4 ms·

Lets keep in mind that YouTube has been around for 14 years... In societal terms that's a relatively short amount of time to have a free platform where anyone c

by kelp 7y ago

Lets keep in mind that YouTube has been around for 14 years... In societal terms that's a relatively short amount of time to have a free platform where anyone can post their ideas, no matter how crazy or toxic. Before that, you could blog. Before that, you could stand on a street corner and yell, or maybe use a megaphone. The platforms for broadcasting your message to a large audience were mostly gated, often by large corporations. TV, Newspaper, Radio, etc. It seems to me that what we are seeing is more like reversion to the mean. It was great in the early days of the internet, because the communities were small, and often self policing. But once they get large enough it's very easy for the noise to overwhelm the signal. This idea of absolute free speech didn't scale once the population got large enough. I don't even use Facebook and Twitter anymore because of this. (I also generally opt out of ad supported anything) I'm really not convinced that providing a cheap / free platform for anyone to amplify their message was actually a net good. Not anymore at least. Like I said, it doesn't scale. Before, the crazy and toxic could yell on the street corner. Now they have Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to shout their conspiracy theories etc. IMO, we're overdue for scaling some of that back. There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the right to have your message amplified to millions.

chrisco255 7y ago
Neither TV nor radio quite fits the analogy... because these are broadcast 1:many mediums. And the idea that no one has a right to have their message amplified to millions is sort of insidious and evil. Because the consumers choose what to watch on YouTube. And the users produce the content. So this more like a virtual community with billions of micro-interactions. Of course it scales. The internet is a testiment to that. What's different today is only sentimental.
- kelp 7y ago
  Insidious and evil? that's a pretty strong value judgement. Could you explain more?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- danem 7y ago
  > And the idea that no one has a right to have their message amplified to millions is sort of insidious and evil. So I should have the right to force a private company to broadcast my message? Free of charge? People can host their content on other platforms if Youtube isn't working for them.
  - damq 7y ago
    If that private company has a monopoly like youtube does, they should absolutely be forced to carry your message.
    - danem 7y ago
      I'm not well versed in anti-trust law, but how does Youtube's popularity (monopoly as you put it) prohibit you from hosting your content on the 100s of other video hosting services available to you? How does Youtube's popularity prevent you from hosting your videos yourself? You're expecting them to use their own money and their own resources to broadcast messages they don't want to broadcast, for free.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        > How does Youtube's popularity prevent you from hosting your videos yourself? It doesn't. It "prevents" most people from looking for videos anywhere except the youtube search bar. > You're expecting them to use their own money and their own resources to broadcast messages they don't want to broadcast, for free. Well, does that prevent them from starting another business, that doesn't seek to grow so big and pervasive that it should be considered common carrier?
davesmith1983 7y ago
I suspect many people were saying the same about the printing press when that was invented. "If anyone can print something quickly, how can will we stop the peasants from printing their own books". Many would could say same about open source software, people developing their own technology. They are doing their own thing, there is a lot of rubbish code (noise) to good open source code (signal). Maybe a large company like Microsoft or IBM take control of it and be the guardians of the code. Youtube has everything from make up tutorials, instructions on how to do fix your laptop, cook a meal, there are people making their own reviews of retro computer hardware. Other people are releasing their own music, tutorials on how to code, teachers helping people with their maths homework. Almost all of this would never see the light of day on regular television. Yet somehow you have concentrated on the negative elements. Claiming it doesn't scale because you don't like some of the content on there is ridiculous and you are just projecting your personal politics on everyone else. If you don't like the content you can just not watch it. I don't like watching network television because it is awful, I like seeing people debate and debunk things like conspiracy theories because it is fun. I really wish people like yourself would just be honest and just come out to say that you think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak because you think you are better than them.
- dageshi 7y ago
  Personally honestly I don't have a problem with people saying what they want to say even if I disagree with it. My problem is that some people suddenly decided that platforms like Youtube are suddenly required to host any and all content when those platforms have always been privately owned and always had various rules which were subject to change. People have suddenly decided that youtube is somehow quasi public property and seem to feel if they keep repeating that over and over then it will magically come true, it isn't and that's my issue.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    This is another argument I hear often. Firstly I don't think many people aren't making that argument at all. People are complaining about Youtube's policies and how they deal with speech on their platform. Youtube don't appear to apply their policies in an even handed manner. I think most people would be fine if Youtube if their enforcement was strict, IF it was fair. However enforcement of TOS seems to be arbitrary and seems to be either politically motivated, incoherent or a knee jerk reaction to whatever the current moral panic at the time is. This isn't helped by the fact that any of the appeal mechanisms on the site seem to work on random chance principles. As for whether Youtube is some sort of public service. Keep in mind it is a monopoly on online user generated video. There is no other site that even comes close.
oreo83 7y ago
>I'm really not convinced that providing a cheap / free platform for anyone to amplify their message was actually a net good. Only people you agree with should be heard right?
LMYahooTFY 7y ago
>There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the right to have your message amplified to millions. If ~90% of a population has access to this and you don't, the "right to say and think whatever you want" means very little.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the right to have your message amplified to millions. Very easy to say when your message isn't being censored. After all, how could this ever turn around on YOU? Surely you'll always have the correct opinion on things!

