5 ms·

because it became the de facto place most of non tech-savy people go to to see videos online. They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention and that's ex

because it became the de facto place most of non tech-savy people go to to see videos online. They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention and that's extremely disturbing. Imagine that the electricity company providing electricity policed what kind of devices you can use inside your home (you are allowed to connect a Samsung washer but not a Bosh washer). There would be a lot of outcry.

root_axis 7y ago
> They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention and that's extremely disturbing. You mean that you willingly give them control over your time and attention.
- warp_factor 7y ago
  the issue is not me or you but with the masses of people that don't know // don't care where they give their attention. And that's the huge majority unfortunately.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    That's their choice. If they don't like YouTube they should boycott YouTube, not leverage the government to force YouTube to host arbitrary videos for free.
    - charliesharding 7y ago
      True, however this wraps back to the publisher vs platform debate. If they don't want the government forcing them to host content and uphold free speech then they have to take responsibility for the content in the eyes of the law. Currently they're having it both ways, free to ban ideas they don't like and control the content they deliver without being responsible for libel/slander.
      - nathan_long 7y ago
        > If they don't want the government forcing them to host content and uphold free speech then they have to take responsibility for the content in the eyes of the law. Currently they're having it both ways, free to ban ideas they don't like and control the content they deliver without being responsible for libel/slander. It sounds like you're saying that they either have to host absolutely any video anyone uploads, or else stand behind every video as if they made it themselves. I don't see how a video platform could exist on those terms.
        charliesharding 7y ago
        That isn't what I said nor what I meant. They are overstepping on the censorship front by continually constricting their "acceptable" guidelines based off of their very fluid internal rules. "In 2018 alone, we made more than 30 policy updates. One of the most complex and constantly evolving areas we deal with is hate speech" They even state it as a point of pride - they continually shift the lines on what is "hate speech" and because of their market dominance, those they target are effectively shut down entirely just because the execs at YouTube/Google are intent on pushing their political viewpoints into company policy. I'm saying that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable for a company that has such a strong grip on societal discourse. Either curate, publish, and be accountable by law, or be a platform that removes only the videos that break the law and allow users to filter out content they deem inappropriate.
        root_axis 7y ago
        > I'm saying that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable for a company that has such a strong grip on societal discourse YouTube doesn't have "a strong grip on societal discourse", it's a glorified video sharing site that's widely regarded as a cesspool in terms of discourse.
        nathan_long 7y ago
        I share your concern about how Youtube influences society, and it's likely that content I consider good will be taken down by Youtube in the future. I don't like that. But it still sounds to me like you're demanding that, after removing illegal videos, a site should either be 100% curated or 0% curated. https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/05/07/number-hours-video-uploaded-to-youtube-per-minute/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/05/07/number-hours-video-upl... says: > The platform’s users upload more than 500 hours of fresh video per minute, YouTube revealed at recent press events. 100% curation is unrealistic in that case. They could crowd source the work, but it's hard to see how they can be legally accountable for what users mark as OK. But 0% curation would mean that they're forced to host videos they consider repugnant. Imagine starting a video sharing platform, having your business grow, and one day being told "well now you're big enough that you no longer get any say in what your site hosts."
    - dgjrhgi 7y ago
      How do you make small kids boycott YouTube before they gets addicted to it? If so then we can also have people simply boycott drugs and not make it illegal.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        The same way we prevent small kids from visiting pornhub: through responsible supervision.
jonas21 7y ago
Perhaps I'm taking your analogy too far, but if you're an "extreme" user of electricity, either by consuming much more power than they expect you to or destabilizing the grid, the electric company absolutely will cut you off.
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Or set up a perferred corprate customer account.
anigbrowl 7y ago
But there are lots of other places you can watch video without being subject to YouTube's content policies.

root_axis 7y ago

> They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention and that's extremely disturbing. You mean that you willingly give them control over your time and attention.

warp_factor 7y ago
the issue is not me or you but with the masses of people that don't know // don't care where they give their attention. And that's the huge majority unfortunately.
- root_axis 7y ago
  That's their choice. If they don't like YouTube they should boycott YouTube, not leverage the government to force YouTube to host arbitrary videos for free.
  - charliesharding 7y ago
    True, however this wraps back to the publisher vs platform debate. If they don't want the government forcing them to host content and uphold free speech then they have to take responsibility for the content in the eyes of the law. Currently they're having it both ways, free to ban ideas they don't like and control the content they deliver without being responsible for libel/slander.
    - nathan_long 7y ago
      > If they don't want the government forcing them to host content and uphold free speech then they have to take responsibility for the content in the eyes of the law. Currently they're having it both ways, free to ban ideas they don't like and control the content they deliver without being responsible for libel/slander. It sounds like you're saying that they either have to host absolutely any video anyone uploads, or else stand behind every video as if they made it themselves. I don't see how a video platform could exist on those terms.
      - charliesharding 7y ago
        That isn't what I said nor what I meant. They are overstepping on the censorship front by continually constricting their "acceptable" guidelines based off of their very fluid internal rules. "In 2018 alone, we made more than 30 policy updates. One of the most complex and constantly evolving areas we deal with is hate speech" They even state it as a point of pride - they continually shift the lines on what is "hate speech" and because of their market dominance, those they target are effectively shut down entirely just because the execs at YouTube/Google are intent on pushing their political viewpoints into company policy. I'm saying that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable for a company that has such a strong grip on societal discourse. Either curate, publish, and be accountable by law, or be a platform that removes only the videos that break the law and allow users to filter out content they deem inappropriate.
        root_axis 7y ago
        > I'm saying that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable for a company that has such a strong grip on societal discourse YouTube doesn't have "a strong grip on societal discourse", it's a glorified video sharing site that's widely regarded as a cesspool in terms of discourse.
        nathan_long 7y ago
        I share your concern about how Youtube influences society, and it's likely that content I consider good will be taken down by Youtube in the future. I don't like that. But it still sounds to me like you're demanding that, after removing illegal videos, a site should either be 100% curated or 0% curated. https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/05/07/number-hours-video-uploaded-to-youtube-per-minute/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/05/07/number-hours-video-upl... says: > The platform’s users upload more than 500 hours of fresh video per minute, YouTube revealed at recent press events. 100% curation is unrealistic in that case. They could crowd source the work, but it's hard to see how they can be legally accountable for what users mark as OK. But 0% curation would mean that they're forced to host videos they consider repugnant. Imagine starting a video sharing platform, having your business grow, and one day being told "well now you're big enough that you no longer get any say in what your site hosts."
  - dgjrhgi 7y ago
    How do you make small kids boycott YouTube before they gets addicted to it? If so then we can also have people simply boycott drugs and not make it illegal.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      The same way we prevent small kids from visiting pornhub: through responsible supervision.

jonas21 7y ago

Perhaps I'm taking your analogy too far, but if you're an "extreme" user of electricity, either by consuming much more power than they expect you to or destabilizing the grid, the electric company absolutely will cut you off.

whenchamenia 7y ago
Or set up a perferred corprate customer account.

anigbrowl 7y ago

But there are lots of other places you can watch video without being subject to YouTube's content policies.