4 ms·

At first, the site was moderated largely by its co-founders; in 2006, they hired a single, part-time moderator. The company removed videos often, rarely encount

At first, the site was moderated largely by its co-founders; in 2006, they hired a single, part-time moderator. The company removed videos often, rarely encountering pushback. In the intervening thirteen years, a lot has changed. “YouTube has the scale of the entire Internet,” Sundar Pichai, the C.E.O. of Google, which owns YouTube, told Axios last month. The site now attracts a monthly audience of two billion people and employs thousands of moderators. Every minute, its users upload five hundred hours of new video. If YouTube is now sized at entire-Internet scale, and is the overwhelming dominant player in next generation video news and commentary, then what YouTube does becomes a Free Speech issue. Something the size of YouTube should rightly be a Platform. It cannot be a Publisher at this scale. Wielding the power of a Publisher at such a scale is concentrating too much power in too few hands. In a way, the days of the Printing Press were far superior to today's era of YouTube. Printing presses can be crafted by determined DIYers. Network effects couldn't suppress an independent press, but in 2019, YouTube just has to hold onto its Network Effect and wait until the energy and seed capital of potential competitors runs out, or they're at least reduced to 3rd-rate irrelevant zombie sites.

bcheung 7y ago
This makes sense to me. The question to me is should platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc be subject to common carrier laws / net neutrality laws? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is protected as free speech. "Hate" is also very subjective as well. If it is controversial even in the slightest, then someone, somewhere, is going to be offended and think it is hateful.
- t34543 7y ago
  I think offending people is really important to the development of society. Opposing viewpoints are really important to fostering discussion and stimulating minds. Universities must be the bastion of this: free speech must come before all else. Uni is a purpose built institution to grow minds.
  - peterlk 7y ago
    I don't buy this argument. There are known psychological effects which mute interesting discussion and promote division and extremism. Regulating algorithms that amplify these effects seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me.
    - t34543 7y ago
      Censorship also promotes division and extremism.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      There are known psychological effects which mute interesting discussion and promote division and extremism. As in putting content creators into a state of fear and uncertainty? Regulating algorithms that amplify these effects seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me. What users of these sites have found, is that the companies are regulating algorithms in order to amplify these effects: namely to discourage certain political advocacy and encourage others. YouTube, by their own words, operates at "entire Internet scale." Having a single megacorp decide for everyone how to "regulate algorithms that amplify these effects" is too much concentration of power! Who knows? Maybe such megacorps would abide by "Don't be Evil" one day, then turn around and have to abandon such a motto later?
  - bcheung 7y ago
    It also strengthens the ability of people to get along despite having opposing views and philosophies. When you insulate people and teach them to be offended at the slightest "micro" aggression, then people become intolerant and unable to function in normal society without being "triggered".
pjc50 7y ago
Look, there is always going to be stuff that is banned from Youtube. They're not going to allow porn on there. Given that they control content to some extent, the question has to be what their responsibility is. Also, recommendations aren't part of a platform, they are Youtube's free speech. Those are in some ways more important than mere hosting, as that's how Youtube has radicalized people.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Look, there is always going to be stuff that is banned from Youtube. They're not going to allow porn on there. Again, that would be fine. If there was a consistent standard, content creators could just abide by those rules. That's not the experience of content creators. Instead, it's arbitrary, and often driven by the ideological whims of lower level employees with an axe to grind. Also, recommendations aren't part of a platform, they are Youtube's free speech That's awfully convenient. Virality and discovery are huge amplifying forces. In 2019, it makes no sense at all to be part of a "platform" then wield the editorial control of manipulating recommendations. The only reason that flies, is that the law and the general culture haven't caught up to the implications of manipulated virality and discovery. Would you like it if somehow Fox News were given editorial control of manipulating virality and discovery? If your answer is no, then you already understand that it's too much power to let a single corporation wield. as that's how Youtube has radicalized people. That NYT piece is a shallow hit piece. There's far less radicalization going on than the emperor losing his clothes. What's going on is that young people are figuring out the BS of the older generation, and the establishment NYT is trying to spin it in a way to scare people away from the process. Far more young people are just rejecting the establishment narrative and crafting their own. As usual, the establishment are crying the sky is falling, and the young people will be fine. (And a small fringe will be nut-jobs, and a smaller fringe will be vile, but that's always been the case as well.) https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/measles-outbreak-anti-vaxxers-not-a-growing-crisis.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/measles-outbreak-anti-v...
- einpoklum 7y ago
  And being "radicalized" is a bad thing per se? "radix" means root, in Latin. A radical approach tackles issues at their root. Even adopting moderation needs to be done with some moderation...