by kelp 7y ago

chrisco255 7y ago

Neither TV nor radio quite fits the analogy... because these are broadcast 1:many mediums. And the idea that no one has a right to have their message amplified to millions is sort of insidious and evil. Because the consumers choose what to watch on YouTube. And the users produce the content. So this more like a virtual community with billions of micro-interactions. Of course it scales. The internet is a testiment to that. What's different today is only sentimental.

kelp 7y ago
Insidious and evil? that's a pretty strong value judgement. Could you explain more?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
danem 7y ago
> And the idea that no one has a right to have their message amplified to millions is sort of insidious and evil. So I should have the right to force a private company to broadcast my message? Free of charge? People can host their content on other platforms if Youtube isn't working for them.
- damq 7y ago
  If that private company has a monopoly like youtube does, they should absolutely be forced to carry your message.
  - danem 7y ago
    I'm not well versed in anti-trust law, but how does Youtube's popularity (monopoly as you put it) prohibit you from hosting your content on the 100s of other video hosting services available to you? How does Youtube's popularity prevent you from hosting your videos yourself? You're expecting them to use their own money and their own resources to broadcast messages they don't want to broadcast, for free.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      > How does Youtube's popularity prevent you from hosting your videos yourself? It doesn't. It "prevents" most people from looking for videos anywhere except the youtube search bar. > You're expecting them to use their own money and their own resources to broadcast messages they don't want to broadcast, for free. Well, does that prevent them from starting another business, that doesn't seek to grow so big and pervasive that it should be considered common carrier?

davesmith1983 7y ago

I suspect many people were saying the same about the printing press when that was invented. "If anyone can print something quickly, how can will we stop the peasants from printing their own books". Many would could say same about open source software, people developing their own technology. They are doing their own thing, there is a lot of rubbish code (noise) to good open source code (signal). Maybe a large company like Microsoft or IBM take control of it and be the guardians of the code. Youtube has everything from make up tutorials, instructions on how to do fix your laptop, cook a meal, there are people making their own reviews of retro computer hardware. Other people are releasing their own music, tutorials on how to code, teachers helping people with their maths homework. Almost all of this would never see the light of day on regular television. Yet somehow you have concentrated on the negative elements. Claiming it doesn't scale because you don't like some of the content on there is ridiculous and you are just projecting your personal politics on everyone else. If you don't like the content you can just not watch it. I don't like watching network television because it is awful, I like seeing people debate and debunk things like conspiracy theories because it is fun. I really wish people like yourself would just be honest and just come out to say that you think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak because you think you are better than them.

dageshi 7y ago
Personally honestly I don't have a problem with people saying what they want to say even if I disagree with it. My problem is that some people suddenly decided that platforms like Youtube are suddenly required to host any and all content when those platforms have always been privately owned and always had various rules which were subject to change. People have suddenly decided that youtube is somehow quasi public property and seem to feel if they keep repeating that over and over then it will magically come true, it isn't and that's my issue.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  This is another argument I hear often. Firstly I don't think many people aren't making that argument at all. People are complaining about Youtube's policies and how they deal with speech on their platform. Youtube don't appear to apply their policies in an even handed manner. I think most people would be fine if Youtube if their enforcement was strict, IF it was fair. However enforcement of TOS seems to be arbitrary and seems to be either politically motivated, incoherent or a knee jerk reaction to whatever the current moral panic at the time is. This isn't helped by the fact that any of the appeal mechanisms on the site seem to work on random chance principles. As for whether Youtube is some sort of public service. Keep in mind it is a monopoly on online user generated video. There is no other site that even comes close.

oreo83 7y ago

>I'm really not convinced that providing a cheap / free platform for anyone to amplify their message was actually a net good. Only people you agree with should be heard right?

LMYahooTFY 7y ago

>There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the right to have your message amplified to millions. If ~90% of a population has access to this and you don't, the "right to say and think whatever you want" means very little.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

>There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the right to have your message amplified to millions. Very easy to say when your message isn't being censored. After all, how could this ever turn around on YOU? Surely you'll always have the correct opinion on things!