6 ms·

Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. No way

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
    - Applejinx 5y ago
      On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics. I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so. It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
- hytdstd 5y ago
  Who is the central arbiter of truth here? Twitter and facebook have made similar policies.
  - concordDance 5y ago
    Eventually the government. So many people (including in this thread) keep advocating that the decider on what to censor should be the government. I'll also point out that the deciders in Twitter, Facebook, etc are not the most ideologically diverse bunch, so one could argue that the so-called blue tribe is being the central arbiter.
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]

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
  - Applejinx 5y ago
    On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics. I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so. It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
hytdstd 5y ago
Who is the central arbiter of truth here? Twitter and facebook have made similar policies.
- concordDance 5y ago
  Eventually the government. So many people (including in this thread) keep advocating that the decider on what to censor should be the government. I'll also point out that the deciders in Twitter, Facebook, etc are not the most ideologically diverse bunch, so one could argue that the so-called blue tribe is being the central arbiter.

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]