3 ms·

>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 suggest

>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.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >Are you banned yet? Who, me? Never. >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? That's totally absurd. You're so hung up on popularity that you seem to have lost sight of relevance. Each of those people engaging in uninformed conversations gets a vote that matters just as much as the vote of the people that built these platforms. I don't think many people are overwhelmingly concerned with making sure their message reaches the tiny number of people on this site. >So in summary, if the site isn't a top 10 alexa ranking you regard it as politically unimportant. I regard websites as being unimportant as far as this topic goes if they're not one of the most popular sites for people to participate in the public political debate. Banning an ideology from being espoused on HN isn't going to make people that subscribe to that ideology feel like they're being prevented from peacefully advocating for their interests. Banning that ideology from YouTube, or Facebook, or Twitter might. Banning it from all three almost certainly will. >No, I'm demonstrating that YouTube is primarily and overwhelmingly an entertainment platform What I'm trying to tell you is that I don't disagree with that statement, but that it doesn't matter. >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. I've explained what I mean by substantial/important, and why I think YouTube qualifies. You keep saying it doesn't qualify because there are other videos on there and/or because the quality of discussion is low, but that doesn't address my argument.

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.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >Are you banned yet? Who, me? Never. >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? That's totally absurd. You're so hung up on popularity that you seem to have lost sight of relevance. Each of those people engaging in uninformed conversations gets a vote that matters just as much as the vote of the people that built these platforms. I don't think many people are overwhelmingly concerned with making sure their message reaches the tiny number of people on this site. >So in summary, if the site isn't a top 10 alexa ranking you regard it as politically unimportant. I regard websites as being unimportant as far as this topic goes if they're not one of the most popular sites for people to participate in the public political debate. Banning an ideology from being espoused on HN isn't going to make people that subscribe to that ideology feel like they're being prevented from peacefully advocating for their interests. Banning that ideology from YouTube, or Facebook, or Twitter might. Banning it from all three almost certainly will. >No, I'm demonstrating that YouTube is primarily and overwhelmingly an entertainment platform What I'm trying to tell you is that I don't disagree with that statement, but that it doesn't matter. >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. I've explained what I mean by substantial/important, and why I think YouTube qualifies. You keep saying it doesn't qualify because there are other videos on there and/or because the quality of discussion is low, but that doesn't address my argument.