5 ms·

To Jordan Chariton exclaiming in all caps: > How are journalists supposed to chronicle history if YouTube — and others — are outlawing it? Regardless of what

by creata 6y ago

To Jordan Chariton exclaiming in all caps: > How are journalists supposed to chronicle history if YouTube — and others — are outlawing it? Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"?

Swizec 6y ago
> Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? Because for better or for worse these platforms have become the public square. They are where modern life happens.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cbsks 6y ago
  Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be a public square.
  - honest_guy 6y ago
    In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      That's not how the CDA works. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    - paxys 6y ago
      What makes you think publishers don’t have section 230 protections? Have you ever been to the opinion or comments sections on Fox News?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - judge2020 6y ago
      You can't forgo them voluntarily, the section makes it a fact that a service and the service's users cannot be treated as the 'publisher' of content if all they do is re-broadcast or propagate said content. The only way this dream scenario happens is if Google's lawyers put out a statement saying "we accept full responsibility for user-generated content and welcome anyone to sue us over such content, and we will not argue that we are protected under section 230 in court" - and even then, the judge of that court case could still rule that they're protected under 230 since it's law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
      - someguydave 6y ago
        That's why section 230 needs to be re-written. I'm fine with moderation, and I'm fine with sites that publish user-generated content defining their own content rules. What I'm not fine with - and what the parent article is mainly focused on - are rules that are unevenly enforced in order to play favorites. I would reform section 230 so say that you must post the site's user-generated content rules, and you must post a moderation log. The moderation log would consist of the list of moderation actions taken and the accounts affected, and the time. Any moderation action that appears to not align with the stated content policy should be reviewable by a third party accredited arbitrator, at the plantiff's expense. The net effect of this scenario would be to cause the sites to write down detailed rules about content, and enforce them fairly on all sides. Right now there are simply too many flagrantly biased or inaccurate moderation decisions on these sites, and many of them seem to be motivated by political or economic reasons. It's one thing to ask that sites be the "public square" because of the huge gift of liability protection that section 230 grants. This argument has not held up in courts. It's a totally different thing to require sites play by their own rules, and hold them accountable for each hypocritical moderation action that genuinely hurts the "little guy"
      - Const-me 6y ago
        Paragraph b3 says this: “It is the policy of the United States to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet” I think the technologies where a centralized commercial company controls which information is received by users violates at least the spirit of that law.
    - theptip 6y ago
      You seem to be asserting that the only options are “public square” (eligible for section 230 protection) or “publisher”. It’s not clear to me that section 230 has anything to do with public squares, can you elaborate on your position? Why can’t they be neither a publisher nor a public square? I’m by no means an expert on this bit of legislation; Wikipedia just says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  Any argument AGAINST YouTube (and Twitter) being considered common carriers, and legislated accordingly, should be DOA after the past few weeks.
devmunchies 6y ago
if a tree falls down in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  No. By definition, sound is just the way that some creatures interpret waves propagating through the air that hit their weird inner ear structures that gets translated through neural pathways into meaningful qualia
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    so if you publish on an alternative platform and nobody reads it... no sound.
    - sli 6y ago
      Unlike hearing a sound vs. just the pressure waves, data's form doesn't change when someone interacts with it. It's the same before and after. Sure, the pressure waves don't change, but it's the interaction with them that we call sound. Data is data before and after you look at it.
      - devmunchies 6y ago
        pointing out literal discrepancies to a figurative comparison? I like the cut of your jib.
    - artificial 6y ago
      “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
yellow_lead 6y ago
I am also confused by the implication that if something wasn't posted to YouTube, it didn't happen.
Aerroon 6y ago
Because people use what they know and have. There are probably way better tools out there for most things, but if people don't know of their existence or how to use them, then they won't use these better tools. Look at Minecraft. Some people end up building absolutely incredible things in it. Detailed art. Imagine if they had used a 3D modeling program instead! But those are way harder to use and way less inviting. So, Minecraft it is.
- KingMachiavelli 6y ago
  But I would not want to turn Minecraft into a 3D modeling program just because some people use it that way. Similarly, I do not want some external institution to force Youtube to become a video storage platform despite some people using it that way. From a purely journalistic perspective, it is pretty cheap to run your own site. You can use efficient video codecs and there are many cheap VPS and CDN providers. New technology like peertube and IPFS can make this even cheaper. Taking a for-profit platform like Youtube and forcing it to cater to certain needs just makes it an even more entrenched part of peoples lives. Letting Youtube make itself worse for some purposes/topics encourages users to create and use other platforms.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? I don't understand this argument at all. The entire Fourth Estate in the US has always been primarily paid for by advertisers, and just saying YouTube is an "entertainment website" seems like a poor attempt to say it can only be used for cat videos or something. YouTube is the largest video distribution network on the planet. Of course I think someone would use it to chronicle video history.
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  As a de facto monopoly, it’s certainly the only one that matters right now. But if, say, the porn tubes wanted to wall off a non-NSFW side, they could become a serious competitor overnight. Or if Netflix or Amazon started allowing end-user content, for that matter.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    If someone uploaded non adult content to one of the adult sites doing totally non-controversial things, like discussing smart phones or say a 20 part series on linear algebra, would they be kicked off the platform? Is there some effort to titillate requirement? I'm imagining some vlogger doing an epic trolling email thread with the mods about how "actually, many people find e&m physics lectures erotic..."
  - ngngngng 6y ago
    I have no idea why porn sites wouldn't attempt to compete, their technology is solid, sometimes industry leading. Diversify.
    - seanp2k2 6y ago
      I would also just like to remind everyone that there are many video sites out there that aren’t explicitly porn sites (but do generally allow some level of porn) that are not YouTube. They also tend to have NSFW / scammy ads as those are the only advertisers willing to pay to advertise next to content that wouldn’t be acceptable on YT.
CivBase 6y ago
YouTube is not just a platform to host vidoes on. It's a search engine, content feed, and social network. There is no adequate replacement. You can back up your videos somewhere else, but there isn't anywhere else that offers a comparable package.

