5 ms·

This is really scary. People who warned of the slippery slope of censorship were definitely right.

by kristofferR 9y ago

pboutros 9y ago
There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451
- jerf 9y ago
  Depends on who gets to decide what "false/misleading" is. I'm not sure how this could be any less transparent. I personally see less than no reason to trust YouTube's judgment in these matters.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    So should it be illegal to run a curated platform?
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      It certainly presents problems when all the most popular channels for communication are controlled by a handful of companies.
      - Caprinicus 9y ago
        And that they grew to this point before imposing this "curation". It seems to be a recurring theme with these companies to grow to a monopoly with a place for relatively free discourse and then to do this as soon as they feel safe.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        The incentives are aligned that way... once you're big the biggest thing is protecting your position.
    - merinowool 9y ago
      To be fair information is a weapon and there should be no free reign for anyone. If you are on purpose suppressing some information to fulfil political agenda - that should be a criminal act.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        So what's a political agenda? Is the promotion of cats a political agenda? Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs?
        RoyTyrell 9y ago
        > Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs? Sure. Why shouldn't a private entity be able to determine what kind of speech they allow on their own property?
        girvo 9y ago
        Because if they have a huge defacto monopoly, and also a outsized impact on our culture, the impacts of them doing so are far more far-reaching than, say, LiveLeak removing some video (trying to think of a competitor for YT is surprisingly hard).
      - s73v3r_ 9y ago
        Ok, but what about the opposite: What if you are, on purpose, constantly disseminating false information to fulfill a political agenda?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Any time you open the paper, turn on the TV, crack open a book, or visit Hacker News, you are trusting some curator, gatekeeper, editor, or censor's judgement. Even bazaars like 4chan are moderated.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      And the unmoderated spaced of before don't exist any more (Usenet), because companies didn't make money on it. Or worse, because it violated some company's "right". Now, in order to speak, you nearly have to go through one of Their gateways. If you piss off FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon), you're gone off the net. Some of those gatekeepers are big scripts with no human intervention for your level. If you fall between the cracks, then you have no recourse, other than find a place like HN and beg publicly - lest you get shitcanned by the HN gatekeepers.
      - s73v3r_ 9y ago
        "If you piss off FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon), you're gone off the net." No, you're not. Not even close. The Daily Stormer is still online; you will be too.
        musage 9y ago
        I don't see why the burden to "make ends meet" in a totally scorched landscape should be on those not scorching it, with those looking the other way preaching to them from a supposed moral high horse. Stuff like the right to confront your accuser is totally lost with these companies as well as on HN. But don't worry, even being on the wrong side of history you'll still be in history.
  - vertexFarm 9y ago
    It's interesting. I think we're at a strange period in history where personal speech can reach such a huge audience, thus new ways of suppressing speech are being invented. Youtube is a private service, thus they can remove content as they wish. Of course, most forms of historical media have also removed or suppressed controversial content. But in the old days it was preemptive. There was only so much room in a newspaper, you had to own presses and a distribution network, and they didn't hire just any schmoe to write columns. It was a proactive system of censorship. They got people invested in a career of finding the proper stories and promoting what was acceptable to the establishment. Obviously common people could say whatever they like in their daily lives, but their freedom to put content into a newspaper or television show for all to see was extremely limited. We have enormous freedom in self-publishing mass media today. So much content is being created that no mortal person can serve as gatekeeper and pick and choose what gets published like a newspaper editor could. So on one hand, we're living in a utopia of free speech. But new ways are being devised to automatically manage content all the time. And even though human moderators don't catch everything, but they slowly do what they can. There are some genuinely harmful ideas out there, of course. Some things that ought to be restricted. Who gets to decide? Is it right for a private company to choose? I doubt it, but private companies have always been choosing what gets into media. In the past their decisions were much more totalitarian than today.
- colordrops 9y ago
  There are plenty of political videos being removed or demonetized as well. We are not as far off as it may seem.
- noetic_techy 9y ago
