6 ms·

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

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.

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.