4 ms·

Where do you stop? Hitler and his political organization did terrible things, and we certainly should try to stop those kinds of events from repeating. But th

Where do you stop? Hitler and his political organization did terrible things, and we certainly should try to stop those kinds of events from repeating. But the same could be said of Stalin or Mao: should we ban all of the neo-communist videos on YouTube?

charlesism 8y ago
I'm not Youtube, so it's not my call, but if they had any sense of responsibility, they should certainly ban Nazis and terrorists. Whatever they don't want on their platform beyond that is their business. If they don't like videos of baby sea lions, well, I'd have to find my baby sea lion videos elsewhere.
- luckylion 8y ago
  Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists", who defines who to ban? Is it the original "Nazi" definition, or some modern diluted definition where the number of Nazis has skyrocketed? Do we allow content from "freedom fighters" and "rebels"?
  - charlesism 8y ago
    Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists" By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" These terms are whatever the moderator says they are. If their definition does not match up with mine, I complain. If it does match, I don't.
    - spaginal 8y ago
      Hyperbolic non sense. Child porn is illegal and has a clear legal definition. We don’t argue as a society over what is or isn’t child pornography. We don’t look at puppy videos and complain to others that it’s child pornography. We do have people simply express discomfort with how our government behaves, legitimate concerns with immigration, civil rights, or other aspects of society, blanket labeled as nazi’s or extremists and banned from online forums. It’s dangerous, and it’s being used as an excuse to shutdown speech and information now, specifically more and more to one side of the debate. So he asked a legitimate question. Define nazi, because much like labeling people as communists simply because they want better access to healthcare, these terms are being used fast and loose these days to describe anyone someone else may politically disagree with, even when it bears no resemblance to the person being labeled.
      - charlesism 8y ago
        There's no point continuing this.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      > By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" I agree with spaginal that child pornography isn't a very grey area. If you're asking people to decide who is and isn't a Nazi, I believe you'll get much more different ideas than if you're asking about child pornography. Is Sam Harris a Nazi? Is Joe Rogan? They were named as far right-adjacent and far right influences in a report - would they be banned from Youtube under your idea?
  - toofy 8y ago
    > Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists" On their platform, YouTube does. I apologize if I'm accidentally misunderstanding what your expectations are regarding decisions in society, but if you're asking for society to eliminate judgement calls, this is an incredibly unrealistic ask and you will almost certainly forever be frustrated. Everyday humans make judgement calls, and they seem to be reasonable far more often than they are unreasonable. If YouTube's userbase feels YouTube has become unreasonable, they move on to another platform. Whether you realize it or not, in a society based on private property, where we allow individuals to have control over things they own, what may seem like arbitrary judgement calls are necessarily made thousands of times per day. Everything from the local bartender who must decide when someone has too much to drink to the person choosing which stocks to buy, to the interviewer deciding who the best candidate is for a job. Judgement calls are constantly made. In a society which worships private property and places an incredibly high value on individual choice, Asking "who decides X, Y, and Z?" will always end with "The person who owns the thing or is placed in the trusted role for that decision." You interact with this trust over and over and over again throughout your day. Now if you want to question whether or not a society should worship private property to the level with which we do, this is an entirely different question. But in our current iteration, where we trust individuals to make decisions without seeking permission from every member of society, the owners of something or the people they hire decide what is or is not do with their personal assets. It likely isn't possible to run a society where no one is ever making judgement calls. Again, if I misunderstood the implications of your question, I apologize.
    - FakeComments 8y ago
      YouTube actually agreed not to editorialize user uploaded content in exchange for protection from copyright laws. So YouTube actually voluntarily surrendered the right many of you suppose it has in exchange for a privilege — if YouTube removed content that way, it becomes liable for any acts of commercial copyright infringement.
      - toofy 8y ago
        I'd be interested to hear more about this, do you have any articles handy which go into detail of the specific language of this agreement? I'm sure this may be a possibility, but I'm skeptical, I'd be more inclined to believe YouTube's lawyers would be more than smart enough to advise them not to break that kind of contract. I'd love to see the language though if you have it handy. Giving up the power to pick and choose what sort of content would be allowed on their platform seems like something no sane organization would give away. That would be like hackernews signing an agreement where they wouldn't be allowed to moderate, highly unlikely.

