4 ms·

This edges a little close to state media. Of course it’s not the same, but if the guiding philosophy is ‘we cannot trust the public with certain information, fo

This edges a little close to state media. Of course it’s not the same, but if the guiding philosophy is ‘we cannot trust the public with certain information, for it’s own good’, then we’ve adopted whatever the hell they do in non-free countries. Very bad precedent, very Un-American. Edit: As an arrogant American, I forgot to consider that this might be a global Youtube policy.

dwaltrip 7y ago
No, it edges closer to Youtube being a publisher that controls or curates the content that is available on their platform.
- runawaybottle 7y ago
  That’s like saying the MTA is some independent platform that New Yorkers can choose to use or not use. Another example would be saying cable companies that have a monopoly over your region (once upon a time) provide real choice to customers that want to switch. Youtube is the de facto video platform that the masses use, so much so that Youtube finds it necessary to enact something like this. To bring it back to your point - If we don’t like YouTube’s policies, we can’t just simply ignore Youtube and move on from it. How it controls things is a big deal, especially if it is similar to how non-free governments censor stuff. We have to be vigilant of this, it ain’t some niche video site.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    Perhaps you are right, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you are presenting. I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
  - jhanschoo 7y ago
    There's a difference between YT and a monopoly that matters in the law. You aren't paying anything to use or consume YT, no matter if you're a viewer or a content creator. It sounds like the ones who have standing are the advertisers, and I think advertisers would be fine with YT being more curated.
LouisSayers 7y ago
One annoyance of being global is also when people refer to things being released or having occurred in Summer etc. There are indeed two summers on this planet every year. Also, when people write date examples with the day and month both being values <= 12... that is especially annoying
rauchp 7y ago
Un-American? There's nothing more "American" than having the right to do whatever you want with your personal property. The free market answer here isn't forcing them to adhere to your tastes, it's to make or promote a competitor that can actually compete with YT.
- runawaybottle 7y ago
  Let’s just stick to the facts then for a second. In this particular case, Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not. American values are not all about capitalism. We have some ideas on the individual in America. But, I’m with you on the need for YouTube competitors, but I lack the imagination to see how it can happen. That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not. That is not factually true since the video is available in other places. What Youtube has done is decided to try to make it harder to view and share the video by removing it from their platform.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    Youtube hasn't decided you can't watch, they have decided not to spend resources allowing you to watch it on their platform or to accept sponsorship for the content because they feel that it would cost their brand money or otherwise be against their collective shareholder interests.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    > That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces. Do you also feel this way about historically monopolistic media companies? They also exercise editorial control. NBC, NewsCorp, Sinclair, ClearChannel, AT&T, Disney... Not every conspiracy theorist gets an oped or interview on any other platform.
smileysteve 7y ago
"State media" except not directed by a state, the state where YouTube is headquarted has announced cutting funding and has otherwise assigned blame to the organization whose guidelines they are following. So in no way "state". It's less "state" than if Walt Disney World had rules about family appropriate clothing (since the Florida granted them municipal control)
- runawaybottle 7y ago
  State media, which was mostly a reference to non-free countries with state controlled television, largely broadcasts what the state deems suitable for broadcasting. If they don’t think you need to know something, it’s hidden from you. Youtube thinks I don’t need to know anything about this video. Replace WHO with CDC, what’s the difference? Now you officially have the US censoring Youtube. The pattern is not good.
programmarchy 7y ago
Either way, you’re not “free”. At least with state censorship, there’s a formal hierarchy of authority. There’s the law, and some semblance of duty to the public. With corporate censorship, it’s ethereal, anarchic, and less accountable. The rules are opaque, the deciders are unknown, and the only duty is maximizing shareholder profit. As a serf, I’d be happier knowing who to blame.
- runawaybottle 7y ago
  I believe once upon a time we used to just call this ‘blaming the man’. Edit: Anyway, I’ll add to your point. As a company, Google has no issue censoring it’s product in China as opposed to other countries. It sounds almost trite to bring up, but Google censors the Tiananmen Square massacre for the CCP. With this in mind, what sincere values does Google hold on censorship? So ya, you’re right, corporate accountability on censorship is basically non existent (and you can trace it back to the fact that they probably don’t have values to even hold accountable).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

dwaltrip 7y ago

No, it edges closer to Youtube being a publisher that controls or curates the content that is available on their platform.

