5 ms·

tl;dr I hate censorship. if its illegal then prosecute them, but this isn't about legality They have pretty much blocked historical videos containing much abou

tl;dr I hate censorship. if its illegal then prosecute them, but this isn't about legality They have pretty much blocked historical videos containing much about NAZI Germany as well. [1] Going to be real annoying to lose some classic comics which definitely would not pass the hate/sensitivity crowd today. I understand the concern youtube has but once you go down this path you pretty much are rewriting history. that is what they need to understand, the past is exactly that, a representation of the views and outlooks of the people and places depicted. If this continues how long before other countries demand to have content their censors deem offensive removed? Why would we be in position to tell them, no we don't find it offensive, when we don't give them the same right in return. You can be offended all you want but that does not mean you get to prevent others from viewing it. With regards to new content postings they obviously need a system which first includes trusted accounts, then their algorithm, then an challenge and remediation system that is well documented and enforced. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-blocks-history-teachers-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-b...

threeseed 7y ago
Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow.
- jmkni 7y ago
  Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up. While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
  - kthejoker2 7y ago
    So .. Forcing other people to pay to host your "not cheap" content is okay? Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the largest possible platform. Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.
    - jmkni 7y ago
      I'm not trying to say that anything is/isn't ok, I'm directly replying to: > Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. In practice, things might not be that simple.
      - kthejoker2 7y ago
        What is your proposed alternative? And this is a strawman anyway, there are plenty of sites that let you post video content without these same sorts of policies. And if they don't have the network effects of YouTube, boo hoo.
  - threeseed 7y ago
    So then find a way to monetise the website. You can ask users to pay for it just like Netflix, New York Times etc do. Or have advertising. But of course just like YouTube you then need to factor in their needs.
  - dageshi 7y ago
    It's too difficult to do yourself but it's fine to demand a company provide it for you, for free, I see.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      users provide the content necessary for the platform to exist. Shouldn't we ask them then? As a user, I am certainly interested in which advertisers are promoting more content controls. That would be quite a service. Nothing is expected to be provided here.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    Bittorrent (and PopcornTime for the "streaming" experience) is quite cheap. Or you could use IPFS, the newest player in that space.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow. That would be true for some other private company, but I'm not sure this libertarian attitude is applicable to Google/Alphabet - it holds immense power over the 'net nowadays, I bet it can kill any emerging competitor.
- piokoch 7y ago
  Yes, that's sort of true, but imagine that some company openly claims that they are not going to hire women or black people or Muslims. You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed. It would be illegal for companies to do this, and governments certainly can tell private companies not to discriminate against certain classes when hiring. Google, meanwhile, is not breaking the law by choosing what content is hosted on their platform and under what circumstances. You're presenting a false dichotomy here because Google is not a state, it is a private company, and because content creators are not a government whose laws Google must follow, but rather are themselves bound by Google's terms of service, which grant Google absolute, irrevocable and arbitrary power over their accounts, content, visibility and monetization.
    - andrepd 7y ago
      If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? I guess not, so the power is hardly "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary". Which is a ridiculous proposition. We absolutely can legislate about what private corporations can and cannot do.
      - krapp 7y ago
        >If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? No, but again, that would already be illegal, whereas Google demonetizing content due to violence is not. Moderating or banning content for any reason is not equivalent to discrimination against a protected class, but fair enough - "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary" regarding content and accounts, where legal. My characterization of the rights Google has over user supplied content versus the rights users have over Google is still far more accurate than not.
- megous 7y ago
  And you set up a website how, without involving private companies with content rules? Web hosting comapnies have rules too. Even VPS and public cloud companies have content rules for what you can do with VPS. So you have to do some kind of server hosting, and make sure your ISP will not take you down for content. So this turns out to be a bit more involved than "set up your own website". Also, your statement is not completely true. Phone companies are not allowed to police content of your communications, for example, even if they are private.
- nathanaldensr 7y ago
  Yes they are: Microsoft, Cloudflare, etc.
- bitL 7y ago
  "Make your own Internet"
  - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
    Assemble your own servers. Cast your own copper. Make your own country. It's always the argument of the censors that you can just move to the next layer. Then push for censorship of that as well. `for (;;)`. And when there's no place to retreat to, because they're literally telling you "no wrongthink allowed on my planet", you won't have any means left to complain.
- tootahe45 7y ago
  It has been tried, and it turns out they come after your hosting providers too and get you kicked off that way, they also get you blocked from integrating with any payment platforms (as Patreon competitors have found out). Do you want to use Sendgrid to validate users by email? Twilio to notify people when their subscriptions upload new videos? nope, the thought police are getting you booted off of those too. It's not about making you use another platform, it's about making you shut up completely. If someone actually did everything themselves and made a usable website, I've no doubt they'd be getting ISPs to block it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dagw 7y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, but I thought that Google wasn't actually blocking or taking down these videos, only refusing to sell advertising on the video on the behalf of the video's creators.

