4 ms·

> I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out. I do. The uncensored alternative to a popular platform consistently attracts all the toxic users, making i

by Zak 7y ago

> I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out. I do. The uncensored alternative to a popular platform consistently attracts all the toxic users, making it a place nobody else wants to go. Voat is a relatively recent high-profile example.

jerf 7y ago
That balance can be shifted if enough normal people get evicted, especially if the normal people tend to end up on some particular service, at least to start with. Probably the best reason Silicon Valley can understand to start thinking twice about whether they want to deplatform all the non-SV-liberals. (I initially said "conservatives" there, but given the discussion elsewhere on this page for someone who was deplatformed on Vimeo for reviewing animal traps because they said it was 'cruelty to animals', it's going well beyond that.)
- ravenstine 7y ago
  > Probably the best reason Silicon Valley can understand to start thinking twice about whether they want to deplatform all the non-SV-liberals. I suspect that YouTube's long-term strategy is to morph into a hybrid of Netflix and cable, and YouTubers who broadcast opinions outside the range of acceptable opinions to SV and advertisers are just an impedance to that goal. What they will do is boil the frog by making small changes over a period of time that all appear "reasonable" on their own. Demonetization was one step in boiling the frog, but hard to argue against because it's in the best interest of advertisers and videos weren't being deleted. Then came changes to the algorithm that promotes videos, and now YouTube believes I "want" to watch more cable news and significantly less of Tim Pool or Joe Rogan. I'm surprised they haven't done more shadow-banning, and maybe that will be one of the following steps. More incremental changes will be made, probably over several years, until all the interesting voices are gone and no one can point to any one event that made everyone except the left-wing and Rated-G channels leave. And the bulk of users probably won't care since they've been transitioned and conditioned to the resurgence of mainstream blather they'll be selling.
AWildC182 7y ago
Unless they themselves are also terrible people, I can't imagine that they don't have some plan to combat this given how obvious of a problem it's been. They mention respect in the header at least...
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  How do they combat that without being accused, as youtube is here, of censorship? Will they disallow child porn? How about videos advocating violence against specific people? How about obviously libelous videos, like ones claiming, say, Donald Trump is running a child prostitution ring from the basement of a pizza parlor? When they get sued for hosting such content, who is going to pay their legal bills?
  - zcid 7y ago
    How about they disallow all the illegal content you are using as examples? Legal speech should not be censored.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      What if I decide that the goal of my business is to create a platform that excludes particular perspectives I disagree with? Why should the government force me to host things I don't want to for free?
      - zcid 7y ago
        No problem. I don't see a problem with exclusionary platforms as long as they aren't using their extreme dominance in multiple areas to maintain a monopoly. I guess what I am looking for is a cap on wealth and power.
    - Zak 7y ago
      Safe harbor laws make it generally legal for a platform to host such content until certain notification provisions are met. There's a specific process for handling child porn in the US, which you can easily find if you want that in your search history. Advocating violence against specific people is not illegal in the US unless it is likely to produce imminent lawless action. Saying "[racial slur] should be exterminated" doesn't rise to that standard. A live video saying "everybody get your guns and meet me at [location] - we're gonna slaughter those [racial slur]" probably does, but would be subject to safe harbor protections for the platform. Libel also falls under safe harbor. The platform could eventually be ordered by a court to remove the content, but not until many people have had the opportunity to see it.
OCASM 7y ago
And who defines who's toxic and who's not? That's right: the censors.
- Zak 7y ago
  Or in the censorship-free scenario, the other potential users who stay away because most people find hate speech distasteful (for example) and don't want to spend time somewhere they're exposed to it frequently.
  - OCASM 7y ago
    Another buzzword used and defined by censors: hate speech.

by Zak 7y ago

jerf 7y ago

That balance can be shifted if enough normal people get evicted, especially if the normal people tend to end up on some particular service, at least to start with. Probably the best reason Silicon Valley can understand to start thinking twice about whether they want to deplatform all the non-SV-liberals. (I initially said "conservatives" there, but given the discussion elsewhere on this page for someone who was deplatformed on Vimeo for reviewing animal traps because they said it was 'cruelty to animals', it's going well beyond that.)

ravenstine 7y ago
> Probably the best reason Silicon Valley can understand to start thinking twice about whether they want to deplatform all the non-SV-liberals. I suspect that YouTube's long-term strategy is to morph into a hybrid of Netflix and cable, and YouTubers who broadcast opinions outside the range of acceptable opinions to SV and advertisers are just an impedance to that goal. What they will do is boil the frog by making small changes over a period of time that all appear "reasonable" on their own. Demonetization was one step in boiling the frog, but hard to argue against because it's in the best interest of advertisers and videos weren't being deleted. Then came changes to the algorithm that promotes videos, and now YouTube believes I "want" to watch more cable news and significantly less of Tim Pool or Joe Rogan. I'm surprised they haven't done more shadow-banning, and maybe that will be one of the following steps. More incremental changes will be made, probably over several years, until all the interesting voices are gone and no one can point to any one event that made everyone except the left-wing and Rated-G channels leave. And the bulk of users probably won't care since they've been transitioned and conditioned to the resurgence of mainstream blather they'll be selling.

AWildC182 7y ago

Unless they themselves are also terrible people, I can't imagine that they don't have some plan to combat this given how obvious of a problem it's been. They mention respect in the header at least...

tasty_freeze 7y ago
How do they combat that without being accused, as youtube is here, of censorship? Will they disallow child porn? How about videos advocating violence against specific people? How about obviously libelous videos, like ones claiming, say, Donald Trump is running a child prostitution ring from the basement of a pizza parlor? When they get sued for hosting such content, who is going to pay their legal bills?
- zcid 7y ago
  How about they disallow all the illegal content you are using as examples? Legal speech should not be censored.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    What if I decide that the goal of my business is to create a platform that excludes particular perspectives I disagree with? Why should the government force me to host things I don't want to for free?
    - zcid 7y ago
      No problem. I don't see a problem with exclusionary platforms as long as they aren't using their extreme dominance in multiple areas to maintain a monopoly. I guess what I am looking for is a cap on wealth and power.
  - Zak 7y ago
    Safe harbor laws make it generally legal for a platform to host such content until certain notification provisions are met. There's a specific process for handling child porn in the US, which you can easily find if you want that in your search history. Advocating violence against specific people is not illegal in the US unless it is likely to produce imminent lawless action. Saying "[racial slur] should be exterminated" doesn't rise to that standard. A live video saying "everybody get your guns and meet me at [location] - we're gonna slaughter those [racial slur]" probably does, but would be subject to safe harbor protections for the platform. Libel also falls under safe harbor. The platform could eventually be ordered by a court to remove the content, but not until many people have had the opportunity to see it.

OCASM 7y ago

And who defines who's toxic and who's not? That's right: the censors.

Zak 7y ago
Or in the censorship-free scenario, the other potential users who stay away because most people find hate speech distasteful (for example) and don't want to spend time somewhere they're exposed to it frequently.
- OCASM 7y ago
  Another buzzword used and defined by censors: hate speech.