3 ms·

Of course they are! That's how this goes. Once the door is open for censorship, it all works just like lies do, and it's often associated with lies and or hur

Of course they are! That's how this goes. Once the door is open for censorship, it all works just like lies do, and it's often associated with lies and or hurt egos, say lack of acceptance and respect, and it tends to spread, until it's ridiculous. And let's get real here: This whole mess is because the government and big media don't like being near constantly ratioed. They do have the option of improving how they work and what they say, but maybe they feel it is easier to just try and hide the problems. People went away from broadcast because of this crap, and reproducing it online means people will go somewhere else again. What it won't do is transform things into being reputable.

laurent92 5y ago
If Youtube views were really upvote/downvote driven, and if democracies were really vote-driven, if we actually listened to people’s vote instead of telling them what they should think… the world would be much, much different. We would actually listen to the People. No, that’s clearly not the world we want. Bring on those “crowd shaping tools. (Edit: Removed the middle paragraph).
- ddingus 5y ago
  Indeed, but adding to the problem in this egregious way should be called out and the reputability of those involved questioned. Might not do a lick of good. That's OK. I can, at a minimum, gauge who to trust, who I am working with. A short conversation says a lot. And that's enough to manage what I do, say, risk, reward. Maybe that is as good as it all can get right now. Maybe not. Real people having real conversations is a path forward though. More people than ever are seeking that having seen the mess you describe unavoidably. The illusion was better before. Now it's all sort of overt, in our face.
- Ambolia 5y ago
  >"No, that’s clearly not the world we want." Who is "we"? Obviously not the people from the rest of your message.
- thedrbrian 5y ago
  > if democracies were really vote-driven, It’s interesting that let’s go Brandon has become a thing for the most popular president. Why didn’t it happen before?
rvz 5y ago
YouTube is on the side of profit, so is now moderating its platform like the large media companies who have moved in from TV/Cable to also using YouTube. The creators and users are always last place. As I said days before, [0] it will only get worse and YouTube will not change. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29407822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29407822
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Ironic, because what made them popular was community content. Now that media producers use their platform, it has to cleaned up in the interest of advertisers. Youtube kids (what a horrible idea) for everyone. I really hope for a new alternatives taking root. I don't want TV 2.0 and the content of established media on Youtube is lacking to say the least.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Not reputable.[1] And that's OK, expected. [not OK as in, I approve, because I just don't. OK in being aware and acting reasonably and prudently] Best move is to use it with eyes wide open and continue to seek options for news, commentary, matters of importance. At some point, "profit", being a higher priority than people, and their needs / interests, isn't going to end well. Never does. To me, the question is all about the timeline and where I'm at personally when it does seriously shift. [1] And I do not mean to denigrate anyone or YT frankly. See my other comments. It's a rough world. Seriously,
- ddingus 5y ago
  One nit to pick on your otherwise fine point: Profit means playing ball with entities that can very seriously impact the enterprise. The money is great, but the cost to everyone is YT and friends doing some bidding they would otherwise want to avoid. Essentially, it's similar to the military industrial complex. Private extension of government, and big business always does this. Has to, or the real threat might be accumulating soft power, the hearts and minds of the people, Just saying it's not all money here. Power, and I mean established power, is a factor here as well. Corruption is legal here, and in many parts of the world. What we are seeing now is a part of that playing out. If we were to have some real conversations, perhaps over beers, in a trust type scenario, I'll bet a whole lot of people in tech get this, have no answers, and would prefer it go much differently. We all know how this stuff can empower people, really improve the world. That's not changed. But there are things in the way.
root_axis 5y ago
The evidence presented in this video isn't anywhere near enough to confirm that this is actually true, yet you're already offering up speculative explanations about google's intentions as if it's all a foregone conclusion and you know exactly why. I think that's a little weird.
- beerandt 5y ago
  When it comes to censorship, I think at best it doesn't really matter why, and at worst it's fair to assume mal intent, even if it's not obvious or provable. Otherwise (and without an affirmative reason), why hide it? That's the nature of censorship. But especially so when the "alpha testing" is specifically done on videos of the new White House administration. Unless you're questioning whether removing the downvotes qualifies as censorship at all. Which I would find a little weird. What hypothetical "pure" intentions would you suggest are possibilities?
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > When it comes to censorship, I think at best it doesn't really matter why Your "censorship" framing is just a speculative assumption. There is no proof that censorship is going on here. > What hypothetical "pure" intentions would you suggest are possibilities? There are billions of comments on YouTube and anyone who actually works in software understands that software very often does things that the programmers didn't intend, and I'm not even talking about ML which is literally statistically applied logic, i.e. the wrong thing happening is inevitably assured and assumed from the start. This whole argument is moot anyway, there's no commercial incentive to hire a legion of moderators because for all that extra money spent they'd simply be accused of bias even if the moderation was actually fair, a statistic of which there is literally no trusted party to arbiter.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      I'm taking about hiding downvotes and selectively disabling comments. (Ignoring for now the selective hiding of particular comments or blacklisted words) That's hiding information that's normally available due to the nature of the content. That's censorship.
colordrops 5y ago
I hope that the slippery slope is not real, and it doesn't get to the point where comments such as yours get deleted across all platforms, but I fear I'm wrong.

