4 ms·

It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted whil

It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted while all the anti-Google rhetoric is floating above it. I get it's cool to hate Google these days and I'm not saying I agree with the removal of the podcast app, however the removal of that app is consistent with how Google have been maintaining some of their other platforms too. This isn't a theoretical point either, it's been well documented in the news and talked to death on here too. So regardless of my opinion of Google (and to be clear: I'm not fan either) I still can't help feeling that all the "Google are hypocrites" remarks being made are completely ignorant of the fact that Google are actually removing content on YouTube as well. Here's a bunch of citations that proves this and the GP comments are actually correct despite the down votes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220864

Dylan16807 6y ago
It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. "They are removing content on youtube." is a true factual statement. "They are applying the same standard." is not. The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent.
- laumars 6y ago
  > It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing. > The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent. When splitting hairs there’s a risk you sub-divide the problem so finely that you then can argue nothing is equivalent and I think that’s what’s happening here. There’s a saying that goes something like “don’t attributed malice to acts of incompetence” which applies here. People are quick to jump on the offensive when it’s clearly a policy that Google follow on their other platforms and it might well be a decision that is overturned upon review. I explain this point more eloquently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I don't think it's splitting hairs. Banning video channels and banning apps are very different things. Consistency would ban both apps and any normal web browser, or would have never gone near banning this one. The equivalent to the youtube bans is when they ban apps that are actually about covid-19. Not apps with internet search. > I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). No, the exact opposite of that. Because I was replying to the part of your post that says "It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted" That is about disagreement, and is not about comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“. > I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing. You said "factual comments are being down voted" in favor of "anti-Google rhetoric". That's either people being mindless or people being malicious. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "anger", but I don't think "mindless" is exaggerating what you said at all. You painted the situation as having no legitimate reason to downvote those comments.
    - laumars 6y ago
      I don’t think there is a legitimate reason and I’ve cited how those comments were factually accurate. You might disagree with the comparison but I don’t think we are likely to see eye to on that, which is fine. :) However I still object to you twisting my words to something far more sinister then they’re clearly intended. That’s simply not good debating.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        There were comments with facts, but whether they supported the point being made was arguable. If the facts are irrelevant, it's not a great pity to see a downvote. And yeah, that disagreement is fine. But you need to understand that I am not trying to twist your words at all. I see those two things as synonyms. No twisting is intended. And for you to say "far more sinister then they’re clearly intended" sounds like an accusation of deliberate malicious behavior, not even me making a mistake, and I don't appreciate that.

Dylan16807 6y ago

It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. "They are removing content on youtube." is a true factual statement. "They are applying the same standard." is not. The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent.

laumars 6y ago
> It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing. > The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent. When splitting hairs there’s a risk you sub-divide the problem so finely that you then can argue nothing is equivalent and I think that’s what’s happening here. There’s a saying that goes something like “don’t attributed malice to acts of incompetence” which applies here. People are quick to jump on the offensive when it’s clearly a policy that Google follow on their other platforms and it might well be a decision that is overturned upon review. I explain this point more eloquently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I don't think it's splitting hairs. Banning video channels and banning apps are very different things. Consistency would ban both apps and any normal web browser, or would have never gone near banning this one. The equivalent to the youtube bans is when they ban apps that are actually about covid-19. Not apps with internet search. > I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). No, the exact opposite of that. Because I was replying to the part of your post that says "It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted" That is about disagreement, and is not about comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“. > I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing. You said "factual comments are being down voted" in favor of "anti-Google rhetoric". That's either people being mindless or people being malicious. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "anger", but I don't think "mindless" is exaggerating what you said at all. You painted the situation as having no legitimate reason to downvote those comments.
  - laumars 6y ago
    I don’t think there is a legitimate reason and I’ve cited how those comments were factually accurate. You might disagree with the comparison but I don’t think we are likely to see eye to on that, which is fine. :) However I still object to you twisting my words to something far more sinister then they’re clearly intended. That’s simply not good debating.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      There were comments with facts, but whether they supported the point being made was arguable. If the facts are irrelevant, it's not a great pity to see a downvote. And yeah, that disagreement is fine. But you need to understand that I am not trying to twist your words at all. I see those two things as synonyms. No twisting is intended. And for you to say "far more sinister then they’re clearly intended" sounds like an accusation of deliberate malicious behavior, not even me making a mistake, and I don't appreciate that.