runawaybottle 7y ago
That’s like saying the MTA is some independent platform that New Yorkers can choose to use or not use. Another example would be saying cable companies that have a monopoly over your region (once upon a time) provide real choice to customers that want to switch. Youtube is the de facto video platform that the masses use, so much so that Youtube finds it necessary to enact something like this. To bring it back to your point - If we don’t like YouTube’s policies, we can’t just simply ignore Youtube and move on from it. How it controls things is a big deal, especially if it is similar to how non-free governments censor stuff. We have to be vigilant of this, it ain’t some niche video site.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  Perhaps you are right, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you are presenting. I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  There's a difference between YT and a monopoly that matters in the law. You aren't paying anything to use or consume YT, no matter if you're a viewer or a content creator. It sounds like the ones who have standing are the advertisers, and I think advertisers would be fine with YT being more curated.

LouisSayers 7y ago

One annoyance of being global is also when people refer to things being released or having occurred in Summer etc. There are indeed two summers on this planet every year. Also, when people write date examples with the day and month both being values <= 12... that is especially annoying

rauchp 7y ago

Un-American? There's nothing more "American" than having the right to do whatever you want with your personal property. The free market answer here isn't forcing them to adhere to your tastes, it's to make or promote a competitor that can actually compete with YT.

runawaybottle 7y ago
Let’s just stick to the facts then for a second. In this particular case, Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not. American values are not all about capitalism. We have some ideas on the individual in America. But, I’m with you on the need for YouTube competitors, but I lack the imagination to see how it can happen. That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not. That is not factually true since the video is available in other places. What Youtube has done is decided to try to make it harder to view and share the video by removing it from their platform.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  Youtube hasn't decided you can't watch, they have decided not to spend resources allowing you to watch it on their platform or to accept sponsorship for the content because they feel that it would cost their brand money or otherwise be against their collective shareholder interests.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  > That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces. Do you also feel this way about historically monopolistic media companies? They also exercise editorial control. NBC, NewsCorp, Sinclair, ClearChannel, AT&T, Disney... Not every conspiracy theorist gets an oped or interview on any other platform.

smileysteve 7y ago

"State media" except not directed by a state, the state where YouTube is headquarted has announced cutting funding and has otherwise assigned blame to the organization whose guidelines they are following. So in no way "state". It's less "state" than if Walt Disney World had rules about family appropriate clothing (since the Florida granted them municipal control)

runawaybottle 7y ago
State media, which was mostly a reference to non-free countries with state controlled television, largely broadcasts what the state deems suitable for broadcasting. If they don’t think you need to know something, it’s hidden from you. Youtube thinks I don’t need to know anything about this video. Replace WHO with CDC, what’s the difference? Now you officially have the US censoring Youtube. The pattern is not good.

programmarchy 7y ago

Either way, you’re not “free”. At least with state censorship, there’s a formal hierarchy of authority. There’s the law, and some semblance of duty to the public. With corporate censorship, it’s ethereal, anarchic, and less accountable. The rules are opaque, the deciders are unknown, and the only duty is maximizing shareholder profit. As a serf, I’d be happier knowing who to blame.

runawaybottle 7y ago
I believe once upon a time we used to just call this ‘blaming the man’. Edit: Anyway, I’ll add to your point. As a company, Google has no issue censoring it’s product in China as opposed to other countries. It sounds almost trite to bring up, but Google censors the Tiananmen Square massacre for the CCP. With this in mind, what sincere values does Google hold on censorship? So ya, you’re right, corporate accountability on censorship is basically non existent (and you can trace it back to the fact that they probably don’t have values to even hold accountable).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]