4 ms·

>They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance. Outsized in comparis

>They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance. Outsized in comparison with what? >And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well, that doesn't mean it's important. Political videos on youtube have billions of views. >PewDiePie is not a political channel and is completely irrelevant with regard to politics. Like I said, not the main function of the channel, but there is certainly politically oriented content. Do you think his politically oriented content has no impact on the politics of his ~100 million audience? I believe you're either acting in bad faith on this topic, or are unaware of https://www.newsweek.com/pewdiepie-christchurch-shooting-mosque-meme-subscribe-1365275 https://www.newsweek.com/pewdiepie-christchurch-shooting-mos...

root_axis 7y ago
> Outsized in comparison with what? With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. > Political videos on youtube have billions of views So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform. > Do you think his politically oriented content has no impact on the politics of his ~100 million audience? The impact is negligible. Nobody cares what PewDiePie thinks when they enter the voting booth. And even if they did, it's YouTube's prerogative to kick off whoever they want, and if they decided to kick off PewDiePie... who cares? YouTube drama isn't important.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. Which platforms in particular are you referring to? >So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform. I'm not saying that either. I'm saying it should be prohibited from curating its own platform because it's popular and because it's where a substantial part of the public political debate takes place. >The impact is negligible. Maybe, but he's only one person. >Nobody cares what PewDiePie thinks when they enter the voting booth. You could say that about just about anyone that isn't a cult leader, because that person isn't the only one the voter is listening to. >it's YouTube's prerogative to kick off whoever they want It is now, sure.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Which platforms in particular are you referring to? HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, voat, snapchat, tumblr, livejournal, gab, vimeo, dailymotion, metacafe and many others. > because it's where a substantial part of the public political debate takes place. Define "substantial part". I would argue that it is not at all substantial and the evidence is on my side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_vi...
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >HN Good joke. First of all, this site actively tries to ban political discussion. Second, it's tiny in comparison to YouTube. >reddit Maybe. Definitely far up there, and a good candidate for being regulated. >twitter, facebook Agreed, should be regulated like youtube. >instagram Very little political content from what I know, but I don't know much about it. >voat Ya, OK. Smaller than HN. >tumblr, livejournal Small compared to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter >gab Funny >vimeo, dailymotion YouTube Alexa rating: 2 Vimeo Alexa rating: 125 DailyMation Alexa rating: 133 >Define "substantial part". 90% of all views of some particular type of political media, e.g. videos produced by people not associated with corporate owned media outlets. So if YouTube serves 40% of those views, and Facebook serves 30%, and Twitter serves 20%, then regulate those three. > I would argue that it is not at all substantial and the evidence is on my side. You keep suggesting that the amount of non-political content on YouTube somehow reduces the effect of the political content on YouTube. What is your reasoning behind that bizarre suggestion?
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > Good joke. First of all, this site actively tries to ban political discussion Yet here we are. Are you banned yet? YouTube also bans certain types of political discussion as you are well aware... so what? > . Second, it's tiny in comparison to YouTube. So you think the uninformed conversations occurring in a video entertainment cesspool are more impactful than the discourse between the engineers, founders and investors that actually built, maintain, understand and operate these platforms on a day to day basis? That's totally absurd. You're so hung up on popularity that you seem to have lost sight of relevance. > ... So in summary, if the site isn't a top 10 alexa ranking you regard it as politically unimportant. Popularity != political relevance. League of Legends is the most popular online game in the world, there are millions of people having political discussions on that platform every day, should Riot be prohibited from banning people? > You keep suggesting that the amount of non-political content on YouTube somehow reduces the effect of the political content on YouTube. No, I'm demonstrating that YouTube is primarily and overwhelmingly an entertainment platform and your attempts to suggest that it's so important to the fabric of political discourse that YouTube should not be allowed to ban people is not supported by the evidence of the activity on the platform.

root_axis 7y ago

> Outsized in comparison with what? With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. > Political videos on youtube have billions of views So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform. > Do you think his politically oriented content has no impact on the politics of his ~100 million audience? The impact is negligible. Nobody cares what PewDiePie thinks when they enter the voting booth. And even if they did, it's YouTube's prerogative to kick off whoever they want, and if they decided to kick off PewDiePie... who cares? YouTube drama isn't important.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. Which platforms in particular are you referring to? >So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform. I'm not saying that either. I'm saying it should be prohibited from curating its own platform because it's popular and because it's where a substantial part of the public political debate takes place. >The impact is negligible. Maybe, but he's only one person. >Nobody cares what PewDiePie thinks when they enter the voting booth. You could say that about just about anyone that isn't a cult leader, because that person isn't the only one the voter is listening to. >it's YouTube's prerogative to kick off whoever they want It is now, sure.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Which platforms in particular are you referring to? HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, voat, snapchat, tumblr, livejournal, gab, vimeo, dailymotion, metacafe and many others. > because it's where a substantial part of the public political debate takes place. Define "substantial part". I would argue that it is not at all substantial and the evidence is on my side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_vi...
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >HN Good joke. First of all, this site actively tries to ban political discussion. Second, it's tiny in comparison to YouTube. >reddit Maybe. Definitely far up there, and a good candidate for being regulated. >twitter, facebook Agreed, should be regulated like youtube. >instagram Very little political content from what I know, but I don't know much about it. >voat Ya, OK. Smaller than HN. >tumblr, livejournal Small compared to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter >gab Funny >vimeo, dailymotion YouTube Alexa rating: 2 Vimeo Alexa rating: 125 DailyMation Alexa rating: 133 >Define "substantial part". 90% of all views of some particular type of political media, e.g. videos produced by people not associated with corporate owned media outlets. So if YouTube serves 40% of those views, and Facebook serves 30%, and Twitter serves 20%, then regulate those three. > I would argue that it is not at all substantial and the evidence is on my side. You keep suggesting that the amount of non-political content on YouTube somehow reduces the effect of the political content on YouTube. What is your reasoning behind that bizarre suggestion?
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > Good joke. First of all, this site actively tries to ban political discussion Yet here we are. Are you banned yet? YouTube also bans certain types of political discussion as you are well aware... so what? > . Second, it's tiny in comparison to YouTube. So you think the uninformed conversations occurring in a video entertainment cesspool are more impactful than the discourse between the engineers, founders and investors that actually built, maintain, understand and operate these platforms on a day to day basis? That's totally absurd. You're so hung up on popularity that you seem to have lost sight of relevance. > ... So in summary, if the site isn't a top 10 alexa ranking you regard it as politically unimportant. Popularity != political relevance. League of Legends is the most popular online game in the world, there are millions of people having political discussions on that platform every day, should Riot be prohibited from banning people? > You keep suggesting that the amount of non-political content on YouTube somehow reduces the effect of the political content on YouTube. No, I'm demonstrating that YouTube is primarily and overwhelmingly an entertainment platform and your attempts to suggest that it's so important to the fabric of political discourse that YouTube should not be allowed to ban people is not supported by the evidence of the activity on the platform.