6 ms·

Is this censorship?

by akerro 8y ago

Is this censorship?

jasonvorhe 8y ago
Is Google a state?
realusername 8y ago
How so? They are still free to post their videos, it's just now they can't profit from making videos which will end up killing people, that sounds reasonable to me.
- golergka 8y ago
  It's a good decision, but it shouldn't be Google's place or role to make such decisions.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Why not? They provision the adverts, collect the payments and take a cut. It seems reasonable they should be able to decide not to do those things. On the face of it the alternative is to coerce them into doing so against their will. What is the argument for doing that?
    - paulgb 8y ago
      Also, as the article mentions, a number of advertisers "said they will take action to prevent their ads from running in front of anti-vax videos" Google could let the market solve this problem, but ultimately brands don't want to manage their own blacklists, they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to.
      - Udik 8y ago
        It's incredibly easy for youtube to exclude certain ads from certain channels. > they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to. Are they going to change platform? To what?
        paulgb 8y ago
        > Are they going to change platform? To what? The most likely immediate switch is not to a new platform but to a whitelist of the top 100 or 1k channels. Because of the Pareto principle, these channels get the majority of views anyway, and it's easier to manage a 100-1k whitelist than to blacklist every long-tail channel with content you don't like. You could argue that this is no different to YouTube in the short run because they still get the ad dollars, but it's in their best interest in the long-run to make the long tail inventory viable.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  It's worth noting that YouTube have both a blacklist and a whitelist for advertising. Most videos that get "demonetised" are still eligible to earn ad revenue, but advertisers have to specifically opt-in to advertise against these videos. A small proportion of videos and creators are completely ineligible to earn revenue because they explicitly violate YouTube's ToS (usually on copyright grounds). Channels also require a minimum number of subscribers and views to be eligible for monetisation. This strikes me as a sensible compromise. Most content creators are frustrated by the lack of transparency and the often arbitrary nature of demonetisation, but they see it as essentially necessary to safeguard their livelihoods. YouTube didn't start demonetising videos apropos of nothing, they did it as a specific response to an advertiser boycott in 2017. To a great extent, demonetisation saved YouTube from economic failure.
wetpaws 8y ago
You can still watch videos. They are not censored. There is just less incentive making them.
demarq 8y ago
I think it definitely is. Creators depend on Ad-Revenue so taking that away when they publish something you don't agree with is censorship. Also Google doesn't have to be a state to engage in censorship, anyone can be a censor i.e a parent who prevents their children watching shows with a gay character. I think the Anti-Vaccination movement is misleading and eventually harmful to public health. That said I think censorship should be something that should take place (if it has to) in a public office, not in a corporate boardroom. Here is what Google should have done. If you google anything related to depression google suggests suicide prevention hotlines. If facebook notices a popular article in your timeline it follows it with a snopes link to check if it is real. In other words Google should place a banner/ad/link that educates people on the real facts concerning Anti-Vaccination. At the end of the day, Google own their platform and can do whatever they want, but is it the right thing to do? Or better yet is there a better way.
- fredley 8y ago
  Censorship is not about the right to make a profit, it's about the right to publish.
  - demarq 8y ago
    I think that is a brittle and somewhat superficial definition of censorship. Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: > The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security Note there is nothing there about "rights".
    - tclancy 8y ago
      Nothing about profits either.
    - alistairSH 8y ago
      YouTube hasn't suppressed or prohibited any of those items. The videos are still there. They just don't have ads targeted at them.
- 8y ago
blfr 8y ago
People are trying various escape hatches in the responses but it obviously is. First, censorship can be carried out by non-state actors. Second, they treat these videos differently to intentionally limit their reach and appeal.
- auntienomen 8y ago
  You can call this censorship if you like, but it's not the kind of censorship the government imposes. Anti-vaxxers are perfectly welcome to start their own website. No penalty is imposed when they share their misinformation. This is closer in spirit to a newspaper refusing to publish someone's letter.
  - blfr 8y ago
    Except this newspaper publishes all letters from all comers making it fairly obvious censorship. "Start your own website" is a brush-off when faced with corporate cenosrhip. People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. There is a very real problem with corporate harassment for views their management finds worthy of targeting and people are dismissing it because they like the targeting. For now anyway.
    - nkozyra 8y ago
      > People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. I don't see this as a "problem," per se. There are no guarantees in life that you will have unfettered access to services like this, particularly if you use them in a manner the providers deem against their terms.
    - armada651 8y ago
      Just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean everyone is obligated to listen to it and pay you money for it. "Freedom of expression" is just that, the freedom to voice your opinion. It's not the "Right of attention". Furthermore, like any freedom there are limitations when your freedom starts endangering the freedom of others. We don't allow hate speech and death threats, so where does anti-vax fit in?

