youtube the same predictability and sanity checks which they have with traditional media buys such as television, print etc. However part of the appeal of a medium like youtube is in much of the unscripted, random, spontaneous, esoteric content. And these two interests seem to be at odds with each other.

secfirstmd 9y ago

Agree but it's far easier for politicians (May, Rudd, Trump, Turnball, Putin, Netanyahu, Xi Jinping, Mugabe, Zuma, Chan-ocha, el-Sisi, Erdoğan, Khamenei, Maduro - the list is endless) to blame videos on Youtube for radicalising people then it is to tackle the long running political, historical and socio-economic grievances that fuel the fire.

jjoonathan 9y ago
Not only politicians, unfortunately.
hammock 9y ago
Hillary Clinton/Benghazi...
- snakeanus 9y ago
  He did say that the list is endless.
  - hammock 9y ago
    Too bad my comment got flagged by HNers who disagree
    - secfirstmd 9y ago
      Lol. I still support your free speech (right or wrong) :)

anotherbrownguy 9y ago

Do you think any rich established British company supported the American revolution? Why do you expect Google to help anything new or different regardless of how "correct" it is? Big established players can't afford revolutions, too risky for them.

syshum 9y ago
Rich Established French Companies did, as did Nations and people outside the British Empire. Your comments would have to mean YouTube/Goolge is a Syrian Company not a American Company when it pertains to the Topic at hand. Your Analogy is simply defunct on many levels, further your switch from British Companies supporting the revolution, to "Google Supporting anything new or different" is nonsensical. Google supports all kinds of "New and Different" things that will likely change the face of society in profound ways, things like AI, Self Driving Cars and other Moonshot Programs. No I really do not understand what point your driving at here
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >Rich Established French Companies did, as did Nations and people outside the British Empire. Yes, because there was little or no risk for them. Google will happily side with the revolution in Bangladesh or Gambia, not in the US.
  - syshum 9y ago
    But we are talking about them taking down footage as it pertains to a revolution / civil war / conflict in Syria not the US. Did I miss something? Is there massive Conflict in the US? Is their an active Violent Revolution happening? Because if you think the clashes that have occurred at protests between Anti-Fa and the Nazi;s equate to "Violent Revolution" then you will be in for a shocking awakening if the unthinkable occurs and the US does find itself in an actual violent revolution or civil war again. The last US Civil war took the lives of 2% of the population, to put that into context if happening today that would that would be 6.5 Million people killed. No, the US is not involved in a Violent Revolution Google needs to pick a side over, and you should pray that day never comes

sqeaky 9y ago

A decision not to decide is still a choice. A decision to attempt to remain neutral should be carefully considered.

Spivak 9y ago
Sure, but whether the choice has any political content depends on whether YT considers themselves publishers or infrastructure. If they just want to be the world's video hosting site then they're not taking any political stance by staying out of it and just hosting what people upload.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  They don't have to decide anything like that. They could prohibit cat videos for no reason tomorrow, and suffer whatever the consequences of that are. They have chosen to try to stop ISIS recruitment by videos hosted on their site. That is their prerogative.

kenjackson 9y ago

Aren't you always making moral judgments on non-political videos too? Which videos are "adult", which videos are scams, which videos are inappropriate, etc...

alexandercrohde 9y ago
So I think the distinction here is that "what is porn?" (again, a deep question that the supreme court has addressed, considering how much nudity there is in art) does have a non-moral answer, even if it's arbitrary (such as whatever arouses 10% of people). The other distinction is that with political speech is that if you screw up that line you hamper criticism of authoritarian regimes (for example). If you set the bar too tight on your porn filter, it's much less likely you stifling political progress.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> The fact is politics and morality are inherently intermingled. > How could any system consistently categorize "appropriate" videos without making moral judgements? Politics and morality are inherently intermingled, I agree. Appropriateness and morality are the same concept.

Spivak 9y ago
I disagree with your last statement. A video featuring gratuitous violence is not appropriate for YouTube Kids but there's no moral statement there.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > A video featuring gratuitous violence is not appropriate for YouTube Kids Why not? Answer without making a moral statement.
  - mdpopescu 9y ago
    I'll try an utilitarian argument: because my younger daughter (13) has nightmares after seeing a violent video. (Not blaming YT for that, just saying that you can make a non-moral argument against violent videos in kids' channels.)
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      That argument will easily prove that all videos are inappropriate for Youtube Kids. An actual utilitarian argument would balance your daughter against the kids who liked seeing violent videos, and she would lose. Furthermore, utilitarianism is a moral position. Why would you prefer a world where your daughter doesn't have nightmares over one where she does? Your daughter would probably stop having nightmares if you gave her more exposure to that kind of video, too.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        An alternative, advertisers who target children don't want to be included on videos that feature graphic depictions of violence so violent videos (or overly sexual, vulgar, etc) on YouTube Kids will be a net negative for YouTube.

clarkmoody 9y ago

Interesting that we have a whole vocabulary of words reserved for those on the "wrong side": insurrection, sedition, traitor, deserter, criminal, smuggler, terrorist, extremist, rebel, revolutionary, etc. But from the "right side" of an ideology, those are the freedom fighters, visionaries, defenders, Founding Fathers, Underground Railroad, idealists, etc. Controlling vocabulary is a very powerful tactic in politics, as illustrated in 1984. People respond in very predictable ways to certain words, hence their power.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
3131s 9y ago
Why doesn't Youtube remove this "extremist" content I wonder... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsnYxJ1ghA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsnYxJ1ghA
- throwaway0255 9y ago
  It's surprising to me how sanitized that footage feels. You watch a hundred people get killed, but it's not really striking a nerve the way a single beheading can. That's probably why footage of the American military usually doesn't get taken down. Our military kills from a thermal view half a mile away.
  - Retric 9y ago
    US military spends a lot of time and effort on propaganda. Lines like "bring our boys home" are literally inserted into hundreds of movies. They also release a lot of this type of footage to portray combat as less horrific than it actually is.
- CamelCaseName 9y ago
  It is removed now.
  - 9y ago

tenpies 9y ago

> I think youtube needs to consider backing off regulating political content. They can't. We've entered an era where a disagreeable tweet is - in the mind of some people - a good reason to dox you and destroy your life. This extends to companies. Your ad shows up next to an opinion piece that they disagree with? Time to start a #activist campaign to boycott your company and mention how you would probably sell your goods to Hitler and your board is full of white patriarchs who are probably racist, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrants, anti-women, and closet Neo Nazis. The companies are also to blame since they've been mostly spineless. Save a few companies, they fold and pull their advertising the minute these #activists put them in their sights. To an advertising delivery company like Youtube, which is probably barely at breakeven, losing advertising dollars is crushing. Over the years they've been slowly reducing how much money they bleed, so a reversal of the trend is grounds for alarm. So Youtube has to either ween itself off advertising (virtually impossible, since Google is an advertising company) or make sure the content is advertiser friendly.

bogomipz 9y ago
I think you bring up an interesting point. Big corporate advertisers are demanding of youtube the same predictability and sanity checks which they have with traditional media buys such as television, print etc. However part of the appeal of a medium like youtube is in much of the unscripted, random, spontaneous, esoteric content. And these two interests seem to be at odds with each other.