7 ms·

Things like this are tricky to me. YouTube is a private platform, so they can make their own decisions, but any sort of censorship is scary to me. I honestly d

by jjice 7y ago

Things like this are tricky to me. YouTube is a private platform, so they can make their own decisions, but any sort of censorship is scary to me. I honestly don't know where to stand when it comes to issues related to censoring content like this. On one hand, you can limit information we know is false, but restricting spread of information is censoring people, something that is pretty widely regarded as oppressive. I guess all I can do is wait and see what comes of this.

mraudiobook_com 7y ago
You shouldn't use the USD, HN, Reddit, Google or Amazon if you are trying to avoid censorship.
krapp 7y ago
>On one hand, you can limit information we know is false, but restricting spread of information is censoring people, something that is pretty widely regarded as oppressive. Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed.
- knowmad 7y ago
  Who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are?
  - krapp 7y ago
    Yeah, no... I'm not jumping down that rabbithole of thought-terminating cliches. HN is already replete with countless tiresome retreads of the same slippery slope arguments around freedom of speech, censorship, social media policies, whether truth even exists, Voltaire quotes and Orwell references. Feel free to browse if that's what you're looking for, they all devolve into the same unproductive quagmire.
    - subhobroto 7y ago
      An echo chamber sure feels good. This is what I know - SARS-COV2 is novel and not even highly trained, world renowned infectious diseases experts know how it behaves and how to treat it. I don't, for a second, believe Youtube has figured that one out. Now whether you have decided to reject all competing hypothesis to something you have already decided to be the truth so you can move on with your life and be productive in areas you find valuable - that's your call but if I see you foisting your opinions on what kind of content I get to see, that's you infringing on my freedom and we have a problem.
    - viridian 7y ago
      There's some irony in you refusing to engage with thought terminating cliches when your original post that kicked this sub-thread off was "Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed."
      - krapp 7y ago
        Maybe it is, but almost no one who asks "but who decides x" in these threads is actually interested in debating the matter. They typically already believe no one should be allowed to decide, and they have no intention of actually engaging you in conversation beyond lecturing, berating and snark. Learning when to step away from such fruitless pseudo-debates before wasting hours on the online equivalent of beating one's head against a brick wall is a valuable survival skill here. Sometimes it's best to simply state your opinion and move on.
        subhobroto 7y ago
        > almost no one who asks "but who decides x" in these threads is actually interested in debating the matter. They typically already believe no one should be allowed to decide I take you up on that offer. Let us, for a moment, discuss this. To disconnect us both from the exact matter at hand, because we are likely at this point pretty attached strongly to our biases to it, let us step aside, choose a completely different topic and hypothesize that our debate is on "should the government be allowed to track crimminals moving about in society". I propose, that yes, murderers should be tracked at all times, as they move about in society, with tracking devices embedded onto their ankles. You propose, no, no one, including murderers should be tracked at any time. I then propose that murderers should be given a choice between been tracked, or have their pictures and descriptions published on a public website where anyone interested in staying away from murderers can check in. What's your next move?
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        Context matters, removing context entirely and grafting it onto an almost entirely dissimilar situation is stupid.
  - subhobroto 7y ago
    Exactly. It's extremely upsetting to see decisions like the parent's. What's more concerning is the tone is absolute - the intention is "I know exactly what is right and the world shall follow my lead". That guy Gandhi causing all kinds of trouble! Ban his content! That guy MLK causing all kinds of trouble! Ban his content! That guy Edward Jenner with his braindead idea of vaccination proposing we infect ourseves to get better! Ban! Ban! Ban! History has many examples what that thinking leads to.
    - krapp 7y ago
      You're equating people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to MLK and Ghandi?
      - subhobroto 7y ago
        I want people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to have a voice. Whether that voice has value is an individual decision you and I get to make, on our own. What data do you have, that proves diferuloylmethane is ineffective in treating COVID-19? Are you 100% sure that diferuloylmethane cannot be an ingredient in a battery of medicine to help recover from COVID-19? This is what I know - SARS-COV2 is novel and not even highly trained, world renowned infectious diseases experts know how it behaves and how to treat it. Not a central authority that removes that choice from both of us leaving us with no choice.