charlesism 8y ago

I'm not Youtube, so it's not my call, but if they had any sense of responsibility, they should certainly ban Nazis and terrorists. Whatever they don't want on their platform beyond that is their business. If they don't like videos of baby sea lions, well, I'd have to find my baby sea lion videos elsewhere.

luckylion 8y ago
Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists", who defines who to ban? Is it the original "Nazi" definition, or some modern diluted definition where the number of Nazis has skyrocketed? Do we allow content from "freedom fighters" and "rebels"?
- charlesism 8y ago
  Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists" By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" These terms are whatever the moderator says they are. If their definition does not match up with mine, I complain. If it does match, I don't.
  - spaginal 8y ago
    Hyperbolic non sense. Child porn is illegal and has a clear legal definition. We don’t argue as a society over what is or isn’t child pornography. We don’t look at puppy videos and complain to others that it’s child pornography. We do have people simply express discomfort with how our government behaves, legitimate concerns with immigration, civil rights, or other aspects of society, blanket labeled as nazi’s or extremists and banned from online forums. It’s dangerous, and it’s being used as an excuse to shutdown speech and information now, specifically more and more to one side of the debate. So he asked a legitimate question. Define nazi, because much like labeling people as communists simply because they want better access to healthcare, these terms are being used fast and loose these days to describe anyone someone else may politically disagree with, even when it bears no resemblance to the person being labeled.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      There's no point continuing this.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    > By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" I agree with spaginal that child pornography isn't a very grey area. If you're asking people to decide who is and isn't a Nazi, I believe you'll get much more different ideas than if you're asking about child pornography. Is Sam Harris a Nazi? Is Joe Rogan? They were named as far right-adjacent and far right influences in a report - would they be banned from Youtube under your idea?
- toofy 8y ago
  > Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists" On their platform, YouTube does. I apologize if I'm accidentally misunderstanding what your expectations are regarding decisions in society, but if you're asking for society to eliminate judgement calls, this is an incredibly unrealistic ask and you will almost certainly forever be frustrated. Everyday humans make judgement calls, and they seem to be reasonable far more often than they are unreasonable. If YouTube's userbase feels YouTube has become unreasonable, they move on to another platform. Whether you realize it or not, in a society based on private property, where we allow individuals to have control over things they own, what may seem like arbitrary judgement calls are necessarily made thousands of times per day. Everything from the local bartender who must decide when someone has too much to drink to the person choosing which stocks to buy, to the interviewer deciding who the best candidate is for a job. Judgement calls are constantly made. In a society which worships private property and places an incredibly high value on individual choice, Asking "who decides X, Y, and Z?" will always end with "The person who owns the thing or is placed in the trusted role for that decision." You interact with this trust over and over and over again throughout your day. Now if you want to question whether or not a society should worship private property to the level with which we do, this is an entirely different question. But in our current iteration, where we trust individuals to make decisions without seeking permission from every member of society, the owners of something or the people they hire decide what is or is not do with their personal assets. It likely isn't possible to run a society where no one is ever making judgement calls. Again, if I misunderstood the implications of your question, I apologize.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    YouTube actually agreed not to editorialize user uploaded content in exchange for protection from copyright laws. So YouTube actually voluntarily surrendered the right many of you suppose it has in exchange for a privilege — if YouTube removed content that way, it becomes liable for any acts of commercial copyright infringement.
    - toofy 8y ago
      I'd be interested to hear more about this, do you have any articles handy which go into detail of the specific language of this agreement? I'm sure this may be a possibility, but I'm skeptical, I'd be more inclined to believe YouTube's lawyers would be more than smart enough to advise them not to break that kind of contract. I'd love to see the language though if you have it handy. Giving up the power to pick and choose what sort of content would be allowed on their platform seems like something no sane organization would give away. That would be like hackernews signing an agreement where they wouldn't be allowed to moderate, highly unlikely.