6 ms·

>Shocked that YouTube or any stock traded company would allow these videos to stay up. Morally this is wrong since cheating hurts everyone in education. Is it

by Buge 9y ago

>Shocked that YouTube or any stock traded company would allow these videos to stay up. Morally this is wrong since cheating hurts everyone in education. Is it Youtube's job to enforce morals? Is it Youtube's job to prevent anything that might hurt education? If it was determined that memes hurt education (by distracting students from studying) should Youtube ban memes?

ohashi 9y ago
It can be it's job. The upside of keeping them - you get more business from companies operating in grey/black. The downside, loss of a tiny bit of revenue, possible public backlash/outcry, and the loss of morality. It's hard for people to die on the hill of a service for cheating. If you really want to, go for it, but it'll be lonely.
- Buge 8y ago
  Could that same thing be said for channels doing gun modifications? Many people got very mad when Youtube took down some of them.
sakuronto 8y ago
It wasn't YouTube's job to be the morality police, but much like Cloudflare, YouTube, entirely of its own volition, decided to take on the job, and now it's too late for them to backpedal.
- Buge 8y ago
  So because some censorship happens there should now be an increase in censorship?
anonnel 8y ago
> Is it Youtube’s job to enforce morals? ... Wrong frame. YouTube’s ethical responsibility is dictated by their ethos and that of society. It’s Youtube’s ethical responsibility to not have videos which promote academic cheating products.
- Buge 8y ago
  There are others who say it's Youtube's responsibility to be a bastion of free speech and not censor people. Different groups of people want different things from Youtube.
  - anonnel 8y ago
    The crux of this debate is that private companies aren’t currently subject to the First Ammendment and the laws which surround it (which grant as well as restrict free speech). However privately-owned online spaces have become the modern version of the “town squares” which are the intended venues of the First Ammendment. Today we are repeating debates addressed by 1A and its surrounding laws, by virtue of the fact that private companies aren’t currently subject to 1A. It’s a healthy debate to have, but we should be aware of the pitfalls - namely that the introduction of 1A upon the old “town squares” freed us from tyranny. Failure to do it again for the new town squares will invite tyranny, and would inevitably bring it back. This includes the laws which restrict 1A (“shouting fire”, etc.) which cover the old town squares. For the new town squares these are the “content moderation” policy cases online venues struggle with. The first thing which needs to be done is to bring 1A and the surrounding legislative framework to the new town squares. Then we have the task of crafting laws in that framework which address cases special to the information era: IP, impersonation, disinformation, incitement ... Unfortunately, the law is behind the curve.

by Buge 9y ago

ohashi 9y ago

It can be it's job. The upside of keeping them - you get more business from companies operating in grey/black. The downside, loss of a tiny bit of revenue, possible public backlash/outcry, and the loss of morality. It's hard for people to die on the hill of a service for cheating. If you really want to, go for it, but it'll be lonely.

Buge 8y ago
Could that same thing be said for channels doing gun modifications? Many people got very mad when Youtube took down some of them.

sakuronto 8y ago

It wasn't YouTube's job to be the morality police, but much like Cloudflare, YouTube, entirely of its own volition, decided to take on the job, and now it's too late for them to backpedal.

Buge 8y ago
So because some censorship happens there should now be an increase in censorship?

anonnel 8y ago

> Is it Youtube’s job to enforce morals? ... Wrong frame. YouTube’s ethical responsibility is dictated by their ethos and that of society. It’s Youtube’s ethical responsibility to not have videos which promote academic cheating products.

Buge 8y ago
There are others who say it's Youtube's responsibility to be a bastion of free speech and not censor people. Different groups of people want different things from Youtube.
- anonnel 8y ago
  The crux of this debate is that private companies aren’t currently subject to the First Ammendment and the laws which surround it (which grant as well as restrict free speech). However privately-owned online spaces have become the modern version of the “town squares” which are the intended venues of the First Ammendment. Today we are repeating debates addressed by 1A and its surrounding laws, by virtue of the fact that private companies aren’t currently subject to 1A. It’s a healthy debate to have, but we should be aware of the pitfalls - namely that the introduction of 1A upon the old “town squares” freed us from tyranny. Failure to do it again for the new town squares will invite tyranny, and would inevitably bring it back. This includes the laws which restrict 1A (“shouting fire”, etc.) which cover the old town squares. For the new town squares these are the “content moderation” policy cases online venues struggle with. The first thing which needs to be done is to bring 1A and the surrounding legislative framework to the new town squares. Then we have the task of crafting laws in that framework which address cases special to the information era: IP, impersonation, disinformation, incitement ... Unfortunately, the law is behind the curve.