by creata 6y ago

Swizec 6y ago

> Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? Because for better or for worse these platforms have become the public square. They are where modern life happens.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cbsks 6y ago
Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be a public square.
- honest_guy 6y ago
  In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    That's not how the CDA works. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
  - paxys 6y ago
    What makes you think publishers don’t have section 230 protections? Have you ever been to the opinion or comments sections on Fox News?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - judge2020 6y ago
    You can't forgo them voluntarily, the section makes it a fact that a service and the service's users cannot be treated as the 'publisher' of content if all they do is re-broadcast or propagate said content. The only way this dream scenario happens is if Google's lawyers put out a statement saying "we accept full responsibility for user-generated content and welcome anyone to sue us over such content, and we will not argue that we are protected under section 230 in court" - and even then, the judge of that court case could still rule that they're protected under 230 since it's law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
    - someguydave 6y ago
      That's why section 230 needs to be re-written. I'm fine with moderation, and I'm fine with sites that publish user-generated content defining their own content rules. What I'm not fine with - and what the parent article is mainly focused on - are rules that are unevenly enforced in order to play favorites. I would reform section 230 so say that you must post the site's user-generated content rules, and you must post a moderation log. The moderation log would consist of the list of moderation actions taken and the accounts affected, and the time. Any moderation action that appears to not align with the stated content policy should be reviewable by a third party accredited arbitrator, at the plantiff's expense. The net effect of this scenario would be to cause the sites to write down detailed rules about content, and enforce them fairly on all sides. Right now there are simply too many flagrantly biased or inaccurate moderation decisions on these sites, and many of them seem to be motivated by political or economic reasons. It's one thing to ask that sites be the "public square" because of the huge gift of liability protection that section 230 grants. This argument has not held up in courts. It's a totally different thing to require sites play by their own rules, and hold them accountable for each hypocritical moderation action that genuinely hurts the "little guy"
    - Const-me 6y ago
      Paragraph b3 says this: “It is the policy of the United States to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet” I think the technologies where a centralized commercial company controls which information is received by users violates at least the spirit of that law.
  - theptip 6y ago
    You seem to be asserting that the only options are “public square” (eligible for section 230 protection) or “publisher”. It’s not clear to me that section 230 has anything to do with public squares, can you elaborate on your position? Why can’t they be neither a publisher nor a public square? I’m by no means an expert on this bit of legislation; Wikipedia just says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
Any argument AGAINST YouTube (and Twitter) being considered common carriers, and legislated accordingly, should be DOA after the past few weeks.

