6 ms·

They need to become a dumb pipe...

by Black101 5y ago

netr0ute 5y ago
This is what YT used to be, some place to host video files and where people could just add comments.
- Covzire 5y ago
  Yes it's essentially CorpTube now for any kind of news topics, they promote all the content providers who already have tremendous societal reach over everyone else by default.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  But then, they weren’t making money, and now, they are. Google is an advertising company, and YouTube will be moderated in whatever way they think is going to sell the most advertising.
Tehchops 5y ago
Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. No way around it, they have a responsibility to moderate and monitor.
- Black101 5y ago
  > I am not that familiar with embedded software, but does that value really difficult to achieve? What is the percentage?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Um, did you post this in the right place? It doesn't seem related to the discussion here...
- concordDance 5y ago
  > Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. Two things: A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. B. Lack of access to good counterarguments/innoculation to the radical ideas is a consequence of those ideas being supressed. If people don't even know what a radicalized person believes how can they help dig them out of the hole they are in? It's one of the reasons why "scientific racism" continues to grow.
  - gfe8ygighjb7 5y ago
    The solution is simple either remove all moderation including AI/ML based from YouTube. And let people deal with it. Or if you will moderate content, then be held liable for your mistakes. Both censorship or recommending false information should make YouTube liable for damages.
  - danaris 5y ago
    > A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. "The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."
    - Shosty123 5y ago
      I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these: "And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.”—That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard any thing else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely, moral majority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
- serf 5y ago
  >No way around it, they have a responsibility to moderate and monitor. i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator. these guidelines are what dictate the citizens perceived reality in many cases; is it sane&safe to compel corporations with biased motivations to be the ones who decide on that perceived reality? Personally I disagree with corporations controlling thought and dissent; I believe it to be outside of their scope, and I think that their acting as moral judge is both biased and dangerous to society-at-large -- this isn't to say I disagree with the control, I disagree with who is at the reins and what their (probably temporary) priorities may be at the time of control.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator. I share your discomfort, but I'm even more uncomfortable with government doing it. At least Youtube has a few alternatives. My national government? Not so much. (I mean, yeah, but I have to leave the country to get them...)
  - notriddle 5y ago
    If youtube was "just a dumb pipe," it would make sense for them to not be responsible for the content. But they don't just host videos; they also recommend them.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Isn't the opposite true? We see this in cults. One person or group of people only allow the approved of message. In time sexual and other radicalized ideas get introduced and because you must trust the leader... Free thought is the gateway to a healthy educated population.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
0-_-0 5y ago
Should they allow porn? What kinds?
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  I'm okay with YouTube allowing porn, so long as it's legal. Why not? I mean, I understand why they don't want that as a business, but I feel it would benefit most consumers. You could just choose not to use it. I think there are far worse things (from an outrage perspective, obviously subjective) than porn on YouTube already.
  - Andrex 5y ago
    The domestic porn industry on the web is facing a lot growing pains right now. PornHub, arguably the poster child for "doing it right," was forced to remove all unverified user-uploaded videos last year[0]. Porn on YouTube cannot exist, legally, in the same way your ideal scenario implies. 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115
    - fridif 5y ago
      Shall we also start devoting resources towards investigating all of the sneakernet crimes that are occurring?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Pornhub didn't do it right. They choose being able to process Mastercards over any other consideration. A ban on underage rape videos followed by hiring mods to enforce this would have been doing it right. I'm surprised they made that choice it must have been the most profitable path. I guess the producers left are the big businesses who create premium streams who pornhub can upsell to. Did they kill their brand?
      - 5y ago
smt88 5y ago
There are already plenty of dumb pipes if you don't like YouTube. Torrent sites are actually exactly what you're looking for in that case.

They need to become a dumb pipe...

netr0ute 5y ago

This is what YT used to be, some place to host video files and where people could just add comments.

Covzire 5y ago
Yes it's essentially CorpTube now for any kind of news topics, they promote all the content providers who already have tremendous societal reach over everyone else by default.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
But then, they weren’t making money, and now, they are. Google is an advertising company, and YouTube will be moderated in whatever way they think is going to sell the most advertising.

Tehchops 5y ago

Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. No way around it, they have a responsibility to moderate and monitor.

Black101 5y ago
> I am not that familiar with embedded software, but does that value really difficult to achieve? What is the percentage?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Um, did you post this in the right place? It doesn't seem related to the discussion here...
concordDance 5y ago
> Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. Two things: A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. B. Lack of access to good counterarguments/innoculation to the radical ideas is a consequence of those ideas being supressed. If people don't even know what a radicalized person believes how can they help dig them out of the hole they are in? It's one of the reasons why "scientific racism" continues to grow.
- gfe8ygighjb7 5y ago
  The solution is simple either remove all moderation including AI/ML based from YouTube. And let people deal with it. Or if you will moderate content, then be held liable for your mistakes. Both censorship or recommending false information should make YouTube liable for damages.
- danaris 5y ago
  > A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. "The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."
  - Shosty123 5y ago
    I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these: "And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.”—That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard any thing else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely, moral majority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
serf 5y ago
>No way around it, they have a responsibility to moderate and monitor. i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator. these guidelines are what dictate the citizens perceived reality in many cases; is it sane&safe to compel corporations with biased motivations to be the ones who decide on that perceived reality? Personally I disagree with corporations controlling thought and dissent; I believe it to be outside of their scope, and I think that their acting as moral judge is both biased and dangerous to society-at-large -- this isn't to say I disagree with the control, I disagree with who is at the reins and what their (probably temporary) priorities may be at the time of control.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > i'm uncomfortable with the guidelines for that responsibility being decided upon by a third party corporation rather than a state/country level government regulator. I share your discomfort, but I'm even more uncomfortable with government doing it. At least Youtube has a few alternatives. My national government? Not so much. (I mean, yeah, but I have to leave the country to get them...)
- notriddle 5y ago
  If youtube was "just a dumb pipe," it would make sense for them to not be responsible for the content. But they don't just host videos; they also recommend them.
ipaddr 5y ago
Isn't the opposite true? We see this in cults. One person or group of people only allow the approved of message. In time sexual and other radicalized ideas get introduced and because you must trust the leader... Free thought is the gateway to a healthy educated population.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

0-_-0 5y ago

Should they allow porn? What kinds?

Judgmentality 5y ago
I'm okay with YouTube allowing porn, so long as it's legal. Why not? I mean, I understand why they don't want that as a business, but I feel it would benefit most consumers. You could just choose not to use it. I think there are far worse things (from an outrage perspective, obviously subjective) than porn on YouTube already.
- Andrex 5y ago
  The domestic porn industry on the web is facing a lot growing pains right now. PornHub, arguably the poster child for "doing it right," was forced to remove all unverified user-uploaded videos last year[0]. Porn on YouTube cannot exist, legally, in the same way your ideal scenario implies. 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115
  - fridif 5y ago
    Shall we also start devoting resources towards investigating all of the sneakernet crimes that are occurring?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Pornhub didn't do it right. They choose being able to process Mastercards over any other consideration. A ban on underage rape videos followed by hiring mods to enforce this would have been doing it right. I'm surprised they made that choice it must have been the most profitable path. I guess the producers left are the big businesses who create premium streams who pornhub can upsell to. Did they kill their brand?
    - 5y ago

smt88 5y ago

There are already plenty of dumb pipes if you don't like YouTube. Torrent sites are actually exactly what you're looking for in that case.