3 ms·

Sounds like the solution is better education, not censorship.

noahtallen 5y ago
Totally, but only one of those things is within YouTube’s power. There are all kinds of decisions to make where “what do we do to mitigate this now” looks different from “what’s the ideal place we want to be?”
- headsoup 5y ago
  Definitely a good idea to let corporate social media behemoths decide what is acceptable speech. What could possibly go wrong?
- rsanek 5y ago
  Is it not? I'm sure this would be very difficult to get right, but I've often wondered why there isn't more innovation in the direction of not censorship but rather "gating" behind proof of knowledge. What I mean is, what if there were a series of questions presented to the viewer before they could consume this kind of content? This could act as a way to deter folks from mindlessly viewing the video but also as an educational tool. For this kind of political video, you could ask relevant questions from eg the US citizenship test [0]. [0] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions...
  - headsoup 5y ago
    So sneaky censorship instead then? Or you could just present people with the data and let them make up their own minds. We have to stop thinking we're on the 'right' side and it's ok to silence the 'wrong.' Think about this, if the controls or restrictions you discuss were available to the opposition tomorrow, would you still support them?
- abernard1 5y ago
  Why do they need to "mitigate" anything? Politics has been rife with BS and lies forever. This isn't a one-off, they've been doing this for years and only in a certain direction. Not un-coincidentally, it's in the opposite direction of their employees' political views which are 95 D for Microsoft to 99% D at Google. (The whole range of big tech companies' political affiliations is within this range, which is actually more partisan than D voters themselves.) The practical effect of this, and it may be hard to see this coming from an environment where literally 99% of the people who surround you think the same way, is for people to permanently form strong opinions against you. It's already happened in America because of 2020, which is why monopoly break ups are now a highly likely proposition, but coming from a different end of the spectrum. It has always amazed me the vitriol that tech companies have for people they do not understand or care to.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
- throwaway89219 5y ago

Totally, but only one of those things is within YouTube’s power. There are all kinds of decisions to make where “what do we do to mitigate this now” looks different from “what’s the ideal place we want to be?”

headsoup 5y ago
Definitely a good idea to let corporate social media behemoths decide what is acceptable speech. What could possibly go wrong?
rsanek 5y ago
Is it not? I'm sure this would be very difficult to get right, but I've often wondered why there isn't more innovation in the direction of not censorship but rather "gating" behind proof of knowledge. What I mean is, what if there were a series of questions presented to the viewer before they could consume this kind of content? This could act as a way to deter folks from mindlessly viewing the video but also as an educational tool. For this kind of political video, you could ask relevant questions from eg the US citizenship test [0]. [0] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions...
- headsoup 5y ago
  So sneaky censorship instead then? Or you could just present people with the data and let them make up their own minds. We have to stop thinking we're on the 'right' side and it's ok to silence the 'wrong.' Think about this, if the controls or restrictions you discuss were available to the opposition tomorrow, would you still support them?
abernard1 5y ago
Why do they need to "mitigate" anything? Politics has been rife with BS and lies forever. This isn't a one-off, they've been doing this for years and only in a certain direction. Not un-coincidentally, it's in the opposite direction of their employees' political views which are 95 D for Microsoft to 99% D at Google. (The whole range of big tech companies' political affiliations is within this range, which is actually more partisan than D voters themselves.) The practical effect of this, and it may be hard to see this coming from an environment where literally 99% of the people who surround you think the same way, is for people to permanently form strong opinions against you. It's already happened in America because of 2020, which is why monopoly break ups are now a highly likely proposition, but coming from a different end of the spectrum. It has always amazed me the vitriol that tech companies have for people they do not understand or care to.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

throwaway89219 5y ago