devmunchies 6y ago

if a tree falls down in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

arthurcolle 6y ago
No. By definition, sound is just the way that some creatures interpret waves propagating through the air that hit their weird inner ear structures that gets translated through neural pathways into meaningful qualia
- devmunchies 6y ago
  so if you publish on an alternative platform and nobody reads it... no sound.
  - sli 6y ago
    Unlike hearing a sound vs. just the pressure waves, data's form doesn't change when someone interacts with it. It's the same before and after. Sure, the pressure waves don't change, but it's the interaction with them that we call sound. Data is data before and after you look at it.
    - devmunchies 6y ago
      pointing out literal discrepancies to a figurative comparison? I like the cut of your jib.
  - artificial 6y ago
    “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

yellow_lead 6y ago

I am also confused by the implication that if something wasn't posted to YouTube, it didn't happen.

Aerroon 6y ago

Because people use what they know and have. There are probably way better tools out there for most things, but if people don't know of their existence or how to use them, then they won't use these better tools. Look at Minecraft. Some people end up building absolutely incredible things in it. Detailed art. Imagine if they had used a 3D modeling program instead! But those are way harder to use and way less inviting. So, Minecraft it is.

KingMachiavelli 6y ago
But I would not want to turn Minecraft into a 3D modeling program just because some people use it that way. Similarly, I do not want some external institution to force Youtube to become a video storage platform despite some people using it that way. From a purely journalistic perspective, it is pretty cheap to run your own site. You can use efficient video codecs and there are many cheap VPS and CDN providers. New technology like peertube and IPFS can make this even cheaper. Taking a for-profit platform like Youtube and forcing it to cater to certain needs just makes it an even more entrenched part of peoples lives. Letting Youtube make itself worse for some purposes/topics encourages users to create and use other platforms.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

> Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? I don't understand this argument at all. The entire Fourth Estate in the US has always been primarily paid for by advertisers, and just saying YouTube is an "entertainment website" seems like a poor attempt to say it can only be used for cat videos or something. YouTube is the largest video distribution network on the planet. Of course I think someone would use it to chronicle video history.

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
As a de facto monopoly, it’s certainly the only one that matters right now. But if, say, the porn tubes wanted to wall off a non-NSFW side, they could become a serious competitor overnight. Or if Netflix or Amazon started allowing end-user content, for that matter.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  If someone uploaded non adult content to one of the adult sites doing totally non-controversial things, like discussing smart phones or say a 20 part series on linear algebra, would they be kicked off the platform? Is there some effort to titillate requirement? I'm imagining some vlogger doing an epic trolling email thread with the mods about how "actually, many people find e&m physics lectures erotic..."
- ngngngng 6y ago
  I have no idea why porn sites wouldn't attempt to compete, their technology is solid, sometimes industry leading. Diversify.
  - seanp2k2 6y ago
    I would also just like to remind everyone that there are many video sites out there that aren’t explicitly porn sites (but do generally allow some level of porn) that are not YouTube. They also tend to have NSFW / scammy ads as those are the only advertisers willing to pay to advertise next to content that wouldn’t be acceptable on YT.

CivBase 6y ago

YouTube is not just a platform to host vidoes on. It's a search engine, content feed, and social network. There is no adequate replacement. You can back up your videos somewhere else, but there isn't anywhere else that offers a comparable package.