5 ms·

Well too goddamn bad. That's part of life in a post-Enlightenment world. You don't get to have the all the great shit without all the worst shit along with it

Well too goddamn bad. That's part of life in a post-Enlightenment world. You don't get to have the all the great shit without all the worst shit along with it. The very nature of freedom means at some point, someone is going to do something you don't like. And I don't mean the mosque shooting. That was illegal. I mean part of having a free society means you have put up with people saying crazy nonsensical bullshit that any reasonable person would laugh at and then click on a new video. And you're going to have some group of people who are just dumb, or are easily impressionable, or are easily persuaded, or are whatever. Maybe the sickness isn't in the platform, either... maybe the sickness is somewhere else... and nobody wants to bother with it because its actually hard, and will actually cost money to deal with it. And to that, I also say, "Too goddamn bad." Its not a buffet and you don't get to choose, you have to accept the whole dinner, the hákarl along with the strawberry cheesecake.

rebuilder 6y ago
Allowing mass murderers to stream their crimes live is not going to fly. I think that's pretty clear. So, Youtube has to do something about it. The way traditional broadcast media handles this is that they know whoever's reporting, and have someone watching who can pull the plug if that reporter goes nuts. This is apparently too expensive for YouTube, so they use blunter tools.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Budd Dwyer blew his brains out on live television. Thousands saw the broadcast live. The broadcast was actually shown unedited later that day. This kind of stuff isn't new. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I just do not see any way that you can navigate around this. As for all the Moms (and Dads) who clutch their pearls and scream to YouTube, "HOW COULD YOU LET ME SON/DAUGHTER/CAT SEE THIS KIND OF MATERIAL?!" Well why are we even allowing that question to be asked? The real question is, "Why aren't you monitoring your children's Internet usage? The Internet isn't a babysister. It isn't a parent. People need to start taking responsibility for their own lives. There's entirely too much passing of the buck. It blows my mind that less than 3000 years ago, 7 years old Spartan boys were already training for war with sticks, and I literally have a friend who gets offended when I tell off-color jokes around his son at dinner. Who is 22. And has graduated college. That isn't a "hallmark of civilization", that's crippling our children such that they're unable to cope with anything outside of a curated Disneyland. And the Universe is not a curated Disneyland.
  - rebuilder 6y ago
    I'm not talking about people being offended. I'm talking about people being murdered for publicity, as a propaganda effort, and YouTube having to deal with the fallout.
    - cbozeman 6y ago
      Right, and I get that. My point is, "Why is that YouTube's problem?" What does it say about our society, where people will commit murder for publicity, thus totally and utterly destroying their lives, almost certainly for life, just for some validation of their existence? I just cannot get shake the feeling its our culture that has a serious problem, not our tech platforms.
      - rat87 6y ago
        Because YouTube shows video to billions of users and it has a responsibility to avoid spreading Hateful propoganda
        cbozeman 6y ago
        > it has a responsibility to avoid spreading Hateful propoganda Maybe people have a responsibility to themselves to ascertain the truth themselves, without Big Brother telling them what to think, when to think it, and how to think about it.
tartoran 6y ago
How we entered this post-enlightment is how we can get past it. I believe some censoring, with specific rules and fair enforcement is a healthy way to go. The disinformation has gone too far. Some of us have relatives who live in a parallel reality. This can’t go on forever.. However, random censoring is bad and if it does not break the rules it should not be censored.
jusssi 6y ago
Put a hundred people in a row. Punch them all in the face. Most of them will be fine, at least eventually. A couple might develop permanent cognitive issues, or even die. But most of them will be fine. Yet it is not a reason for us to give people the permission (let's face it, you can't take away the freedom, they'll do it if they want to) to punch others in the face. Maybe some day people will acknowledge that publishing things has consequences. Just like punching people in the face has consequences.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Maybe some day people will acknowledge that the Universe isn't a pleasant place and that sometimes you're going to be exposed to unpleasant shit, and you need to cultivate some fortitude to deal with it.
  - jusssi 6y ago
    I think there's quite a difference between being exposed to unpleasantness, and someone deliberately taking the unpleasantness, handing it over to a publisher and telling them to rub it into your face. This whole discussion seems to revolve around whether a publishing platform should be forced to tolerate any type of content, or not. I think you'll agree there's a line somewhere there. From seemingly easy, to more tricky, where do you draw the line (or maybe you just cultivate some fortitude)? * Twitter bans Trumpetists * AWS bans Parlor * You have a personal blog where people can comment (without you pre-approving the content). You choose ban someone's comments. * You have a personal blog to which people can post comments but they only show after your preview. You choose to specifically ignore someone's comments. * Mosquito Liberation Front decides to use your yard's lawn for a signpost advertising rights for mosquitoes. You take the sign down. * MLF decides to use your house's white painted walls as a medium for their freedom of speech and spraypaints their logos on it. (bonus: MLF chooses to use the white painted walls of Twitter HQ as a medium for their freedom of speech, next to a screen that shows live tweets, after they've been banned from twitter)

