5 ms·

Note that it's not extreme views (like my adherence to the FSF). Nope, we're talking about "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy a

Note that it's not extreme views (like my adherence to the FSF). Nope, we're talking about "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies". As much as I don't like censorship, views that advocate for extermination of other people can rightly fuck off.

nullbyte 7y ago
YouTube gets to decide what a "bigoted ideology" is. That's a sweeping term that can be used as a catch-all for videos they don't like. I think that this will be bad for the platform overall -- an increase in censorship is never good.
- davidw 7y ago
  If nazis are fundamental to the success of their platform, that's... a problem.
  - mjfl 7y ago
    You're a Nazi, davidw. Get off this platform. Can you see how the above is a bad thing now?
    - fwip 7y ago
      Unfortunately for your argument, most people have basic literacy and understand the meaning of words.
      - mjfl 7y ago
        This is obviously untrue if you consider the people who call Ben Shapiro, who is Jewish, a Nazi. It's obvious to most people that people take wild liberties on the interpretation of words, especially when insulting people who they consider their enemies.
        fwip 7y ago
        Begone, horse.
- Manfred 7y ago
  In the absence of a government that makes clear laws concerning hate speech it’s up to the platforms to find a good balance. From the YouTube blog post: > We’ve been taking a close look at our approach towards hateful content in consultation with dozens of experts in subjects like violent extremism, supremacism, civil rights, and free speech. So at the very least they claim to understand that it should not be a random decision.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Sure because targeted harassment, advocacy for the extermination of large groups, conspiracy theories like anti-vax BS that are actually killing people are just just fine People against (limited) censorship usually react very quickly once it's their group that's being attacked (as some very famous subreddit does)
  - nullbyte 7y ago
    Oh god, I feel like I'm in a reddit thread
- fwip 7y ago
  An increase in censorship is very frequently good. Consider a discussion forum that never banned any users or removed any spam. It quickly becomes very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when a third of the posts are "CHEEP ROLE X bUY NOW" and another third are racial hatred.
  - nullbyte 7y ago
    Except this is censorship based on political ideologies
    - fwip 7y ago
      I thought censorship was never good? Now it's sometimes good except when it's based on "political ideologies," except for whatever example I bring up next, which of course is another exception.
  - Nuzzerino 7y ago
    That's an oversimplification, and I don't think I need to elaborate past that.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > an increase in censorship is never good. Increases in curation (private censorship of one’s own offering) are very frequently good. Whether the paying customers are consumers or advertisers, quality of curation is typically on of the main things they are paying for in content platforms. It’s true that there has been some effort to substitute algorithmic recommendation engines providing a consumer-specific view in place of curation, but it's also pretty clear that even the best of those is not viewed as an adequate solution by significant segments of the market.
Madmallard 7y ago
.
- dontreact 7y ago
  How is removing a video from YouTube the same as literally killing someone?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
randyrand 7y ago
Maybe I’m under a rock, but I don’t know anyone that argues for that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
> other bigoted ideologies That's not specific enough. What about people who want to preserve European culture but don't think its "superior" to any other culture?
- busterarm 7y ago
  What about people with conservative religious beliefs that others perceive to be exclusionary?
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    Or if you have concerns about high levels of immigration and it’s relationship to overall cohesion of society. Views that were nominally conservative not long ago (and were actually also held by a lot of democrats) get recast as “Nazi!!1!1” in today’s environment. Weird historical inflection point we’re at.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    "But what about..." "But what about..." NO. We're talking about people who want to exterminate other people. We know that because the last time they got power, we had mass executions (Holocaust), lynchings, and a century of extreme segregation. This isn't a 'what-if'. We know what happened the last time. Never again.
    - nailer 7y ago
      We have people who don't want to exterminate anyone being described as 'fascists' for supporting until-recently-uncontroversial immigration controls. If half of the US is described as extreme, then we can justify shutting down their voices.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      You're taking something specific and applying it in the broad. Directly as you quoted, "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies", those are three separate things and there are a whole range of ideologies there. The person I replied to specifically called that last one into question, because of the fact that it is so broad. We we both able to point out other kinds of views that people consider to be bigotry and you literally just directly equated those examples with Nazis. This is exactly why people can't be given this kind of broad censorship power. You proved it in one comment. Congratulations.
mc32 7y ago
I agree to an extent. I prefer a world where extreme hate calling for death of others doesn’t happen and isn’t tolerated. So the McVeighs (and death calling mullahs) of the world and company are justifiably deplatformable and if possible prosecuted for terroristic threats (and whatever else applies). What I don’t agree with is conflating that with being un-PC. Or having s difference of opinion on contentious social topics, even if they can be personally offensive. For example, for some, abortion is seen as pro-death. For others denying asylum is tantamount to a death sentence and thus is also death and hate. Or saying “f the police”. Police will say that is calling for hate, etc. Today it feels like the PMRC was just a few decades too early. Would music be better without misogyny, violence, yes, in many respects but also we would deny a voice to those who feel oppressed and need an outlet to voice against the mainstream understanding.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

nullbyte 7y ago

YouTube gets to decide what a "bigoted ideology" is. That's a sweeping term that can be used as a catch-all for videos they don't like. I think that this will be bad for the platform overall -- an increase in censorship is never good.

