4 ms·

One possible way out of the trap is for regulation to acknowledge and classify these massive social media and content delivery platforms like YouTube and Facebo

One possible way out of the trap is for regulation to acknowledge and classify these massive social media and content delivery platforms like YouTube and Facebook as the new version of the public square. One of the big issues with the demonetization on YouTube is that it's a binary flag -- either "acceptable content for advertisers" or "unacceptable for advertisers." As if advertisers were a single block with a single set of values! When YouTube is not under an obligation to act as the virtual-public-square (because "they're a private company"), then they are especially vulnerable to defining that "acceptability" either by internal ideological conformity, or by external ideological pressure. Part of the concept of "free speech" (as a doctrine, not just as 1A legal structure) is that it allows for a society where the distinction of "I don't agree with this but someone out there might and so it's OK for it to exist" is a distinction that is possible. Without that, we're left with a world in which expression has to be mediated by the approval/whims of external forces for it to be present. Whatever strange, fringe things this person was having as YouTube videos, I'd be willing to guess there's some fringe company out there who wouldn't care if they were advertised on those videos. Think of the kinds of advertisers 4chan, Infowars, or adult websites get. Their standards don't fit into a generic mold of "acceptability." But if someone was a video creator who wanted to court such advertisers, what kind of audience would they even be able to build without access to the de-facto public-square that YouTube is? I don't know how to get there from here. But I think a more healthy ad-revenue model would somehow have YouTube saying "OK, these mainstream videos are able to be monetized by mainstream ads from companies A B and C, while these fringe/controversial videos can be monetized by whatever companies X Y and Z want to."

speeder 9y ago
This person videos weren't even strange or fringe... The attacker videos seemly were mostly about exercising, vegan diet, and some lighthearted videos... AFTER demonetization, seemly some videos with criticism about Youtube and US, saying that Iran (her home country) had more free speech than US, showed up.
- wwwdonohue 9y ago
  From saved screenshots of her YouTube channel, she'd put up/shared videos of really violent animal cruelty. Animals being skinned alive/boiled, etc. Somehow I don't think it was the workout videos that were the most offensive to YouTube.
  - mv4 9y ago
    Her site's still up. http://nasimesabz.com/ http://nasimesabz.com/
  - DanAndersen 9y ago
    From what I understand, this is an example of the issues of algorithms not being able to understand context. We would obviously want to discourage animal cruelty, but graphic depictions of animal cruelty from an anti-cruelty perspective also get the crackdown. It could lead to a scenario where bad things continue to happen just because any depiction of them is filtered as advocating for it. At the risk of drumming up unneeded controversy, it reminds me of when Marine Le Pen in France tweeted graphic images from ISIS actions as a rallying cry against them, only to be charged by the state with circulating violent content inciting terrorism ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-charged-for-posting-violent-isis-images-on-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-... ). Without proper application of context and judgment, a terrorist spreading propaganda and an anti-terrorist illustrating the terrorist's propaganda would be seen as the same sort of thing. Of course, there's no simple solution -- we wouldn't want a world in which someone could get out of responsibility for spreading needlessly graphic content just by saying "oh I was just spreading it for educational purposes!". Can automated processes ever hope to achieve the nuance we need in our societies?
    - baud147258 9y ago
      > MLP in France tweeted graphic images from ISIS actions as a rallying cry against them Well, it's not exactly that: it was a response to a comment from a journalist, which could be interpreted as equating the Front National (MLP's party) to ISIS.
swalsh 9y ago
I agree with this view, platforms like Youtube (and Reddit) can't be allowed to hide behind this veil of being "private". As major platforms, they're important channels for speech. I think once a private company has amassed this level of the public attention their influence needs to be kept in check. The profits will stay private, but there needs to be limits on what they can "limit". I think it's a similar argument to why a diner can't choose to not serve a person only on their ethnicity. I think all speech should be protected (the good, the bad, and the weird). Ideas should die on their own merits.
- icebraining 9y ago
  But YouTube is serving them - the videos are kept online. They just don't show ads on them.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    But we allow people of colour to dine. As long as they keep to themselves in the separate room and pay a big premium.
    - andromeduck 9y ago
      more like you can come to work but you won't get paid if we don't like you

speeder 9y ago

This person videos weren't even strange or fringe... The attacker videos seemly were mostly about exercising, vegan diet, and some lighthearted videos... AFTER demonetization, seemly some videos with criticism about Youtube and US, saying that Iran (her home country) had more free speech than US, showed up.

wwwdonohue 9y ago
From saved screenshots of her YouTube channel, she'd put up/shared videos of really violent animal cruelty. Animals being skinned alive/boiled, etc. Somehow I don't think it was the workout videos that were the most offensive to YouTube.
- mv4 9y ago
  Her site's still up. http://nasimesabz.com/ http://nasimesabz.com/
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  From what I understand, this is an example of the issues of algorithms not being able to understand context. We would obviously want to discourage animal cruelty, but graphic depictions of animal cruelty from an anti-cruelty perspective also get the crackdown. It could lead to a scenario where bad things continue to happen just because any depiction of them is filtered as advocating for it. At the risk of drumming up unneeded controversy, it reminds me of when Marine Le Pen in France tweeted graphic images from ISIS actions as a rallying cry against them, only to be charged by the state with circulating violent content inciting terrorism ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-charged-for-posting-violent-isis-images-on-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-... ). Without proper application of context and judgment, a terrorist spreading propaganda and an anti-terrorist illustrating the terrorist's propaganda would be seen as the same sort of thing. Of course, there's no simple solution -- we wouldn't want a world in which someone could get out of responsibility for spreading needlessly graphic content just by saying "oh I was just spreading it for educational purposes!". Can automated processes ever hope to achieve the nuance we need in our societies?
  - baud147258 9y ago
    > MLP in France tweeted graphic images from ISIS actions as a rallying cry against them Well, it's not exactly that: it was a response to a comment from a journalist, which could be interpreted as equating the Front National (MLP's party) to ISIS.

swalsh 9y ago

I agree with this view, platforms like Youtube (and Reddit) can't be allowed to hide behind this veil of being "private". As major platforms, they're important channels for speech. I think once a private company has amassed this level of the public attention their influence needs to be kept in check. The profits will stay private, but there needs to be limits on what they can "limit". I think it's a similar argument to why a diner can't choose to not serve a person only on their ethnicity. I think all speech should be protected (the good, the bad, and the weird). Ideas should die on their own merits.

icebraining 9y ago
But YouTube is serving them - the videos are kept online. They just don't show ads on them.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  But we allow people of colour to dine. As long as they keep to themselves in the separate room and pay a big premium.
  - andromeduck 9y ago
    more like you can come to work but you won't get paid if we don't like you