5 ms·

And it isn't even mildly disconcerting that your only option is to guess at their rationale because the video was memoryholed?

ineptech 5y ago
It wasn't "memoryholed". Youtube is an entertainment site, not a repository of legal filings. And it's not the only option, just the one most likely to be correct.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > It wasn't "memoryholed". It wasn't? Where can I watch a copy of it then?
  - ineptech 5y ago
    I believe lawsuits are public info; try the NY county clerk's office.
- axutio 5y ago
  > Youtube is an entertainment site, not a repository of legal filings It might not be a repository of legal filings, but it's certainly not just an entertainment site. Opinion-oriented media, news programs, court footage, press releases, and educational videos have all been intentionally promoted in the past by Youtube. The issue at hand is that some press releases are being permitted (and even promoted by YT) whereas others are not, despite the fact that there's no particularly notable difference in the authority of those speaking. (Obviously I recognize that this press release in particular more likely than not contains dangerous misinformation, but I still object to the idea that Youtube can unilaterally decide what is and is not dangerous misinformation).
  - ineptech 5y ago
    You can upload press releases to pornhub, that doesn't make it a news site. Stop getting your news from youtube; problem solved.
    - axutio 5y ago
      The question isn't whether I choose to get my news from YouTube or not, it's whether YouTube presents itself as a legitimate source for news consumption or not - and it certainly does. The idea is that some large subset of YouTube viewers will, as a result, assume that they're being exposed to a basket of news representative of the breadth of opinion present among media outlets, when they're actually not.
      - Nexxius 5y ago
        YT as opposed to what, Comedy Central Daily Show that a generation seems to have gotten their news from? At least on YT you can (currently) pick & choose from politically varied points of view though many creators do seem to be jumping ship because of YTs draconian content policies.
    - throwaway829 5y ago
      Perhaps you're just trolling but this is an obvious false equivalency. YouTube prominently displays news from MSM without you asking to see it. Certain controversially search terms can be flagged and then only show MSM videos. Neither of these things are true of pornhub.
  - TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
    You would have a point if you were paying YouTube to store the videos and had a legally binding contract stating that YouTube could not delete any data as long as you were paying.
- sennight 5y ago
  > Youtube is an entertainment site... That is a self-refuting statement. If Youtube was just an entertainment site: then they wouldn't be deleting legal content, with apparent public interest, provided to them for free.
  - snet0 5y ago
    I have no idea what this argument is. If BikeVideos4U.com deletes a video of someone crashing into a moving train and dying, does that imply their site is no longer about bikes? You can be an entertainment service and still regulate the content you host. Would you expect Netflix to host this content?
    - sennight 5y ago
      You might want to reflect on the way you just compared a legal press conference to gore porn, it makes me think that you're either so strongly gripped by pandemic mania that you honestly think that is a reasonable comparison to draw - or you just can't think of a sensible counterpoint. In any case, I really don't think you want to pursue the whole editorial discretion defense...
      - snet0 5y ago
        I didn't compare them. I took the argument I understood was being made, pulled it out of the specific context, and put it in an imagined context that I thought pointed to a flaw in the argument.
        sennight 5y ago
        That would be believable if I'd argued that platforms should never delete any video under any circumstance, but I didn't, so it isn't. You did make an interesting accidental admission though: you either somehow believe that context doesn't matter, or you know that it does but decided to make an out of context bad faith argument anyway.
  - TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Pretending, even for an instant, that this wasn't political censorship is foolish. They know exactly what they're doing.
TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
YouTube has every right to delete data stored on its systems that it is storing for FREE.

ineptech 5y ago

It wasn't "memoryholed". Youtube is an entertainment site, not a repository of legal filings. And it's not the only option, just the one most likely to be correct.

josephcsible 5y ago
> It wasn't "memoryholed". It wasn't? Where can I watch a copy of it then?
- ineptech 5y ago
  I believe lawsuits are public info; try the NY county clerk's office.
axutio 5y ago
> Youtube is an entertainment site, not a repository of legal filings It might not be a repository of legal filings, but it's certainly not just an entertainment site. Opinion-oriented media, news programs, court footage, press releases, and educational videos have all been intentionally promoted in the past by Youtube. The issue at hand is that some press releases are being permitted (and even promoted by YT) whereas others are not, despite the fact that there's no particularly notable difference in the authority of those speaking. (Obviously I recognize that this press release in particular more likely than not contains dangerous misinformation, but I still object to the idea that Youtube can unilaterally decide what is and is not dangerous misinformation).
- ineptech 5y ago
  You can upload press releases to pornhub, that doesn't make it a news site. Stop getting your news from youtube; problem solved.
  - axutio 5y ago
    The question isn't whether I choose to get my news from YouTube or not, it's whether YouTube presents itself as a legitimate source for news consumption or not - and it certainly does. The idea is that some large subset of YouTube viewers will, as a result, assume that they're being exposed to a basket of news representative of the breadth of opinion present among media outlets, when they're actually not.
    - Nexxius 5y ago
      YT as opposed to what, Comedy Central Daily Show that a generation seems to have gotten their news from? At least on YT you can (currently) pick & choose from politically varied points of view though many creators do seem to be jumping ship because of YTs draconian content policies.
  - throwaway829 5y ago
    Perhaps you're just trolling but this is an obvious false equivalency. YouTube prominently displays news from MSM without you asking to see it. Certain controversially search terms can be flagged and then only show MSM videos. Neither of these things are true of pornhub.
- TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
  You would have a point if you were paying YouTube to store the videos and had a legally binding contract stating that YouTube could not delete any data as long as you were paying.
sennight 5y ago
> Youtube is an entertainment site... That is a self-refuting statement. If Youtube was just an entertainment site: then they wouldn't be deleting legal content, with apparent public interest, provided to them for free.
- snet0 5y ago
  I have no idea what this argument is. If BikeVideos4U.com deletes a video of someone crashing into a moving train and dying, does that imply their site is no longer about bikes? You can be an entertainment service and still regulate the content you host. Would you expect Netflix to host this content?
  - sennight 5y ago
    You might want to reflect on the way you just compared a legal press conference to gore porn, it makes me think that you're either so strongly gripped by pandemic mania that you honestly think that is a reasonable comparison to draw - or you just can't think of a sensible counterpoint. In any case, I really don't think you want to pursue the whole editorial discretion defense...
    - snet0 5y ago
      I didn't compare them. I took the argument I understood was being made, pulled it out of the specific context, and put it in an imagined context that I thought pointed to a flaw in the argument.
      - sennight 5y ago
        That would be believable if I'd argued that platforms should never delete any video under any circumstance, but I didn't, so it isn't. You did make an interesting accidental admission though: you either somehow believe that context doesn't matter, or you know that it does but decided to make an out of context bad faith argument anyway.
- TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
ergot_vacation 5y ago
Pretending, even for an instant, that this wasn't political censorship is foolish. They know exactly what they're doing.

TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago

YouTube has every right to delete data stored on its systems that it is storing for FREE.