        msla 7y ago
        > I want people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to have a voice. They're scammers. They're perpetrating a scam. "Giving them a voice" means allowing them to scam others out of money. Why should YouTube be complicit in running a scam?
        subhobroto 7y ago
        > "Giving them a voice" means allowing them to scam others out of money. Perhaps you left out the videos that warn others of said scam. Don't treat adults like chlidren or, pretty soon, you will have a world full of only children with no adult supervision! Yes, being an adult means having the freedom to drink alcohol and drive a car instead of waiting for a bus or a parent to come pick me up. It also means having the responsibilities of making my own decisions instead of waiting for someone else to do it for me. What's the expectation - that if the decision making authority makes a wrong decision that kills me, I can then blame them and collect damages? That's crazy talk - for one, I will be dead already!
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    It's not like its some impossible to distinguish thing that people that say things like "5G causes coronavirus" are cranks. Nuance in these discussions basically flies out the window entirely, and frankly, its stupid.
  - tree3 7y ago
    YouTube. It's their platform, they make decisions. If you don't like their platform/decisions, go elsewhere.
    - viklove 7y ago
      So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them? Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Is it just because they happen to agree with your worldview? And what if they don't -- what if they start banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country? Would your opinion change?
      - airstrike 7y ago
        > So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them? IANAL but unless someone is knowingly spreading false information as true (i.e. fraud), the answer is no. They probably don't even carry the burden of having to reasonably vet information first. > Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Because it is your privilege to use YouTube, not your right.
        viklove 7y ago
        Ok, so what you're saying is that if YouTube starts banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country, you would support their decision.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        No, but I also wouldn't call for legal intervention.
        viklove 7y ago
        Not sure why so many people think it's good for Google and Facebook to be able to control the flow of information on the internet.
  - alvarelle 7y ago
    > Who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are? Yes, WHO decides.
stx 7y ago
I agree with your point of view. Youtube is not the government so it, in my opinion, should have its own freedom to make its own rules. The issue to me is that Youtube is pretty much THE video sharing platform. Yes there are others but as a content creator you will reach the most people on Youtube. Would criticism of WHO be removed. Would information about China's handling of the outbreak be banned if it is contradictory to the WHO point of view. These videos are already demonetized. I also am frustrated when I see videos claiming garlic will prevent coronavirus. Or that 5g is the cause. I would like to think people will recognize this is not accurate but people continue to amaze me. In some ways though if I believe in freedom of speech though I suppose I should be prepared to accept all speech.
sunir 7y ago
Yes, they are private and can do what they want... and we can judge them harshly for it. What’s legal and what’s moral aren’t the same thing.
- DanielLihaciu 7y ago
  They make their own law on their platform which is 1000x times more scarier knowing that is a monopoly in content sharing
- filoleg 7y ago
  Fully agreed. I think that YouTube is in absolute legal right to ban whatever content they want, and I wouldn't want that legal right taken away from them (or any other content platform). However, I absolutely disagree with this specific ban on their end, and it deserves to be criticized. But, again, they shouldn't be legally restricted from making this decision, no matter how poor I believe the decision is.
nikofeyn 7y ago
> any sort of censorship is scary to me i agree. but at the same time, why do people not get up in as much arms about manipulation? of course, censorship is a form of manipulation, but the u.s. media, advertisements, corporate culture, politics, etc. is one big cesspool of manipulation, both direct and indirect. it's just as controlling if not more controlling than censorship and, of more sinister nature, hides behind supposed ideals of freedom.
root_axis 7y ago
They should relying on for-profit corporations to host their videos for free. Pay for hosting.
tolstoshev 7y ago
Their decisions aren't completely free. For example malls got designated as public spaces in the 90s and that could happen online too at some point: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90sc433-0.html https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90s...