  The problem is, the status quo likes to label the people on the periphery who often may be on to something "a scam".
- fmihaila 9y ago
  > There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451 reply Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam."
    - fmihaila 9y ago
      > "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam." You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam. Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of reviews from an independent lab that tested the substances: - "Both of these products are most likely safe, but ineffective." - "This product is a waste of money. The claim that 'Anthroplex works synergistically with the powerful Super Male Vitality formula in order to help restore your masculine foundation and stimulate vitality with its own blend of unique ingredients' is fluff on multiple fronts." - "This product's claims related to 'nascent oxygen' also have no real basis in science." - "We tested this product on the chance that it might be potassium iodide or sodium iodide, which it wasn't. Survival Shield is just plain iodine." etc. This is a guy who "... repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover-up" [2]. So, what's your definition of false and/or misleading? [1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres?utm_term=.fpY4PnLXD#.obaDbw2ay https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-in... [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-conspiracy-alex-jones-defamation/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-c... EDIT: it seems I misread the intent of the post above mine. My apologies. I'll leave my response up for reference.
      - detaro 9y ago
        I believe you are reading the parent poster the wrong way around.
- kristofferR 9y ago
  The channels in question aren't accused of containing false/misleading videos, they're accused of containing disallowed facts. Noone disputes that modafinil promotes wakefulness or that magnesium makes many sleepy.
  - atomical 9y ago
    Facts, lies, or unproven?
  - joew42k 9y ago
    Websites have always been allowed to decide which facts to allow on their site. Right now, if I visited an anti-vaxxer forum, and posted "vaccines don't cause autism" in the comments, I'm sure it would be removed. So why is youtube any different?
    - kristofferR 9y ago
      Of course YouTube have a right to remove every pro vaccination video from their site, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that they shouldn't.
      - joew42k 9y ago
        I agree with you. They shouldn't. I'm playing devils advocate to make a point. You can't expect websites to treat all opinions as equal. Even 4chan has moderators. Youtube only differs from other websites in scale. They are moderating content as we see fit. We can disagree with their reasoning behind moderation. But it's silly to act like they didn't have this right all along (And that's what I see in this comment section. Comments like "why should youtube say what I can and can't watch?" I'm pointing out that those arguments are a dead end.)
    - JamesBarney 9y ago
      Because youtube has a de-facto monopoly on online video viewing.
    - wnoise 9y ago
- 21 9y ago
  So it would be fine by you if YouTube removed a video titled "Python is the best programming language in the world" because it is misleading.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    That is definitely not ok. However if the title was "PHP is the best programming language in the world", then the account should be banned, and they should possibly forward the authorities the offenders IP Address so they can get the crazy person on a watch list.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
akvadrako 9y ago
It's not - just don't use youtube.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  sure, feel free to use any of these alternative services that offer a large potential reach and allow easy monetization of user content:
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    None of the alternative services will get there if no one is willing to use them. There is always the old fashioned way of getting sponsors yourself and hosting the video on your site.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      and it's not like youtube pays out very well - it's 90% towards google at the minimum.
      - musage 9y ago
        Which makes their behavior in relation to ElsaGate -- how long they ignored reports and pleas, and how they either did or published zero serious investigation of the issue -- even more disgusting. They could donate the ad money they made from videos aimed at abusing children, knowingly or not, to charities helping abused children, or something like that. But no, instead they used the occasion to brag and pat themselves on the back. Observe how they treat the defenseless, and how they treat those with clout. It speaks volumes.
  - kirykl 9y ago
    in the US you have a right to free speech, not mass reach
    - girvo 9y ago
      Then that definition of free speech ignores the changes in culture and communication, no? (I’m not even disagreeing with you, I’m more curious here. This article and discussion has brought up interesting points I think)
LoSboccacc 9y ago
yep, but the tide is changing. my last comment on the slippery slope and youtube didn't go minus fifteen as usual, so at least the tech community around here is coming to term with the issue being real.
wagecuck 9y ago
Nasim was a hero.
codepig 9y ago
Nasim was a hero and she did nothing wrong.

