4 ms·

I despise David Icke but I think platforms like YouTube or Facebook should remain neutral. It's not their job to tell us what people should be looking at or not

by sunseb 6y ago

I despise David Icke but I think platforms like YouTube or Facebook should remain neutral. It's not their job to tell us what people should be looking at or not. Then what? We end up like China where we can only browse government propaganda?

ctrl-j 6y ago
I don't believe slippery slope applies in this situation. For the most part Youtube has been fairly lenient as to which accounts get heavily moderated and/or removed. I may revise my opinion if it is ever shown that they become more aggressively restrictive to what is hosted on their platform - but for the most part you seem to be given a wide berth to upload what you wish. The worst I've seen so far is that their video promotion algorithm can be used to "shadow ban".. but I personally believe they have every right to decide how their internal advertisements work. There is also still the free and open internet as a general platform. Torrents and direct downloads are available as a distribution method if there is truly no other platform willing to host your media.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > For the most part Youtube has been fairly lenient as to which accounts get heavily moderated and/or removed. Ah yes, because people have never had their entire Google account terminated because they posted one too many emojis in a chat... https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtube-emote-spam-markiplier/ https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtub...
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  Nobody complains when the most blatant kooks get disappeared (Alex Jones), but it's absolutely affecting more mainstream content creators, who can't even produce opinion pieces reporting on related news without their videos getting deleted or forced into Private. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4cPAm7QkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4cPAm7QkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30g_pIVUGpQ&t=814s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30g_pIVUGpQ&t=814s
krapp 6y ago
>It's not their job to tell us what people should be looking at or not. That is their job. That is literally their job and business model. They have never been neutral, they have always used moderation, demonetization and algorithmic sorting to tell you what you should be looking at. And they've always banned accounts at their discretion, often opaquely and without apparent rationale. It's always been their platform and their rules. >Then what? We end up like China where we can only browse government propaganda? No, because, despite the popular FUD narrative that HN spins in every single one of these threads, Youtube isn't a government. It doesn't have the power of a government, nor is it more powerful than a government. It doesn't have monopoly control over the internet, over video, over social media, or over the dissemination of information.
knzhou 6y ago
This slope isn't nearly as slippery as you think it is. If YouTube began issuing a million times more bans, it might approach the quality of an average newspaper in terms of accuracy. Would we be living in a dystopia at that point? No, we'd be living just like we did in the year 2000, when YouTube wasn't around but newspapers were.
- cameronbrown 6y ago
  Not a convincing argument. The average newspaper is all clickbait drivel.
  - knzhou 6y ago
    The point is that even if Youtube literally censored everything overnight, we wouldn't end up living in hell, we'd be living in the year 2000.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      You cant have it both ways. Either youtube is relevant and important in the public discourse and you agree with them there is a risk that vast portions of the population will be misled by those videos , or Youtube is an incosequential player so it does not matter what publishes. If you agree with the second point you should not care what it is published there, the same reason you dont care about the contents of the "monthly bulletin of the crypto-anarchist Fidjian association"
      - knzhou 6y ago
        But I do have it both ways. Youtube is a large provider, which is why I'm glad it's kicking off bullshit. But it's far from the only provider: without Youtube you still have print, radio, TV, going outside with a megaphone, going door to door with pamphlets, and the entire rest of the internet.
        cambalache 6y ago
nathanaldensr 6y ago
Yes, and the scary thing is that many folks--including commenters here on HN--look forward to it.
p1necone 6y ago
I'm sure there's plenty of online communities out there that you can watch/read right wing conspiracy nutjobs opinions on. This is not comparable to China - YouTube is not the government. They're a private company choosing not to host this content. Where are all the free speech advocates complaining about YouTube not hosting porn, or demonetizing videos with swear words in them? Why do you only come out of the woodwork en masse when it's the right wingers being censored?
- ckingdesperatly 6y ago
  >YouTube is not the government. Literally nobody believes this, Susan.
- sunseb 6y ago
  > Why do you only come out of the woodwork en masse when it's the right wingers being censored? Because only the right wingers are actually being censored...

