3 ms·

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 lik

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."

charliesharding 7y ago
I see what you're saying but it's already a problem for them. 100% of videos coming onto the platform will be . Instead, the discussion we're having is where they should draw the line on what gets removed. Is it videos that break the law? Or videos that they deem inappropriate? We can vote to change the law, we can't vote to change their policies. Users can go to a new platform but there is nothing close to an equivalent competitor. (Name me one popular, full time content creator who did it without YouTube) I don't like the sound of government interference at all, trust me. However when people are being silenced and demonetized because they hold political views that YouTube doesn't like I feel that it's necessary in order to uphold the users constitutional rights. Many experts have speculated that YouTube operates at a loss - is it fair that they gain market dominance this way and then flex their power to remove ideas they don't like?
- root_axis 7y ago
  > However when people are being silenced and demonetized because they hold political views that YouTube doesn't like I feel that it's necessary in order to uphold the users constitutional rights. User's have no constitutional right to political speech on a private platform. Their rights are not being violated.

charliesharding 7y ago

I see what you're saying but it's already a problem for them. 100% of videos coming onto the platform will be . Instead, the discussion we're having is where they should draw the line on what gets removed. Is it videos that break the law? Or videos that they deem inappropriate? We can vote to change the law, we can't vote to change their policies. Users can go to a new platform but there is nothing close to an equivalent competitor. (Name me one popular, full time content creator who did it without YouTube) I don't like the sound of government interference at all, trust me. However when people are being silenced and demonetized because they hold political views that YouTube doesn't like I feel that it's necessary in order to uphold the users constitutional rights. Many experts have speculated that YouTube operates at a loss - is it fair that they gain market dominance this way and then flex their power to remove ideas they don't like?

root_axis 7y ago
> However when people are being silenced and demonetized because they hold political views that YouTube doesn't like I feel that it's necessary in order to uphold the users constitutional rights. User's have no constitutional right to political speech on a private platform. Their rights are not being violated.