3 ms·

Devil's advocate: There's a very thin line between e.g. the Lockpicking Lawyer doing reviews of different padlock brands and e.g. an instructional video about h

Devil's advocate: There's a very thin line between e.g. the Lockpicking Lawyer doing reviews of different padlock brands and e.g. an instructional video about how to break into someone's house. YouTube knows that if someone posts home invasion instructions, and then someone else watches those instructions and commits a crime, the news media will absolutely 100% blame YouTube, and politicians will jump on them to score points with the voters. Since it's essentially impossible to define a simple, objective difference between the Lockpicking Lawyer and instructional videos for actual crimes, YouTube needs to write broad policies that potentially cover both, and then rely on their discretion in individual cases. Does this suck for everyone involved? Yes. Does YouTube have a choice about this? No.

manjana 7y ago
So sad. Some of these channels like e.g. BosnianBill, LockpickingLawyer, HelpfulLockpicker have immense amounts of unique content that are properly even less likely to be backed up somewhere and will most likely be lost for good.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  Who said they were getting taken down? Are we over-reacting here?
- mateo1 7y ago
  This is not just about lockpicking, Youtube has a trully incomprehensibly vast amount of content locked into their platform. They can hold viewers hostage with it. My opinion on the morality of the matter is that old abandoned and unclaimed content should be made freely available at least to an open data repository. In reality, as automated and semi-automated censorship tools improve, less content will be available to you, more content will vanish without a trace, and some content will be restricted based on factors such as location, nationality, ethnicity, political affiliations and browsing history.
Invictus0 7y ago
Do you blame the bookstore if someone reads about lockpicking and then gets arrested for breaking and entering? Or maybe if they read mein Kampf and become a neonazi? Think about how ridiculous this argument is for a minute.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  Don't try to find logic where there is none. Just because people don't blame libraries for teaching someone how to do bad things it doesn't mean the same people won't blame Youtube for doing the same. Our thought process and morality is relative, inconsistent and illogical. The laws, policies and judicial system are a reflection of that.
  - oconnor663 7y ago
    Blame attaches to the last thing that changed. (https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/05/16/agility.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/05/16/agility.html) And to be fair, I don't think that's completely illogical. It's often the case that the last thing that changed is the easiest thing to change back. And the results of recent changes are generally more predictable than the results of changes from a long time ago.
feanaro 7y ago
Since when is censorship for the sake of preventing people from acquiring knowledge that may be used in a later crime even on the table? This is insanity.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- esmi 7y ago
  I think oconnor663 would agree that it is insane. I believe the argument is that YouTube needs to protect itself because someone could insinuate that they are complicit in a crime simply because someone was trained in the criminal act via YouTube video. I think the counter-argument is that no policy will protect YouTube from these types of arguments. If some politician wants to demonize YouTube via hyperbolic argument, then they will find a way. These types of disputes rarely use facts. YouTube should stick to Free Speech and accept that haters are going to hate. To me this just demonstrates that the YouTube leadership has no backbone.

manjana 7y ago

So sad. Some of these channels like e.g. BosnianBill, LockpickingLawyer, HelpfulLockpicker have immense amounts of unique content that are properly even less likely to be backed up somewhere and will most likely be lost for good.

jonny_eh 7y ago
Who said they were getting taken down? Are we over-reacting here?
mateo1 7y ago
This is not just about lockpicking, Youtube has a trully incomprehensibly vast amount of content locked into their platform. They can hold viewers hostage with it. My opinion on the morality of the matter is that old abandoned and unclaimed content should be made freely available at least to an open data repository. In reality, as automated and semi-automated censorship tools improve, less content will be available to you, more content will vanish without a trace, and some content will be restricted based on factors such as location, nationality, ethnicity, political affiliations and browsing history.

Invictus0 7y ago

Do you blame the bookstore if someone reads about lockpicking and then gets arrested for breaking and entering? Or maybe if they read mein Kampf and become a neonazi? Think about how ridiculous this argument is for a minute.

d1zzy 7y ago
Don't try to find logic where there is none. Just because people don't blame libraries for teaching someone how to do bad things it doesn't mean the same people won't blame Youtube for doing the same. Our thought process and morality is relative, inconsistent and illogical. The laws, policies and judicial system are a reflection of that.
- oconnor663 7y ago
  Blame attaches to the last thing that changed. (https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/05/16/agility.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/05/16/agility.html) And to be fair, I don't think that's completely illogical. It's often the case that the last thing that changed is the easiest thing to change back. And the results of recent changes are generally more predictable than the results of changes from a long time ago.

feanaro 7y ago

Since when is censorship for the sake of preventing people from acquiring knowledge that may be used in a later crime even on the table? This is insanity.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
esmi 7y ago
I think oconnor663 would agree that it is insane. I believe the argument is that YouTube needs to protect itself because someone could insinuate that they are complicit in a crime simply because someone was trained in the criminal act via YouTube video. I think the counter-argument is that no policy will protect YouTube from these types of arguments. If some politician wants to demonize YouTube via hyperbolic argument, then they will find a way. These types of disputes rarely use facts. YouTube should stick to Free Speech and accept that haters are going to hate. To me this just demonstrates that the YouTube leadership has no backbone.