by jjice 7y ago

mraudiobook_com 7y ago

You shouldn't use the USD, HN, Reddit, Google or Amazon if you are trying to avoid censorship.

krapp 7y ago

>On one hand, you can limit information we know is false, but restricting spread of information is censoring people, something that is pretty widely regarded as oppressive. Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed.

knowmad 7y ago
Who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are?
- krapp 7y ago
  Yeah, no... I'm not jumping down that rabbithole of thought-terminating cliches. HN is already replete with countless tiresome retreads of the same slippery slope arguments around freedom of speech, censorship, social media policies, whether truth even exists, Voltaire quotes and Orwell references. Feel free to browse if that's what you're looking for, they all devolve into the same unproductive quagmire.
  - subhobroto 7y ago
    An echo chamber sure feels good. This is what I know - SARS-COV2 is novel and not even highly trained, world renowned infectious diseases experts know how it behaves and how to treat it. I don't, for a second, believe Youtube has figured that one out. Now whether you have decided to reject all competing hypothesis to something you have already decided to be the truth so you can move on with your life and be productive in areas you find valuable - that's your call but if I see you foisting your opinions on what kind of content I get to see, that's you infringing on my freedom and we have a problem.
  - viridian 7y ago
    There's some irony in you refusing to engage with thought terminating cliches when your original post that kicked this sub-thread off was "Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed."
    - krapp 7y ago
      Maybe it is, but almost no one who asks "but who decides x" in these threads is actually interested in debating the matter. They typically already believe no one should be allowed to decide, and they have no intention of actually engaging you in conversation beyond lecturing, berating and snark. Learning when to step away from such fruitless pseudo-debates before wasting hours on the online equivalent of beating one's head against a brick wall is a valuable survival skill here. Sometimes it's best to simply state your opinion and move on.
      - subhobroto 7y ago
        > almost no one who asks "but who decides x" in these threads is actually interested in debating the matter. They typically already believe no one should be allowed to decide I take you up on that offer. Let us, for a moment, discuss this. To disconnect us both from the exact matter at hand, because we are likely at this point pretty attached strongly to our biases to it, let us step aside, choose a completely different topic and hypothesize that our debate is on "should the government be allowed to track crimminals moving about in society". I propose, that yes, murderers should be tracked at all times, as they move about in society, with tracking devices embedded onto their ankles. You propose, no, no one, including murderers should be tracked at any time. I then propose that murderers should be given a choice between been tracked, or have their pictures and descriptions published on a public website where anyone interested in staying away from murderers can check in. What's your next move?
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        Context matters, removing context entirely and grafting it onto an almost entirely dissimilar situation is stupid.
- subhobroto 7y ago
  Exactly. It's extremely upsetting to see decisions like the parent's. What's more concerning is the tone is absolute - the intention is "I know exactly what is right and the world shall follow my lead". That guy Gandhi causing all kinds of trouble! Ban his content! That guy MLK causing all kinds of trouble! Ban his content! That guy Edward Jenner with his braindead idea of vaccination proposing we infect ourseves to get better! Ban! Ban! Ban! History has many examples what that thinking leads to.
  - krapp 7y ago
    You're equating people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to MLK and Ghandi?
    - subhobroto 7y ago
      I want people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to have a voice. Whether that voice has value is an individual decision you and I get to make, on our own. What data do you have, that proves diferuloylmethane is ineffective in treating COVID-19? Are you 100% sure that diferuloylmethane cannot be an ingredient in a battery of medicine to help recover from COVID-19? This is what I know - SARS-COV2 is novel and not even highly trained, world renowned infectious diseases experts know how it behaves and how to treat it. Not a central authority that removes that choice from both of us leaving us with no choice.
      - msla 7y ago
        > I want people claiming vitamin C and turmeric will cure COVID-19 to have a voice. They're scammers. They're perpetrating a scam. "Giving them a voice" means allowing them to scam others out of money. Why should YouTube be complicit in running a scam?
        subhobroto 7y ago
        > "Giving them a voice" means allowing them to scam others out of money. Perhaps you left out the videos that warn others of said scam. Don't treat adults like chlidren or, pretty soon, you will have a world full of only children with no adult supervision! Yes, being an adult means having the freedom to drink alcohol and drive a car instead of waiting for a bus or a parent to come pick me up. It also means having the responsibilities of making my own decisions instead of waiting for someone else to do it for me. What's the expectation - that if the decision making authority makes a wrong decision that kills me, I can then blame them and collect damages? That's crazy talk - for one, I will be dead already!
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  It's not like its some impossible to distinguish thing that people that say things like "5G causes coronavirus" are cranks. Nuance in these discussions basically flies out the window entirely, and frankly, its stupid.
- tree3 7y ago
  YouTube. It's their platform, they make decisions. If you don't like their platform/decisions, go elsewhere.
  - viklove 7y ago
    So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them? Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Is it just because they happen to agree with your worldview? And what if they don't -- what if they start banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country? Would your opinion change?
    - airstrike 7y ago
      > So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them? IANAL but unless someone is knowingly spreading false information as true (i.e. fraud), the answer is no. They probably don't even carry the burden of having to reasonably vet information first. > Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Because it is your privilege to use YouTube, not your right.
      - viklove 7y ago
        Ok, so what you're saying is that if YouTube starts banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country, you would support their decision.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        No, but I also wouldn't call for legal intervention.
        viklove 7y ago
        Not sure why so many people think it's good for Google and Facebook to be able to control the flow of information on the internet.
- alvarelle 7y ago
  > Who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are? Yes, WHO decides.

stx 7y ago

I agree with your point of view. Youtube is not the government so it, in my opinion, should have its own freedom to make its own rules. The issue to me is that Youtube is pretty much THE video sharing platform. Yes there are others but as a content creator you will reach the most people on Youtube. Would criticism of WHO be removed. Would information about China's handling of the outbreak be banned if it is contradictory to the WHO point of view. These videos are already demonetized. I also am frustrated when I see videos claiming garlic will prevent coronavirus. Or that 5g is the cause. I would like to think people will recognize this is not accurate but people continue to amaze me. In some ways though if I believe in freedom of speech though I suppose I should be prepared to accept all speech.

sunir 7y ago

Yes, they are private and can do what they want... and we can judge them harshly for it. What’s legal and what’s moral aren’t the same thing.

DanielLihaciu 7y ago
They make their own law on their platform which is 1000x times more scarier knowing that is a monopoly in content sharing
filoleg 7y ago
Fully agreed. I think that YouTube is in absolute legal right to ban whatever content they want, and I wouldn't want that legal right taken away from them (or any other content platform). However, I absolutely disagree with this specific ban on their end, and it deserves to be criticized. But, again, they shouldn't be legally restricted from making this decision, no matter how poor I believe the decision is.

nikofeyn 7y ago

> any sort of censorship is scary to me i agree. but at the same time, why do people not get up in as much arms about manipulation? of course, censorship is a form of manipulation, but the u.s. media, advertisements, corporate culture, politics, etc. is one big cesspool of manipulation, both direct and indirect. it's just as controlling if not more controlling than censorship and, of more sinister nature, hides behind supposed ideals of freedom.

root_axis 7y ago

They should relying on for-profit corporations to host their videos for free. Pay for hosting.

tolstoshev 7y ago

Their decisions aren't completely free. For example malls got designated as public spaces in the 90s and that could happen online too at some point: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90sc433-0.html https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90s...