4 ms·
I don't like it. There are some absolute lunatics posting their content out there, but that will always be the case. I don't think it's a problem that really n
by flyingfences 9y ago
I don't like it.
There are some absolute lunatics posting their content out there, but that will always be the case. I don't think it's a problem that really needs solving. Even if it was, I don't think that this is a solution. If you are too quick to counter a statement, people may suspect that you have ulterior motives. If videos come along with these "corrections" many viewers will see that as proof that they're right and that the "mainstream" is trying to cover something up.
A video is a creative production. The creator makes it in a certain way for a certain reason. When the publisher interjects, tries to mold and reshape the content, provides their own commentary with it, that restricts the creator's artistic freedom over their content.
I don't expect that this pseudo-censorship (that's what it is - they're saying "we don't think your content is right, so we'll be giving your viewers what we think is right) will be applied neutrally, either. There are nutcases in all ideological directions, but I have a solid suspicion that these annotations will only be applied to those that are not in line with the "politically correct" zeitgeist.
Of course, YouTube is well within their rights to do whatever they want with their platform. This isn't at all an uncharacteristic development for them, either. They've consistently demonstrated that their only interest is money; they don't care for the small creators - or really even the viewers - all that much. If this is what keeps the advertisers happy then it's only the logical step for them.
I just don't like it.
- skybrian 9y agoThis is not censorship. It's another form of "people interested in X might also be interested in Y". It's something platforms do all the time.
- lactau 9y agoMore like "people interested in X are wrong".
- wybiral 9y agoBut they're also in the business of responding to search with facts. YouTube is a strange platform in that respect, but if someone searching for the moon landing gets a conspiracy video in the results because it's popular I don't see anything wrong with YouTube including a snippet of verified information that relates to the query.
- AckSyn 9y agoTrue, which wouldn't be wrong. It applies to: anti vaxxers, "flat earth" trolls which I'm positive don't actually believe the earth is flat - but still, and more!
- skybrian 9y agoFor them to be wrong, they'd have to have an opinion. Why do you think people watching a video like this have a strong opinion one way the other? Maybe they don't and are just looking around.
- eeZah7Ux 9y agoThis is the most dangerous form of censorship: when people are led to believe (or told) that they are getting an unbiased set of ideas and information while it's not unbiased. Under dictatorships it's common to claim that all conversations are allowed except fear mongering, spreading enemy propaganda and outlandish claims. Over time the "Overton window" of what is considered not outlandish in public debate grows smaller. For example, during WW2 there were rumors in Germany about extermination camps that were dismissed as "crazy conspiracy theories". Covertly manipulating the public opinion by suggesting some content instead of something else is easy to implement, effective and difficult to detect.
- Jimmie_Rustle 9y agoI totally agree. I think YouTube's efforts could be better spent pretty much anywhere else. Do they really expect an anti-vaxxer to look at a wiki link they tacked on to a video and change their mind? It won't happen. If someone has not made up their mind, they will do their own research.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoOnly interested in money? They demonetize videos but leave on the platform. So Google ends up paying the infrastructure cost without any revenues. Only interested in the money would be just remove the questionable content that advertisers have no interest being associated completely from YouTube. Sounds like the opposite of only interested in the money? Can you explain?