davidw 7y ago
If nazis are fundamental to the success of their platform, that's... a problem.
- mjfl 7y ago
  You're a Nazi, davidw. Get off this platform. Can you see how the above is a bad thing now?
  - fwip 7y ago
    Unfortunately for your argument, most people have basic literacy and understand the meaning of words.
    - mjfl 7y ago
      This is obviously untrue if you consider the people who call Ben Shapiro, who is Jewish, a Nazi. It's obvious to most people that people take wild liberties on the interpretation of words, especially when insulting people who they consider their enemies.
      - fwip 7y ago
        Begone, horse.
Manfred 7y ago
In the absence of a government that makes clear laws concerning hate speech it’s up to the platforms to find a good balance. From the YouTube blog post: > We’ve been taking a close look at our approach towards hateful content in consultation with dozens of experts in subjects like violent extremism, supremacism, civil rights, and free speech. So at the very least they claim to understand that it should not be a random decision.
raverbashing 7y ago
Sure because targeted harassment, advocacy for the extermination of large groups, conspiracy theories like anti-vax BS that are actually killing people are just just fine People against (limited) censorship usually react very quickly once it's their group that's being attacked (as some very famous subreddit does)
- nullbyte 7y ago
  Oh god, I feel like I'm in a reddit thread
fwip 7y ago
An increase in censorship is very frequently good. Consider a discussion forum that never banned any users or removed any spam. It quickly becomes very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when a third of the posts are "CHEEP ROLE X bUY NOW" and another third are racial hatred.
- nullbyte 7y ago
  Except this is censorship based on political ideologies
  - fwip 7y ago
    I thought censorship was never good? Now it's sometimes good except when it's based on "political ideologies," except for whatever example I bring up next, which of course is another exception.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  That's an oversimplification, and I don't think I need to elaborate past that.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> an increase in censorship is never good. Increases in curation (private censorship of one’s own offering) are very frequently good. Whether the paying customers are consumers or advertisers, quality of curation is typically on of the main things they are paying for in content platforms. It’s true that there has been some effort to substitute algorithmic recommendation engines providing a consumer-specific view in place of curation, but it's also pretty clear that even the best of those is not viewed as an adequate solution by significant segments of the market.

Madmallard 7y ago

dontreact 7y ago
How is removing a video from YouTube the same as literally killing someone?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

randyrand 7y ago

Maybe I’m under a rock, but I don’t know anyone that argues for that.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago

> other bigoted ideologies That's not specific enough. What about people who want to preserve European culture but don't think its "superior" to any other culture?

busterarm 7y ago
What about people with conservative religious beliefs that others perceive to be exclusionary?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Or if you have concerns about high levels of immigration and it’s relationship to overall cohesion of society. Views that were nominally conservative not long ago (and were actually also held by a lot of democrats) get recast as “Nazi!!1!1” in today’s environment. Weird historical inflection point we’re at.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  "But what about..." "But what about..." NO. We're talking about people who want to exterminate other people. We know that because the last time they got power, we had mass executions (Holocaust), lynchings, and a century of extreme segregation. This isn't a 'what-if'. We know what happened the last time. Never again.
  - nailer 7y ago
    We have people who don't want to exterminate anyone being described as 'fascists' for supporting until-recently-uncontroversial immigration controls. If half of the US is described as extreme, then we can justify shutting down their voices.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    You're taking something specific and applying it in the broad. Directly as you quoted, "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies", those are three separate things and there are a whole range of ideologies there. The person I replied to specifically called that last one into question, because of the fact that it is so broad. We we both able to point out other kinds of views that people consider to be bigotry and you literally just directly equated those examples with Nazis. This is exactly why people can't be given this kind of broad censorship power. You proved it in one comment. Congratulations.

mc32 7y ago

I agree to an extent. I prefer a world where extreme hate calling for death of others doesn’t happen and isn’t tolerated. So the McVeighs (and death calling mullahs) of the world and company are justifiably deplatformable and if possible prosecuted for terroristic threats (and whatever else applies). What I don’t agree with is conflating that with being un-PC. Or having s difference of opinion on contentious social topics, even if they can be personally offensive. For example, for some, abortion is seen as pro-death. For others denying asylum is tantamount to a death sentence and thus is also death and hate. Or saying “f the police”. Police will say that is calling for hate, etc. Today it feels like the PMRC was just a few decades too early. Would music be better without misogyny, violence, yes, in many respects but also we would deny a voice to those who feel oppressed and need an outlet to voice against the mainstream understanding.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]