5 ms·

Well, the sense that I've gotten until recently is that they were way more open to dissenting views. YouTube was a place where anyone could host anything as lon

Well, the sense that I've gotten until recently is that they were way more open to dissenting views. YouTube was a place where anyone could host anything as long as it didn't violate any law (DMCA, etc.). It even meant hosting videos of whose ideas were just down right crazy. But recently IMHO they've gotten too political for their own good. And to your point yes, it was obvious they have editorial control over everything but unless it was breaking the law they were going to let all voices speak. (EDIT: clarity)

metamet 7y ago
How else should they have handled Alex Jones' Sandy Hook insanity? Like, that becomes innately "political" because Jones has positioned himself that way. But he was peddling insane conspiracy theories regarding Sandy Hook being a false flag, with all of the families who lost their kids being crisis actors, subsequently calling his audience to action. That is a hard position to be in, because they were effectively platforming targeted harassment. In addition to that, videos stating that Omar married her brother are still upon YT, as are flat earth explanations. One is a "harmless" conspiracy theory that ends up as a gateway into absurd things like Pizzagate, while the other is libelously spreading lies about a member of congress. Where's the line? Because it doesn't appear as if there's one we all agree on.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  he got sued, let the courts handle it
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - metamet 7y ago
    Right. But, as a public company, should their position be to leave the harassment up until the court finishes up with its process, promoting its continued spread? Because what do they gain from leaving this stuff up? It hurts people. If their stated goal is to be a bastion of free speech, that's one thing. But they're not doing that. They're providing a service. Passively hosting and platforming harassment definitely doesn't fit in with their initial "don't be evil" ethos.
    - nyolfen 7y ago
      okay, but you're opening the door to youtube being the arbiters of truth; once it starts going down that road, political agents take a keen interest in controlling it. it's a question of values.
      - metamet 7y ago
        absolutely. I don't think there's an easy answer here, but it poses an interesting question regarding a company's willingness to balance the idea of a true and open forum vs once bound by some set of ethics.
- filoleg 7y ago
  >Where's the line? I think it would be fine to say "as long as it isn't illegal (harassment, CP, copyright violation, etc. are not legal, so it falls under the umbrella), then let it be". If it is something that isn't entirely clear (e.g., CP is pretty clear-cut, but harassment might not be), let the courts decide and make a decision based on what the courts say. It sounds painfully obvious and simple, but I have a feeling I am definitely missing something important here, because that sounds way too easy.
  - metamet 7y ago
    Where's the line of liability, though? I could make a video and state that Sandy Hook was a false flag and these parents are crisis actors. I don't have followers and influence, so my video wouldn't get many views and likely wouldn't instigate a call to harassment or violence. But someone like Jones with a following did do that, and those families have gone through extended hell because of it. The same is true with trying to spread lies about Omar marrying her brother. This is still commonly repeated across all mediums. Is it not an issue because she's a public figure? She receives death threats due to these types of veiled racism. Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"? I feel like there's a lot to consider with their position. What do they gain by platforming hate speech and conspiracy theories? It affects their reputation (to some degree), but they still make some money off of the advertising. For the record, I don't think Google should be policing content. But there are slippery ways to get around TOS. The "I'm just asking questions" defense muddies things, and people like Jones know that.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      >Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"? "Slander" is a legal term, and if someone feels like they were slandered through a youtube video, they are welcome to go through that legal channel, just like if they were slandered by someone on the street or through phone or elsewhere. That's the kind of matter that courts were designed for, so it would make sense to keep that issue there. We don't need bajillion private "courts" to dish out their own "totally not self-serving" flavors of justice, we should be using the one we pay taxes for and that has grounds in the federal judicial system. This should increase the friction to the point where we don't have as many takedowns of videos that are not doing anything wrong, while still allowing for offenders like Alex Jones to get the justice they deserve and get their videos removed.
- brodouevencode 7y ago
  You do raise a good point because what Jones said about Sandy Hook caused a lot of folks to lose their mind. However he cannot be held at fault for that. Unless someone calls for direct violence against someone else they shouldn't be held at fault. When they cross that line (and in doing so they are breaking the law) then they should be held liable. For the record I think what he did with SH and other topics have been atrocious but I'm all for the market silencing him. When it breaks established law, then that's the line.

