3 ms·

> but even then I think the reddit admins were hell-bent on shutting down any subs they didn't personally like. Or shutting down subs that might make the site

• chefandy 5y ago
  I really think for something like a violent video archive to do as much good as possible, it needs to be entirely grant funded. Aside from the obviously problematic approach of monetizing violence, I don't think you can be too heavy-handed in protecting privacy with this sort of thing. Though I wonder how this might change with deepfake videos gaining momentum. I think the entire venture would be really expensive to do well.
  • freshair 5y ago
    Grant funded? So you'd have people paying taxes to their government so their government could publish graphic videos of their loved ones dying in awful ways? That's beyond adding insult to injury. If such videos must be published, I'd rather not be made to pay for it. Monetizing violence isn't great either, but at least I'm not forced by law to be involved in it myself.
    • junon 5y ago
      Uh... not sure where you live, but not all grants come from taxpayer dollars. Grants can come from companies or academic institutions, etc.
    • chefandy 5y ago
      Your response comes across as needlessly antagonistic. My work is entirely grant funded and to my knowledge, none of it comes from the government— at least not directly. I'm positive that some of those private non-profits receive government assistance to some extent for operating expenses and whatnot, but the funds themselves are not tax-sourced. Beyond that, governments fund libraries and archives at every level and they deliberately have all sorts of collections, from completely benign to completely odious. Funding a deliberately sensationalist aggregator and monger of violence would be plainly obnoxious, but appropriately managed archives are in the public's best interest. Probably even more so for controversial content. I'm not sure how this would be any different.