Is this censorship?

by akerro 8y ago

Is this censorship?

jasonvorhe 8y ago

Is Google a state?

realusername 8y ago

How so? They are still free to post their videos, it's just now they can't profit from making videos which will end up killing people, that sounds reasonable to me.

golergka 8y ago
It's a good decision, but it shouldn't be Google's place or role to make such decisions.
- simonh 8y ago
  Why not? They provision the adverts, collect the payments and take a cut. It seems reasonable they should be able to decide not to do those things. On the face of it the alternative is to coerce them into doing so against their will. What is the argument for doing that?
  - paulgb 8y ago
    Also, as the article mentions, a number of advertisers "said they will take action to prevent their ads from running in front of anti-vax videos" Google could let the market solve this problem, but ultimately brands don't want to manage their own blacklists, they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to.
    - Udik 8y ago
      It's incredibly easy for youtube to exclude certain ads from certain channels. > they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to. Are they going to change platform? To what?
      - paulgb 8y ago
        > Are they going to change platform? To what? The most likely immediate switch is not to a new platform but to a whitelist of the top 100 or 1k channels. Because of the Pareto principle, these channels get the majority of views anyway, and it's easier to manage a 100-1k whitelist than to blacklist every long-tail channel with content you don't like. You could argue that this is no different to YouTube in the short run because they still get the ad dollars, but it's in their best interest in the long-run to make the long tail inventory viable.
jdietrich 8y ago
It's worth noting that YouTube have both a blacklist and a whitelist for advertising. Most videos that get "demonetised" are still eligible to earn ad revenue, but advertisers have to specifically opt-in to advertise against these videos. A small proportion of videos and creators are completely ineligible to earn revenue because they explicitly violate YouTube's ToS (usually on copyright grounds). Channels also require a minimum number of subscribers and views to be eligible for monetisation. This strikes me as a sensible compromise. Most content creators are frustrated by the lack of transparency and the often arbitrary nature of demonetisation, but they see it as essentially necessary to safeguard their livelihoods. YouTube didn't start demonetising videos apropos of nothing, they did it as a specific response to an advertiser boycott in 2017. To a great extent, demonetisation saved YouTube from economic failure.

wetpaws 8y ago

You can still watch videos. They are not censored. There is just less incentive making them.

demarq 8y ago

I think it definitely is. Creators depend on Ad-Revenue so taking that away when they publish something you don't agree with is censorship. Also Google doesn't have to be a state to engage in censorship, anyone can be a censor i.e a parent who prevents their children watching shows with a gay character. I think the Anti-Vaccination movement is misleading and eventually harmful to public health. That said I think censorship should be something that should take place (if it has to) in a public office, not in a corporate boardroom. Here is what Google should have done. If you google anything related to depression google suggests suicide prevention hotlines. If facebook notices a popular article in your timeline it follows it with a snopes link to check if it is real. In other words Google should place a banner/ad/link that educates people on the real facts concerning Anti-Vaccination. At the end of the day, Google own their platform and can do whatever they want, but is it the right thing to do? Or better yet is there a better way.

fredley 8y ago
Censorship is not about the right to make a profit, it's about the right to publish.
- demarq 8y ago
  I think that is a brittle and somewhat superficial definition of censorship. Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: > The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security Note there is nothing there about "rights".
  - tclancy 8y ago
    Nothing about profits either.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    YouTube hasn't suppressed or prohibited any of those items. The videos are still there. They just don't have ads targeted at them.
8y ago

blfr 8y ago

People are trying various escape hatches in the responses but it obviously is. First, censorship can be carried out by non-state actors. Second, they treat these videos differently to intentionally limit their reach and appeal.

auntienomen 8y ago
You can call this censorship if you like, but it's not the kind of censorship the government imposes. Anti-vaxxers are perfectly welcome to start their own website. No penalty is imposed when they share their misinformation. This is closer in spirit to a newspaper refusing to publish someone's letter.
- blfr 8y ago
  Except this newspaper publishes all letters from all comers making it fairly obvious censorship. "Start your own website" is a brush-off when faced with corporate cenosrhip. People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. There is a very real problem with corporate harassment for views their management finds worthy of targeting and people are dismissing it because they like the targeting. For now anyway.
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    > People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. I don't see this as a "problem," per se. There are no guarantees in life that you will have unfettered access to services like this, particularly if you use them in a manner the providers deem against their terms.
  - armada651 8y ago
    Just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean everyone is obligated to listen to it and pay you money for it. "Freedom of expression" is just that, the freedom to voice your opinion. It's not the "Right of attention". Furthermore, like any freedom there are limitations when your freedom starts endangering the freedom of others. We don't allow hate speech and death threats, so where does anti-vax fit in?