6 ms·
No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would ot
by Kranar 5y ago
No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would otherwise be. Criticizing a video game, or a movie, or a restaurant or a streaming service does not imply the use of force to do anything nor does it imply having to get the government involved. It just means we think a product could be improved upon.
I think Youtube would be a better product and better serve their viewers and content creators if they didn't suspend The Hill for playing a clip of Donald Trump. My belief in this does not imply any use of force whatsoever.
- bduerst 5y agoOkay, but the problem here is you're making a moral statement based on what YouTube is, making it an is-ought problem. Youtube ought to share the message of a president who incited a riot and tried to overthrow a democratic election, because it is blocking it. You're not addressing why YouTube is blocking it or the state of it's own rights as a private platform, just making blanket moral statements about opinion.
- clord 5y agoNo the point is whether YouTube is better if it allows us to evaluate. I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. I don’t want to be treated like the child here though. If I click on a Ukraine war video or I want to find a quote from trump to pick apart there should not be filters preventing it. The product is better if I am in control. YouTube ought to stay out of it. It does not know my intent. If it guesses wrong it should be criticized, just like a restaurant guessing at my food preferences and allergies.
- bduerst 5y ago> I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. This is a different argument. You already have the agency of being in control, you can pick any platform to watch from. Youtube is exercising it's own right to censor, similar to how you want to censor for your kid, based on what you think is harmful.
- yibg 5y agoReality is any platform without moderation turns into a cesspool. Individually you want to be in control, but in aggregate the product rots. I can’t really think of any user generated content product without some form of control that hasn’t turned into complete shit. If you know of any please enlighten me.
- yibg 5y agoBut you are saying in this analogy that the restaurant should post negative reviews from its customers, say on its website. Why should they? It’s not like they’re taking down negative reviews (videos) from things they don’t own.
- xigoi 5y agoI don't think you understand the analogy…
- yibg 5y agoI don't think you read my original reply?
- xigoi 5y agoI have. Nobody is saying that YouTube should post negative reviews of itself. We're saying that a website which pretty much has a monopoly on hosting videos shouldn't abuse its position by trying to be the “ministry of truth”, and it's fair to criticize it even though it's legally allowed to do that.
- yibg 5y agoIsn't the basic question, should youtube be forced to do something it doesn't want to? In this case, host videos it finds objectionable for whatever reason. Same way they don't allow porn for example. From the way I see it there are only a few options: 1) Youtube hosts everything that's legal, no filters at all 2) Youtube decides what it does and doesn't host 3) Somethings are ok (e.g. news / fake news), others are not (porn). Who decides what's ok and not ok if it's not the legal system or youtube itself?
- xigoi 5y agoHow about this: YouTube can host whatever it wants, but it will federate with PeerTube or something so that people can discover other content too.