7 ms·

Why is it an acceptable expectation for the user to self moderate certain information but not others? For example, if I watch a video about modding a car, then

Why is it an acceptable expectation for the user to self moderate certain information but not others? For example, if I watch a video about modding a car, then that links me to another video of more extreme modification, and so on, up to the point that I am no longer interested and stop watching. That is OK for the people at YouTube. But when it comes to politics they feel that people cannot decide what they do and don’t agree with and self moderate. I get that you could make the argument that politics is different, but is it that much different than some other topics that could lead to undesirable outcomes?

InitialLastName 8y ago
Car modding has a) very high up-front costs, relative to developing political ideas and b) arguably very little chance of doing large-scale damage to a society. If car modding videos led you down a rabbit hole towards "watch how fast I can go if I cut the brake lines with these $3 wire cutters! Those braking requirements are just a conspiracy between big auto and the shadow government to keep you from reaching car enlightenment, so make sure to drive through the front window of your nearest car dealership"... and then people started doing that, we would have a different attitude about them.
- mberning 8y ago
  It was just an example, but who are you to say it’s not already a huge problem? It surely is to somebody. Maybe they work at YouTube. Modified vehicles spew enormous amounts of pollution into the environment which as we all know is a huge crisis. Driving highly modified vehicles on public roads is also a huge public safety hazard. Nobody needs 1000 horsepower on public roads. See how this can get out of hand? It all depends on who is deciding what is problematic.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  Are they going to take the same stance to videos about gaming, because gaming addiction is a real problem and a progressive diet of “Lets Plays” normalizes unhealthy amounts of video games, by showing people whose entire life is video games? Why is that different than politics?
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    I can't believe I have to say this, but it's different because political beliefs, whether they inspire one to shoot a bunch of people or just to vote for the "burn it all down" party can have a damaging influence over society as a whole. I.e. it's not just about the personal responsibility to oneself as much as the risk of being inspired to terrorism.
    - chrinic83 8y ago
      > I can't believe I have to say this, but it's different because political beliefs, whether they inspire one to shoot a bunch of people or just to vote for the "burn it all down" party can have a damaging influence over society as a whole. Sorry but you can't claim politics as holy and protected while disregarding gaming, modded cars, and other topics, arguably more political than "politics" topics.
    - unpwn 8y ago
      It has been argued many times that video games desensitize kids to violence & lead to violence. By your logic we would ban videos of call of duty as well. And your second point is you believe youtube videos are leading to people voting for an undesirable candidate. Why not just ban political conversation altogether? This way we can ensure people vote for pre-approved candidates.
      - sisu2019 8y ago
        Politics I don't like are dangerous and must be banned. Is that clear enough?
        InitialLastName 8y ago
        You're right, I should never have brought politics into a discussion of violent radicalization. Those things definitely never overlap.
        8y ago
bmurphy1976 8y ago
If the algorithm increasingly leads you to videos that are pushing you to create modifications where things are maliciously wrong, dangerous, or illegal, then yeah I would expect YouTube to have some accountability here. It's not about right vs left, it's about malicious intent and misinformation and the algorithm feeding that cycle.
mr_toad 8y ago
> but is it that much different For me the line-in-the-sand is political views that advocate destroying our entire way of life, especially through violence. In my view you don’t get to claim the benefits of free speech and tolerance if your manifesto is based on intolerance and marginalisation. If you’re intolerant, don’t expect to be tolerated.

InitialLastName 8y ago

Car modding has a) very high up-front costs, relative to developing political ideas and b) arguably very little chance of doing large-scale damage to a society. If car modding videos led you down a rabbit hole towards "watch how fast I can go if I cut the brake lines with these $3 wire cutters! Those braking requirements are just a conspiracy between big auto and the shadow government to keep you from reaching car enlightenment, so make sure to drive through the front window of your nearest car dealership"... and then people started doing that, we would have a different attitude about them.

mberning 8y ago
It was just an example, but who are you to say it’s not already a huge problem? It surely is to somebody. Maybe they work at YouTube. Modified vehicles spew enormous amounts of pollution into the environment which as we all know is a huge crisis. Driving highly modified vehicles on public roads is also a huge public safety hazard. Nobody needs 1000 horsepower on public roads. See how this can get out of hand? It all depends on who is deciding what is problematic.
FakeComments 8y ago
Are they going to take the same stance to videos about gaming, because gaming addiction is a real problem and a progressive diet of “Lets Plays” normalizes unhealthy amounts of video games, by showing people whose entire life is video games? Why is that different than politics?
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  I can't believe I have to say this, but it's different because political beliefs, whether they inspire one to shoot a bunch of people or just to vote for the "burn it all down" party can have a damaging influence over society as a whole. I.e. it's not just about the personal responsibility to oneself as much as the risk of being inspired to terrorism.
  - chrinic83 8y ago
    > I can't believe I have to say this, but it's different because political beliefs, whether they inspire one to shoot a bunch of people or just to vote for the "burn it all down" party can have a damaging influence over society as a whole. Sorry but you can't claim politics as holy and protected while disregarding gaming, modded cars, and other topics, arguably more political than "politics" topics.
  - unpwn 8y ago
    It has been argued many times that video games desensitize kids to violence & lead to violence. By your logic we would ban videos of call of duty as well. And your second point is you believe youtube videos are leading to people voting for an undesirable candidate. Why not just ban political conversation altogether? This way we can ensure people vote for pre-approved candidates.
    - sisu2019 8y ago
      Politics I don't like are dangerous and must be banned. Is that clear enough?
      - InitialLastName 8y ago
        You're right, I should never have brought politics into a discussion of violent radicalization. Those things definitely never overlap.
        8y ago

bmurphy1976 8y ago

If the algorithm increasingly leads you to videos that are pushing you to create modifications where things are maliciously wrong, dangerous, or illegal, then yeah I would expect YouTube to have some accountability here. It's not about right vs left, it's about malicious intent and misinformation and the algorithm feeding that cycle.

mr_toad 8y ago

> but is it that much different For me the line-in-the-sand is political views that advocate destroying our entire way of life, especially through violence. In my view you don’t get to claim the benefits of free speech and tolerance if your manifesto is based on intolerance and marginalisation. If you’re intolerant, don’t expect to be tolerated.