This is really scary. People who warned of the slippery slope of censorship were definitely right.

pboutros 9y ago

There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451

jerf 9y ago
Depends on who gets to decide what "false/misleading" is. I'm not sure how this could be any less transparent. I personally see less than no reason to trust YouTube's judgment in these matters.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  So should it be illegal to run a curated platform?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It certainly presents problems when all the most popular channels for communication are controlled by a handful of companies.
    - Caprinicus 9y ago
      And that they grew to this point before imposing this "curation". It seems to be a recurring theme with these companies to grow to a monopoly with a place for relatively free discourse and then to do this as soon as they feel safe.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        The incentives are aligned that way... once you're big the biggest thing is protecting your position.
  - merinowool 9y ago
    To be fair information is a weapon and there should be no free reign for anyone. If you are on purpose suppressing some information to fulfil political agenda - that should be a criminal act.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      So what's a political agenda? Is the promotion of cats a political agenda? Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs?
      - RoyTyrell 9y ago
        > Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs? Sure. Why shouldn't a private entity be able to determine what kind of speech they allow on their own property?
        girvo 9y ago
        Because if they have a huge defacto monopoly, and also a outsized impact on our culture, the impacts of them doing so are far more far-reaching than, say, LiveLeak removing some video (trying to think of a competitor for YT is surprisingly hard).
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      Ok, but what about the opposite: What if you are, on purpose, constantly disseminating false information to fulfill a political agenda?
- vkou 9y ago
  Any time you open the paper, turn on the TV, crack open a book, or visit Hacker News, you are trusting some curator, gatekeeper, editor, or censor's judgement. Even bazaars like 4chan are moderated.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    And the unmoderated spaced of before don't exist any more (Usenet), because companies didn't make money on it. Or worse, because it violated some company's "right". Now, in order to speak, you nearly have to go through one of Their gateways. If you piss off FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon), you're gone off the net. Some of those gatekeepers are big scripts with no human intervention for your level. If you fall between the cracks, then you have no recourse, other than find a place like HN and beg publicly - lest you get shitcanned by the HN gatekeepers.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      "If you piss off FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon), you're gone off the net." No, you're not. Not even close. The Daily Stormer is still online; you will be too.
      - musage 9y ago
        I don't see why the burden to "make ends meet" in a totally scorched landscape should be on those not scorching it, with those looking the other way preaching to them from a supposed moral high horse. Stuff like the right to confront your accuser is totally lost with these companies as well as on HN. But don't worry, even being on the wrong side of history you'll still be in history.
- vertexFarm 9y ago
  It's interesting. I think we're at a strange period in history where personal speech can reach such a huge audience, thus new ways of suppressing speech are being invented. Youtube is a private service, thus they can remove content as they wish. Of course, most forms of historical media have also removed or suppressed controversial content. But in the old days it was preemptive. There was only so much room in a newspaper, you had to own presses and a distribution network, and they didn't hire just any schmoe to write columns. It was a proactive system of censorship. They got people invested in a career of finding the proper stories and promoting what was acceptable to the establishment. Obviously common people could say whatever they like in their daily lives, but their freedom to put content into a newspaper or television show for all to see was extremely limited. We have enormous freedom in self-publishing mass media today. So much content is being created that no mortal person can serve as gatekeeper and pick and choose what gets published like a newspaper editor could. So on one hand, we're living in a utopia of free speech. But new ways are being devised to automatically manage content all the time. And even though human moderators don't catch everything, but they slowly do what they can. There are some genuinely harmful ideas out there, of course. Some things that ought to be restricted. Who gets to decide? Is it right for a private company to choose? I doubt it, but private companies have always been choosing what gets into media. In the past their decisions were much more totalitarian than today.
colordrops 9y ago
There are plenty of political videos being removed or demonetized as well. We are not as far off as it may seem.
noetic_techy 9y ago
The problem is, the status quo likes to label the people on the periphery who often may be on to something "a scam".
fmihaila 9y ago
> There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451 reply Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam."
  - fmihaila 9y ago
    > "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam." You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam. Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of reviews from an independent lab that tested the substances: - "Both of these products are most likely safe, but ineffective." - "This product is a waste of money. The claim that 'Anthroplex works synergistically with the powerful Super Male Vitality formula in order to help restore your masculine foundation and stimulate vitality with its own blend of unique ingredients' is fluff on multiple fronts." - "This product's claims related to 'nascent oxygen' also have no real basis in science." - "We tested this product on the chance that it might be potassium iodide or sodium iodide, which it wasn't. Survival Shield is just plain iodine." etc. This is a guy who "... repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover-up" [2]. So, what's your definition of false and/or misleading? [1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres?utm_term=.fpY4PnLXD#.obaDbw2ay https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-in... [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-conspiracy-alex-jones-defamation/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-c... EDIT: it seems I misread the intent of the post above mine. My apologies. I'll leave my response up for reference.
    - detaro 9y ago
      I believe you are reading the parent poster the wrong way around.
kristofferR 9y ago
The channels in question aren't accused of containing false/misleading videos, they're accused of containing disallowed facts. Noone disputes that modafinil promotes wakefulness or that magnesium makes many sleepy.
- atomical 9y ago
  Facts, lies, or unproven?
- joew42k 9y ago
  Websites have always been allowed to decide which facts to allow on their site. Right now, if I visited an anti-vaxxer forum, and posted "vaccines don't cause autism" in the comments, I'm sure it would be removed. So why is youtube any different?
  - kristofferR 9y ago
    Of course YouTube have a right to remove every pro vaccination video from their site, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that they shouldn't.
    - joew42k 9y ago
      I agree with you. They shouldn't. I'm playing devils advocate to make a point. You can't expect websites to treat all opinions as equal. Even 4chan has moderators. Youtube only differs from other websites in scale. They are moderating content as we see fit. We can disagree with their reasoning behind moderation. But it's silly to act like they didn't have this right all along (And that's what I see in this comment section. Comments like "why should youtube say what I can and can't watch?" I'm pointing out that those arguments are a dead end.)
  - JamesBarney 9y ago
    Because youtube has a de-facto monopoly on online video viewing.
  - wnoise 9y ago
21 9y ago
So it would be fine by you if YouTube removed a video titled "Python is the best programming language in the world" because it is misleading.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  That is definitely not ok. However if the title was "PHP is the best programming language in the world", then the account should be banned, and they should possibly forward the authorities the offenders IP Address so they can get the crazy person on a watch list.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