by sunseb 6y ago

ctrl-j 6y ago

I don't believe slippery slope applies in this situation. For the most part Youtube has been fairly lenient as to which accounts get heavily moderated and/or removed. I may revise my opinion if it is ever shown that they become more aggressively restrictive to what is hosted on their platform - but for the most part you seem to be given a wide berth to upload what you wish. The worst I've seen so far is that their video promotion algorithm can be used to "shadow ban".. but I personally believe they have every right to decide how their internal advertisements work. There is also still the free and open internet as a general platform. Torrents and direct downloads are available as a distribution method if there is truly no other platform willing to host your media.

colejohnson66 6y ago
> For the most part Youtube has been fairly lenient as to which accounts get heavily moderated and/or removed. Ah yes, because people have never had their entire Google account terminated because they posted one too many emojis in a chat... https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtube-emote-spam-markiplier/ https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtub...
CapricornNoble 6y ago
Nobody complains when the most blatant kooks get disappeared (Alex Jones), but it's absolutely affecting more mainstream content creators, who can't even produce opinion pieces reporting on related news without their videos getting deleted or forced into Private. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4cPAm7QkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4cPAm7QkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30g_pIVUGpQ&t=814s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30g_pIVUGpQ&t=814s

krapp 6y ago

>It's not their job to tell us what people should be looking at or not. That is their job. That is literally their job and business model. They have never been neutral, they have always used moderation, demonetization and algorithmic sorting to tell you what you should be looking at. And they've always banned accounts at their discretion, often opaquely and without apparent rationale. It's always been their platform and their rules. >Then what? We end up like China where we can only browse government propaganda? No, because, despite the popular FUD narrative that HN spins in every single one of these threads, Youtube isn't a government. It doesn't have the power of a government, nor is it more powerful than a government. It doesn't have monopoly control over the internet, over video, over social media, or over the dissemination of information.

knzhou 6y ago

This slope isn't nearly as slippery as you think it is. If YouTube began issuing a million times more bans, it might approach the quality of an average newspaper in terms of accuracy. Would we be living in a dystopia at that point? No, we'd be living just like we did in the year 2000, when YouTube wasn't around but newspapers were.

cameronbrown 6y ago
Not a convincing argument. The average newspaper is all clickbait drivel.
- knzhou 6y ago
  The point is that even if Youtube literally censored everything overnight, we wouldn't end up living in hell, we'd be living in the year 2000.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    You cant have it both ways. Either youtube is relevant and important in the public discourse and you agree with them there is a risk that vast portions of the population will be misled by those videos , or Youtube is an incosequential player so it does not matter what publishes. If you agree with the second point you should not care what it is published there, the same reason you dont care about the contents of the "monthly bulletin of the crypto-anarchist Fidjian association"
    - knzhou 6y ago
      But I do have it both ways. Youtube is a large provider, which is why I'm glad it's kicking off bullshit. But it's far from the only provider: without Youtube you still have print, radio, TV, going outside with a megaphone, going door to door with pamphlets, and the entire rest of the internet.
      - cambalache 6y ago

nathanaldensr 6y ago

Yes, and the scary thing is that many folks--including commenters here on HN--look forward to it.

p1necone 6y ago

I'm sure there's plenty of online communities out there that you can watch/read right wing conspiracy nutjobs opinions on. This is not comparable to China - YouTube is not the government. They're a private company choosing not to host this content. Where are all the free speech advocates complaining about YouTube not hosting porn, or demonetizing videos with swear words in them? Why do you only come out of the woodwork en masse when it's the right wingers being censored?

ckingdesperatly 6y ago
>YouTube is not the government. Literally nobody believes this, Susan.
sunseb 6y ago
> Why do you only come out of the woodwork en masse when it's the right wingers being censored? Because only the right wingers are actually being censored...