laurent92 5y ago

If Youtube views were really upvote/downvote driven, and if democracies were really vote-driven, if we actually listened to people’s vote instead of telling them what they should think… the world would be much, much different. We would actually listen to the People. No, that’s clearly not the world we want. Bring on those “crowd shaping tools. (Edit: Removed the middle paragraph).

ddingus 5y ago
Indeed, but adding to the problem in this egregious way should be called out and the reputability of those involved questioned. Might not do a lick of good. That's OK. I can, at a minimum, gauge who to trust, who I am working with. A short conversation says a lot. And that's enough to manage what I do, say, risk, reward. Maybe that is as good as it all can get right now. Maybe not. Real people having real conversations is a path forward though. More people than ever are seeking that having seen the mess you describe unavoidably. The illusion was better before. Now it's all sort of overt, in our face.
Ambolia 5y ago
>"No, that’s clearly not the world we want." Who is "we"? Obviously not the people from the rest of your message.
thedrbrian 5y ago
> if democracies were really vote-driven, It’s interesting that let’s go Brandon has become a thing for the most popular president. Why didn’t it happen before?

rvz 5y ago

YouTube is on the side of profit, so is now moderating its platform like the large media companies who have moved in from TV/Cable to also using YouTube. The creators and users are always last place. As I said days before, [0] it will only get worse and YouTube will not change. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29407822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29407822

raxxorrax 5y ago
Ironic, because what made them popular was community content. Now that media producers use their platform, it has to cleaned up in the interest of advertisers. Youtube kids (what a horrible idea) for everyone. I really hope for a new alternatives taking root. I don't want TV 2.0 and the content of established media on Youtube is lacking to say the least.
ddingus 5y ago
Not reputable.[1] And that's OK, expected. [not OK as in, I approve, because I just don't. OK in being aware and acting reasonably and prudently] Best move is to use it with eyes wide open and continue to seek options for news, commentary, matters of importance. At some point, "profit", being a higher priority than people, and their needs / interests, isn't going to end well. Never does. To me, the question is all about the timeline and where I'm at personally when it does seriously shift. [1] And I do not mean to denigrate anyone or YT frankly. See my other comments. It's a rough world. Seriously,
ddingus 5y ago
One nit to pick on your otherwise fine point: Profit means playing ball with entities that can very seriously impact the enterprise. The money is great, but the cost to everyone is YT and friends doing some bidding they would otherwise want to avoid. Essentially, it's similar to the military industrial complex. Private extension of government, and big business always does this. Has to, or the real threat might be accumulating soft power, the hearts and minds of the people, Just saying it's not all money here. Power, and I mean established power, is a factor here as well. Corruption is legal here, and in many parts of the world. What we are seeing now is a part of that playing out. If we were to have some real conversations, perhaps over beers, in a trust type scenario, I'll bet a whole lot of people in tech get this, have no answers, and would prefer it go much differently. We all know how this stuff can empower people, really improve the world. That's not changed. But there are things in the way.

root_axis 5y ago

The evidence presented in this video isn't anywhere near enough to confirm that this is actually true, yet you're already offering up speculative explanations about google's intentions as if it's all a foregone conclusion and you know exactly why. I think that's a little weird.

beerandt 5y ago
When it comes to censorship, I think at best it doesn't really matter why, and at worst it's fair to assume mal intent, even if it's not obvious or provable. Otherwise (and without an affirmative reason), why hide it? That's the nature of censorship. But especially so when the "alpha testing" is specifically done on videos of the new White House administration. Unless you're questioning whether removing the downvotes qualifies as censorship at all. Which I would find a little weird. What hypothetical "pure" intentions would you suggest are possibilities?
- root_axis 5y ago
  > When it comes to censorship, I think at best it doesn't really matter why Your "censorship" framing is just a speculative assumption. There is no proof that censorship is going on here. > What hypothetical "pure" intentions would you suggest are possibilities? There are billions of comments on YouTube and anyone who actually works in software understands that software very often does things that the programmers didn't intend, and I'm not even talking about ML which is literally statistically applied logic, i.e. the wrong thing happening is inevitably assured and assumed from the start. This whole argument is moot anyway, there's no commercial incentive to hire a legion of moderators because for all that extra money spent they'd simply be accused of bias even if the moderation was actually fair, a statistic of which there is literally no trusted party to arbiter.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    I'm taking about hiding downvotes and selectively disabling comments. (Ignoring for now the selective hiding of particular comments or blacklisted words) That's hiding information that's normally available due to the nature of the content. That's censorship.

colordrops 5y ago

I hope that the slippery slope is not real, and it doesn't get to the point where comments such as yours get deleted across all platforms, but I fear I'm wrong.