metamet 7y ago

How else should they have handled Alex Jones' Sandy Hook insanity? Like, that becomes innately "political" because Jones has positioned himself that way. But he was peddling insane conspiracy theories regarding Sandy Hook being a false flag, with all of the families who lost their kids being crisis actors, subsequently calling his audience to action. That is a hard position to be in, because they were effectively platforming targeted harassment. In addition to that, videos stating that Omar married her brother are still upon YT, as are flat earth explanations. One is a "harmless" conspiracy theory that ends up as a gateway into absurd things like Pizzagate, while the other is libelously spreading lies about a member of congress. Where's the line? Because it doesn't appear as if there's one we all agree on.

nyolfen 7y ago
he got sued, let the courts handle it
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- metamet 7y ago
  Right. But, as a public company, should their position be to leave the harassment up until the court finishes up with its process, promoting its continued spread? Because what do they gain from leaving this stuff up? It hurts people. If their stated goal is to be a bastion of free speech, that's one thing. But they're not doing that. They're providing a service. Passively hosting and platforming harassment definitely doesn't fit in with their initial "don't be evil" ethos.
  - nyolfen 7y ago
    okay, but you're opening the door to youtube being the arbiters of truth; once it starts going down that road, political agents take a keen interest in controlling it. it's a question of values.
    - metamet 7y ago
      absolutely. I don't think there's an easy answer here, but it poses an interesting question regarding a company's willingness to balance the idea of a true and open forum vs once bound by some set of ethics.
filoleg 7y ago
>Where's the line? I think it would be fine to say "as long as it isn't illegal (harassment, CP, copyright violation, etc. are not legal, so it falls under the umbrella), then let it be". If it is something that isn't entirely clear (e.g., CP is pretty clear-cut, but harassment might not be), let the courts decide and make a decision based on what the courts say. It sounds painfully obvious and simple, but I have a feeling I am definitely missing something important here, because that sounds way too easy.
- metamet 7y ago
  Where's the line of liability, though? I could make a video and state that Sandy Hook was a false flag and these parents are crisis actors. I don't have followers and influence, so my video wouldn't get many views and likely wouldn't instigate a call to harassment or violence. But someone like Jones with a following did do that, and those families have gone through extended hell because of it. The same is true with trying to spread lies about Omar marrying her brother. This is still commonly repeated across all mediums. Is it not an issue because she's a public figure? She receives death threats due to these types of veiled racism. Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"? I feel like there's a lot to consider with their position. What do they gain by platforming hate speech and conspiracy theories? It affects their reputation (to some degree), but they still make some money off of the advertising. For the record, I don't think Google should be policing content. But there are slippery ways to get around TOS. The "I'm just asking questions" defense muddies things, and people like Jones know that.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    >Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"? "Slander" is a legal term, and if someone feels like they were slandered through a youtube video, they are welcome to go through that legal channel, just like if they were slandered by someone on the street or through phone or elsewhere. That's the kind of matter that courts were designed for, so it would make sense to keep that issue there. We don't need bajillion private "courts" to dish out their own "totally not self-serving" flavors of justice, we should be using the one we pay taxes for and that has grounds in the federal judicial system. This should increase the friction to the point where we don't have as many takedowns of videos that are not doing anything wrong, while still allowing for offenders like Alex Jones to get the justice they deserve and get their videos removed.
brodouevencode 7y ago
You do raise a good point because what Jones said about Sandy Hook caused a lot of folks to lose their mind. However he cannot be held at fault for that. Unless someone calls for direct violence against someone else they shouldn't be held at fault. When they cross that line (and in doing so they are breaking the law) then they should be held liable. For the record I think what he did with SH and other topics have been atrocious but I'm all for the market silencing him. When it breaks established law, then that's the line.