rebuilder 6y ago

Allowing mass murderers to stream their crimes live is not going to fly. I think that's pretty clear. So, Youtube has to do something about it. The way traditional broadcast media handles this is that they know whoever's reporting, and have someone watching who can pull the plug if that reporter goes nuts. This is apparently too expensive for YouTube, so they use blunter tools.

cbozeman 6y ago
Budd Dwyer blew his brains out on live television. Thousands saw the broadcast live. The broadcast was actually shown unedited later that day. This kind of stuff isn't new. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I just do not see any way that you can navigate around this. As for all the Moms (and Dads) who clutch their pearls and scream to YouTube, "HOW COULD YOU LET ME SON/DAUGHTER/CAT SEE THIS KIND OF MATERIAL?!" Well why are we even allowing that question to be asked? The real question is, "Why aren't you monitoring your children's Internet usage? The Internet isn't a babysister. It isn't a parent. People need to start taking responsibility for their own lives. There's entirely too much passing of the buck. It blows my mind that less than 3000 years ago, 7 years old Spartan boys were already training for war with sticks, and I literally have a friend who gets offended when I tell off-color jokes around his son at dinner. Who is 22. And has graduated college. That isn't a "hallmark of civilization", that's crippling our children such that they're unable to cope with anything outside of a curated Disneyland. And the Universe is not a curated Disneyland.
- rebuilder 6y ago
  I'm not talking about people being offended. I'm talking about people being murdered for publicity, as a propaganda effort, and YouTube having to deal with the fallout.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Right, and I get that. My point is, "Why is that YouTube's problem?" What does it say about our society, where people will commit murder for publicity, thus totally and utterly destroying their lives, almost certainly for life, just for some validation of their existence? I just cannot get shake the feeling its our culture that has a serious problem, not our tech platforms.
    - rat87 6y ago
      Because YouTube shows video to billions of users and it has a responsibility to avoid spreading Hateful propoganda
      - cbozeman 6y ago
        > it has a responsibility to avoid spreading Hateful propoganda Maybe people have a responsibility to themselves to ascertain the truth themselves, without Big Brother telling them what to think, when to think it, and how to think about it.

tartoran 6y ago

How we entered this post-enlightment is how we can get past it. I believe some censoring, with specific rules and fair enforcement is a healthy way to go. The disinformation has gone too far. Some of us have relatives who live in a parallel reality. This can’t go on forever.. However, random censoring is bad and if it does not break the rules it should not be censored.

jusssi 6y ago

Put a hundred people in a row. Punch them all in the face. Most of them will be fine, at least eventually. A couple might develop permanent cognitive issues, or even die. But most of them will be fine. Yet it is not a reason for us to give people the permission (let's face it, you can't take away the freedom, they'll do it if they want to) to punch others in the face. Maybe some day people will acknowledge that publishing things has consequences. Just like punching people in the face has consequences.

cbozeman 6y ago
Maybe some day people will acknowledge that the Universe isn't a pleasant place and that sometimes you're going to be exposed to unpleasant shit, and you need to cultivate some fortitude to deal with it.
- jusssi 6y ago
  I think there's quite a difference between being exposed to unpleasantness, and someone deliberately taking the unpleasantness, handing it over to a publisher and telling them to rub it into your face. This whole discussion seems to revolve around whether a publishing platform should be forced to tolerate any type of content, or not. I think you'll agree there's a line somewhere there. From seemingly easy, to more tricky, where do you draw the line (or maybe you just cultivate some fortitude)? * Twitter bans Trumpetists * AWS bans Parlor * You have a personal blog where people can comment (without you pre-approving the content). You choose ban someone's comments. * You have a personal blog to which people can post comments but they only show after your preview. You choose to specifically ignore someone's comments. * Mosquito Liberation Front decides to use your yard's lawn for a signpost advertising rights for mosquitoes. You take the sign down. * MLF decides to use your house's white painted walls as a medium for their freedom of speech and spraypaints their logos on it. (bonus: MLF chooses to use the white painted walls of Twitter HQ as a medium for their freedom of speech, next to a screen that shows live tweets, after they've been banned from twitter)