3 ms·

So, what is your suggestion here? Should they run with the most open interpretation (i.e. allow anything that is socially acceptable somewhere on earth) or most

by ar0 9y ago

So, what is your suggestion here? Should they run with the most open interpretation (i.e. allow anything that is socially acceptable somewhere on earth) or most strict interpretation (i.e. limit stuff that might be offensive somewhere on earth)? Both approaches look rather impossible to me: the former would mean allowing stuff that might even be illegal in the U.S., the latter would mean that e.g. all videos showing alcohol would have to disappear. What is your specific example here? Also note that this is not about allowing videos onto the platform, but only about next to which videos to show ads. And I would guess that most ad customers would want rather strict rules, so it makes sense for YouTube to listen to their customers here.

PeterStuer 9y ago
First, it is important to note that Youtube has a defacto monopoly on non-film Internet VoD with close to 90% market share. If you include film/tv style content (basically Netflix ), it is still 80% in a huge number of countries. By lumping in everything from the most outrages, and as you mention even illegal content, with the most benign things like 'swearing', which in many countries people wouldn't even notice, and then presenting the advertiser with an all our nothing choice (if at all), where is the choice realy? "If you want to advertise to this game-themed channel where the hosts drop the occasional f-bomb, sure, but then you also agree to run adds on the neo-nazi Holocaust denier channel". Google is the sole broker here, brokering audiences to advertisers in a monopoly setting. How they set up that market, has very profound implications. The model that is exposed through the OP is far from 'evidently supported' by universal culture or rights. You mention only extremist polarized positions, full anarcho-libertarianism or ultra-global-conservatism. There are many more moderate positions in between, or even entirely different solutions, such as opening up the YouTube brokerage market.
pjc50 9y ago
Well, they already have a system for "this video is not available in your country", driven by the music licensing.
Navarr 9y ago
They should probably have different demonetization strategies in different cultures. "This video is demonetized in USA" for example.
adventured 9y ago
This was all figured out at least five to six decades ago, as global media companies emerged. It's just one more step in the inevitable bifurcation of the Internet down to national barriers / legislation / cultural beliefs. In the not very distant future (within 15-20 years), the commonality laws, things nations have in common with regards to legislating the Internet, will be the minority. Every nation will want and will set its own unique policies (on top of any other agreement lines as eg in the EU). There's no possible outcome for the Internet other than becoming another well regulated medium, given a few more decades. The laws will pile up, it's what politicians do, and the Internet is the single biggest target.

by ar0 9y ago

PeterStuer 9y ago

First, it is important to note that Youtube has a defacto monopoly on non-film Internet VoD with close to 90% market share. If you include film/tv style content (basically Netflix ), it is still 80% in a huge number of countries. By lumping in everything from the most outrages, and as you mention even illegal content, with the most benign things like 'swearing', which in many countries people wouldn't even notice, and then presenting the advertiser with an all our nothing choice (if at all), where is the choice realy? "If you want to advertise to this game-themed channel where the hosts drop the occasional f-bomb, sure, but then you also agree to run adds on the neo-nazi Holocaust denier channel". Google is the sole broker here, brokering audiences to advertisers in a monopoly setting. How they set up that market, has very profound implications. The model that is exposed through the OP is far from 'evidently supported' by universal culture or rights. You mention only extremist polarized positions, full anarcho-libertarianism or ultra-global-conservatism. There are many more moderate positions in between, or even entirely different solutions, such as opening up the YouTube brokerage market.

pjc50 9y ago

Well, they already have a system for "this video is not available in your country", driven by the music licensing.

Navarr 9y ago

They should probably have different demonetization strategies in different cultures. "This video is demonetized in USA" for example.

adventured 9y ago

This was all figured out at least five to six decades ago, as global media companies emerged. It's just one more step in the inevitable bifurcation of the Internet down to national barriers / legislation / cultural beliefs. In the not very distant future (within 15-20 years), the commonality laws, things nations have in common with regards to legislating the Internet, will be the minority. Every nation will want and will set its own unique policies (on top of any other agreement lines as eg in the EU). There's no possible outcome for the Internet other than becoming another well regulated medium, given a few more decades. The laws will pile up, it's what politicians do, and the Internet is the single biggest target.