akvadrako 9y ago

It's not - just don't use youtube.

LoSboccacc 9y ago
sure, feel free to use any of these alternative services that offer a large potential reach and allow easy monetization of user content:
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  None of the alternative services will get there if no one is willing to use them. There is always the old fashioned way of getting sponsors yourself and hosting the video on your site.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    and it's not like youtube pays out very well - it's 90% towards google at the minimum.
    - musage 9y ago
      Which makes their behavior in relation to ElsaGate -- how long they ignored reports and pleas, and how they either did or published zero serious investigation of the issue -- even more disgusting. They could donate the ad money they made from videos aimed at abusing children, knowingly or not, to charities helping abused children, or something like that. But no, instead they used the occasion to brag and pat themselves on the back. Observe how they treat the defenseless, and how they treat those with clout. It speaks volumes.
- kirykl 9y ago
  in the US you have a right to free speech, not mass reach
  - girvo 9y ago
    Then that definition of free speech ignores the changes in culture and communication, no? (I’m not even disagreeing with you, I’m more curious here. This article and discussion has brought up interesting points I think)

LoSboccacc 9y ago

yep, but the tide is changing. my last comment on the slippery slope and youtube didn't go minus fifteen as usual, so at least the tech community around here is coming to term with the issue being real.

wagecuck 9y ago

Nasim was a hero.

codepig 9y ago

Nasim was a hero and she did nothing wrong.