bcheung 7y ago

This makes sense to me. The question to me is should platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc be subject to common carrier laws / net neutrality laws? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is protected as free speech. "Hate" is also very subjective as well. If it is controversial even in the slightest, then someone, somewhere, is going to be offended and think it is hateful.

t34543 7y ago
I think offending people is really important to the development of society. Opposing viewpoints are really important to fostering discussion and stimulating minds. Universities must be the bastion of this: free speech must come before all else. Uni is a purpose built institution to grow minds.
- peterlk 7y ago
  I don't buy this argument. There are known psychological effects which mute interesting discussion and promote division and extremism. Regulating algorithms that amplify these effects seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me.
  - t34543 7y ago
    Censorship also promotes division and extremism.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    There are known psychological effects which mute interesting discussion and promote division and extremism. As in putting content creators into a state of fear and uncertainty? Regulating algorithms that amplify these effects seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me. What users of these sites have found, is that the companies are regulating algorithms in order to amplify these effects: namely to discourage certain political advocacy and encourage others. YouTube, by their own words, operates at "entire Internet scale." Having a single megacorp decide for everyone how to "regulate algorithms that amplify these effects" is too much concentration of power! Who knows? Maybe such megacorps would abide by "Don't be Evil" one day, then turn around and have to abandon such a motto later?
- bcheung 7y ago
  It also strengthens the ability of people to get along despite having opposing views and philosophies. When you insulate people and teach them to be offended at the slightest "micro" aggression, then people become intolerant and unable to function in normal society without being "triggered".

pjc50 7y ago

Look, there is always going to be stuff that is banned from Youtube. They're not going to allow porn on there. Given that they control content to some extent, the question has to be what their responsibility is. Also, recommendations aren't part of a platform, they are Youtube's free speech. Those are in some ways more important than mere hosting, as that's how Youtube has radicalized people.

stcredzero 7y ago
Look, there is always going to be stuff that is banned from Youtube. They're not going to allow porn on there. Again, that would be fine. If there was a consistent standard, content creators could just abide by those rules. That's not the experience of content creators. Instead, it's arbitrary, and often driven by the ideological whims of lower level employees with an axe to grind. Also, recommendations aren't part of a platform, they are Youtube's free speech That's awfully convenient. Virality and discovery are huge amplifying forces. In 2019, it makes no sense at all to be part of a "platform" then wield the editorial control of manipulating recommendations. The only reason that flies, is that the law and the general culture haven't caught up to the implications of manipulated virality and discovery. Would you like it if somehow Fox News were given editorial control of manipulating virality and discovery? If your answer is no, then you already understand that it's too much power to let a single corporation wield. as that's how Youtube has radicalized people. That NYT piece is a shallow hit piece. There's far less radicalization going on than the emperor losing his clothes. What's going on is that young people are figuring out the BS of the older generation, and the establishment NYT is trying to spin it in a way to scare people away from the process. Far more young people are just rejecting the establishment narrative and crafting their own. As usual, the establishment are crying the sky is falling, and the young people will be fine. (And a small fringe will be nut-jobs, and a smaller fringe will be vile, but that's always been the case as well.) https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/measles-outbreak-anti-vaxxers-not-a-growing-crisis.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/measles-outbreak-anti-v...
einpoklum 7y ago
And being "radicalized" is a bad thing per se? "radix" means root, in Latin. A radical approach tackles issues at their root. Even adopting moderation needs to be done with some moderation...