threeseed 7y ago

Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow.

jmkni 7y ago
Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up. While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  So .. Forcing other people to pay to host your "not cheap" content is okay? Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the largest possible platform. Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.
  - jmkni 7y ago
    I'm not trying to say that anything is/isn't ok, I'm directly replying to: > Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. In practice, things might not be that simple.
    - kthejoker2 7y ago
      What is your proposed alternative? And this is a strawman anyway, there are plenty of sites that let you post video content without these same sorts of policies. And if they don't have the network effects of YouTube, boo hoo.
- threeseed 7y ago
  So then find a way to monetise the website. You can ask users to pay for it just like Netflix, New York Times etc do. Or have advertising. But of course just like YouTube you then need to factor in their needs.
- dageshi 7y ago
  It's too difficult to do yourself but it's fine to demand a company provide it for you, for free, I see.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    users provide the content necessary for the platform to exist. Shouldn't we ask them then? As a user, I am certainly interested in which advertisers are promoting more content controls. That would be quite a service. Nothing is expected to be provided here.
- 0815test 7y ago
  Bittorrent (and PopcornTime for the "streaming" experience) is quite cheap. Or you could use IPFS, the newest player in that space.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/
brokenkebab 7y ago
You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow. That would be true for some other private company, but I'm not sure this libertarian attitude is applicable to Google/Alphabet - it holds immense power over the 'net nowadays, I bet it can kill any emerging competitor.
piokoch 7y ago
Yes, that's sort of true, but imagine that some company openly claims that they are not going to hire women or black people or Muslims. You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed.
- krapp 7y ago
  >You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed. It would be illegal for companies to do this, and governments certainly can tell private companies not to discriminate against certain classes when hiring. Google, meanwhile, is not breaking the law by choosing what content is hosted on their platform and under what circumstances. You're presenting a false dichotomy here because Google is not a state, it is a private company, and because content creators are not a government whose laws Google must follow, but rather are themselves bound by Google's terms of service, which grant Google absolute, irrevocable and arbitrary power over their accounts, content, visibility and monetization.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? I guess not, so the power is hardly "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary". Which is a ridiculous proposition. We absolutely can legislate about what private corporations can and cannot do.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? No, but again, that would already be illegal, whereas Google demonetizing content due to violence is not. Moderating or banning content for any reason is not equivalent to discrimination against a protected class, but fair enough - "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary" regarding content and accounts, where legal. My characterization of the rights Google has over user supplied content versus the rights users have over Google is still far more accurate than not.
megous 7y ago
And you set up a website how, without involving private companies with content rules? Web hosting comapnies have rules too. Even VPS and public cloud companies have content rules for what you can do with VPS. So you have to do some kind of server hosting, and make sure your ISP will not take you down for content. So this turns out to be a bit more involved than "set up your own website". Also, your statement is not completely true. Phone companies are not allowed to police content of your communications, for example, even if they are private.
nathanaldensr 7y ago
Yes they are: Microsoft, Cloudflare, etc.
bitL 7y ago
"Make your own Internet"
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  Assemble your own servers. Cast your own copper. Make your own country. It's always the argument of the censors that you can just move to the next layer. Then push for censorship of that as well. `for (;;)`. And when there's no place to retreat to, because they're literally telling you "no wrongthink allowed on my planet", you won't have any means left to complain.
tootahe45 7y ago
It has been tried, and it turns out they come after your hosting providers too and get you kicked off that way, they also get you blocked from integrating with any payment platforms (as Patreon competitors have found out). Do you want to use Sendgrid to validate users by email? Twilio to notify people when their subscriptions upload new videos? nope, the thought police are getting you booted off of those too. It's not about making you use another platform, it's about making you shut up completely. If someone actually did everything themselves and made a usable website, I've no doubt they'd be getting ISPs to block it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dagw 7y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, but I thought that Google wasn't actually blocking or taking down these videos, only refusing to sell advertising on the video on the behalf of the video's creators.