4 ms·

Youtube is a private company, and may as well ban all content that they don't like. But nothing of this wold be an issue, if they stop being brick heads, and m

Youtube is a private company, and may as well ban all content that they don't like. But nothing of this wold be an issue, if they stop being brick heads, and made a better algorithm to distribute their ads, it would never be am issue. Just ask your sponsors what kind of content they don't want to be associated, and then just don't show this ads in channels with this subjects. There, eberyboth is happy. Now for gun related content, I really don't whatch in youtube anymore, since the creators don't receive money in there. So I just watch in sites like Full30. The problem, is that a lot a good channels today, are only in youtube, like C&R arsenal, who is currentlly doing an amazing WWI guns history in great detail.

mbrumlow 9y ago
I had typed a whole post but you replied first so I would like to continue on the whole 'Youtube is a private company' issue. For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level. To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people. Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list. The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there). Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with. On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.
- leot 9y ago
  Do you believe YouTube should be forced to host porn? Why or why not?
  - mbrumlow 9y ago
    I think my post already covers that... Do you think the power company should be able to stop delivering power to porn providers? Should DNS servers not serve dns request for porn sites? Should ICCAN not allow you to register porn domains?
    - leot 9y ago
      If your post covers it, it should be easy for you to answer the question: Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not? In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been evaluated to be in-bounds as concerns ICANN and power companies. For now, at least.
      - mbrumlow 9y ago
        Sorry. I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content. Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so. As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in general. Can you name something that ICANN can block that is legal to produce and view? Now if YouTube does not want to be treated like I am suggesting very little has to change, and one or both of the following would -- to me -- give them the right to control the content. 1) YouTube was a subscription. 2) When you posted a video to YouTube they bought it out right and were now the copyright holder. The problem I am having is YouTube has found it in the juxtaposition of being both a for profit entity and a public place, if you will a communication or broadcasting facilitator. This is much like power and phone companies found them self's in. I am also open to the notion that they can curate the videos found on the site, but in doing so they take WHOLE responsibility for ALL content on the site -- not just the ones that fit their current needs. This means though, that should somebody upload some unsavory illicit content, that they are also on the hook legally and financially for the distribution and copying of said content. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Its too much power for any single entity to have. Also, maybe I am a dick, I don't really care if people are "offended", and I think the notion of "the right to not be offended" is hogwash. If you don't like the content, then don't view it. If you think some content causes people to do things prove it. This is a age old topic. First it was the "damn video games" causing people to kill people. Now its the "damn gun videos" that is causing people to kill people -- only this time video lost. Note, I am NOT pro gun, or own a gun, or likely will own a gun

mbrumlow 9y ago

I had typed a whole post but you replied first so I would like to continue on the whole 'Youtube is a private company' issue. For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level. To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people. Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list. The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there). Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with. On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.

leot 9y ago
Do you believe YouTube should be forced to host porn? Why or why not?
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  I think my post already covers that... Do you think the power company should be able to stop delivering power to porn providers? Should DNS servers not serve dns request for porn sites? Should ICCAN not allow you to register porn domains?
  - leot 9y ago
    If your post covers it, it should be easy for you to answer the question: Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not? In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been evaluated to be in-bounds as concerns ICANN and power companies. For now, at least.
    - mbrumlow 9y ago
      Sorry. I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content. Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so. As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in general. Can you name something that ICANN can block that is legal to produce and view? Now if YouTube does not want to be treated like I am suggesting very little has to change, and one or both of the following would -- to me -- give them the right to control the content. 1) YouTube was a subscription. 2) When you posted a video to YouTube they bought it out right and were now the copyright holder. The problem I am having is YouTube has found it in the juxtaposition of being both a for profit entity and a public place, if you will a communication or broadcasting facilitator. This is much like power and phone companies found them self's in. I am also open to the notion that they can curate the videos found on the site, but in doing so they take WHOLE responsibility for ALL content on the site -- not just the ones that fit their current needs. This means though, that should somebody upload some unsavory illicit content, that they are also on the hook legally and financially for the distribution and copying of said content. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Its too much power for any single entity to have. Also, maybe I am a dick, I don't really care if people are "offended", and I think the notion of "the right to not be offended" is hogwash. If you don't like the content, then don't view it. If you think some content causes people to do things prove it. This is a age old topic. First it was the "damn video games" causing people to kill people. Now its the "damn gun videos" that is causing people to kill people -- only this time video lost. Note, I am NOT pro gun, or own a gun, or likely will own a gun