3 ms·

> I'm surprised they picked Ron Paul to test this on. It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm

by AnEro 5y ago

> I'm surprised they picked Ron Paul to test this on. It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people why should politicians get treated differently? What other policies should they be exempt from because they are trying to build a brand for politics?

xupybd 5y ago
I'm assuming they have a profit motive not a moral one. I could be wrong but I'm very cynical when it comes to the motives of big companies.
- AnEro 5y ago
  Yea, this one is to make sure that there isn't going to be regulations on youtube or other social media. Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself. I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'
- Zandikar 5y ago
  They most certainly have a profit motive, they're a for profit business. It's not their only motive, but it's their primary one, and all other decisions they make are judged against their impact on the bottom line, this decision included. They may take risks that they know could negatively impact that profit if (keyword, if) it goes south, but there is still a very clear consideration for cost and profit there.
gowld 5y ago
> what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people What was being said that is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people? I don't know, and YouTube won't say. They just say that "something" was wrong, but not what was wrong.
- AnEro 5y ago
  I'd be with you on this one, but his ban is coming off an announcement they are banning vaccine misinformation as well as all the last posts even on Twitter are relating to the vaccine. The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.
gfdgfd432 5y ago
Should videos that advocate for abolishing the police be removed and their creators banned too?
- AnEro 5y ago
  1. Common misconception is only right leaning views are being demonetized, it's all politics so yea they are also being punished by youtube as well. 2. People aren't dieing/being permanently injured at rates that hospitals can't keep up with because of the lack of police because the movement was so effective that it has vast swaths of the population without policing. So much so standard solvable emergencies that you could normally be treated for at the hospital end up killing you due to lack of availability of doctors. 3. Those beliefs are based on studies that have been upheld and are reproducible how ineffective current policing policies are and are underperforming by numerous metrics and especially over all in areas with poverty or mostly minority population. So not paying them more money (defund)or rewarding them for underperforming, like one would a corporation that is under performing was the original goal. It has spun a vocal minority into more extreme views of abolishing the police entirely after having emotional reactions looking deeper at those numbers.

by AnEro 5y ago

xupybd 5y ago

I'm assuming they have a profit motive not a moral one. I could be wrong but I'm very cynical when it comes to the motives of big companies.

AnEro 5y ago
Yea, this one is to make sure that there isn't going to be regulations on youtube or other social media. Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself. I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'
Zandikar 5y ago
They most certainly have a profit motive, they're a for profit business. It's not their only motive, but it's their primary one, and all other decisions they make are judged against their impact on the bottom line, this decision included. They may take risks that they know could negatively impact that profit if (keyword, if) it goes south, but there is still a very clear consideration for cost and profit there.

gowld 5y ago

> what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people What was being said that is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people? I don't know, and YouTube won't say. They just say that "something" was wrong, but not what was wrong.

AnEro 5y ago
I'd be with you on this one, but his ban is coming off an announcement they are banning vaccine misinformation as well as all the last posts even on Twitter are relating to the vaccine. The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.

gfdgfd432 5y ago

Should videos that advocate for abolishing the police be removed and their creators banned too?

AnEro 5y ago
1. Common misconception is only right leaning views are being demonetized, it's all politics so yea they are also being punished by youtube as well. 2. People aren't dieing/being permanently injured at rates that hospitals can't keep up with because of the lack of police because the movement was so effective that it has vast swaths of the population without policing. So much so standard solvable emergencies that you could normally be treated for at the hospital end up killing you due to lack of availability of doctors. 3. Those beliefs are based on studies that have been upheld and are reproducible how ineffective current policing policies are and are underperforming by numerous metrics and especially over all in areas with poverty or mostly minority population. So not paying them more money (defund)or rewarding them for underperforming, like one would a corporation that is under performing was the original goal. It has spun a vocal minority into more extreme views of abolishing the police entirely after having emotional reactions looking deeper at those numbers.