4 ms·
What I don't see in your response is an actual argument for how YouTube doing something which not democratic is good for democracy. > up to know they just rake
by cheph 6y ago
What I don't see in your response is an actual argument for how YouTube doing something which not democratic is good for democracy.
> up to know they just raked in the profits and gave shit about anything else. Them now changing that is a good thing.
Censoring unpopular and controversial views on their platform makes it more attractive for advertisers, which is good for YouTube's bottom line. This action in no way indicates an renunciation of a profit motive.
- hef19898 6y agoThe point being, nothing Youtube does is un-democratic to beginn with. And up to now, Youtube and FB gained from contrversial content, not the other way round. You are entitled to your opinion and to say it in public. You are not entitled to be protected from the social consequences. And if what you say is true, that this move drives the add revenue, that is only because people want to distance themselves from these views. Which would tell us something about public views. I just don't thin that is the case.
- noahtallen 6y agoI think the idea is to censor untrue and dangerous ideas rather than unpopular ideas. Yes, determining that is challenging. But denying COVID, for example, is very dangerous to all of society. Thousands of people are dying because of COVID deniers. To me, this is theoretically similar as if a massive video campaign was messaging you to drink bleach. I’m sure that sort of video is against YouTube’s terms of service — at least, I would hope that it is! The difference is really that some lunatic could stand in Times Square and scream that we should all drink bleach. But in that public forum, no one would take them seriously, and plenty would deride them. But with a great production value, paid influencers, just the right wording and messaging, you can manipulate social networks into spreading very dangerous information and actually making people believe things that can kill them. I think that problem, gone unchecked, leads to serious consequences and it would be in the best interest of society as a whole to fix it.
- cheph 6y ago> I think the idea is to censor untrue and dangerous ideas rather than unpopular ideas. I would definitely agree that if all viewpoints except mine were eliminated the world would be a better place.
- hef19898 6y agoI'd say this way of thinking is un-democratic, and deeply dangerous.
- jpttsn 6y ago> But with a great production value, paid influencers, just the right wording and messaging, you can manipulate social networks into spreading very dangerous information and actually making people believe things that can kill them. Clearly, you’d need an arbiter that is immune to such influences. Someone who knows what’s really true and can sensor the misinformation despite its high production values. I think the interesting question is where you’d find such an oracle, and how you’d convince it to work for YouTube.
- 72deluxe 6y agoSomeone not human then I guess??