7 ms·

This isn't about you, it's about the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts

by px43 5y ago

This isn't about you, it's about the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction. YouTube isn't a news network. It's a video platform catering to a global audience, many of whom are really really bad critical thinking. Same with Facebook. We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad. I'm glad that you're an adult and can make your own grown up decisions, and actually get news from a wide range of sources, and curate it yourself. I obviously wish everyone had that skill, but they don't, and it's actually really really dangerous to take that privilege you've earned for granted.

mohanmcgeek 5y ago
> the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, Who are you or YouTube to make this judgement? More often than not, the "I'm smarter than the average person" types are the ones making the worst decisions.
- brnt 5y ago
  There is plenty of research supporting this thesis.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    And you don't need to do any research harder than reading history to see this in LBJ's prosecution of the Vietnam war with the "best and brightest" he inherited from JFK.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    When will the egotistical narcissism stop? This type of “I’m better than you” talk is not acceptable when it comes to race, how come it’s acceptable when the subject is intelligence?
    - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
      If we extrapolate this, these narcissists would be asking for an end to the Universal adult franchise and say that only the "properly informed" people should be allowed to vote. I've heard this argument in my country already from certain circles
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  That’s also what YouTube viewers think. Not making a decision, is also making a decision. Develop your own news curation source and stop relying on a corporation to do it. If that is too difficult, perhaps consider the challenge the news org faces. Everyone makes bad decisions. While you are angry at YT for what they have removed, are you also praising them for each thing they did not action? If not, you are getting upset about a very small percentage. That may be valid for your own issues, but it does not make it representative If you ever wonder why other humans don’t support your issue, and your issue is not representative, perhaps that is your answer to make more sense of things.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    I see you countering a bunch of right wing talking points which I have not even made. I was referring to GP's overt arrogance in justifying YouTube's intervention here. People can generally duduce for themselves what the truth is.
- greyhair 5y ago
  Always keep in mind that 50% of all people are dumber than average.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    The smarter-than-the-average people aren't the problem The people who are very sure that they're way smarter than the average are often not very smart.
- Siira 5y ago
  The problem is not that these people aren’t smart. It’s a good bet that they are. The problem is that they aren’t sufficiently benevolent. Their narratives are fundamentally optimized to benefit themselves first, and then others. Free speech limits power and increases competition, which is the most effective way to decrease rent seekers.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
What about all the times that YouTube banned videos that turned out to be correct?
- px43 5y ago
  Why would you assume that some machines at Google would always be better at weeding out misinformation than actual humans? There are obviously going to be a lot of false positives, but there are systems to compensate for that, and they seem to work well enough.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    Everything that you, or the YouTube moderators at California, disagree with is not misinformation. And the COVID situation showed how bad it was. I can't imagine why someone would think it works "well enough"
archerx 5y ago
Could this have been more arrogant or condescending?
- px43 5y ago
  How about you type up a response to them, and if you phrase it better than I did, and get the message across more clearly that I did, then I'll delete my post and you can get all the attention? I did my darnedest when writing that post, and I don't really think your meta-commentary is adding to the discussion.
  - archerx 5y ago
    People should be able to watch what they want without a midwit nanny policing their thoughts. Have you submitted your application to run the ministry of truth yet? If you don’t understand how this kind of thinking is bad for the people and good for those in power I suggest you go and do some reading.
    - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
      The current "moderation" is in line with their opinion and they don't want to imagine what will happen when that changes. And YouTube gets no love because they also removed the dislike button (which is a much more robust way of moderation) because they didn't like the outcome
  - anon2020dot00 5y ago
    It's not about the phrasing but about the message. How can it not be condescending to say "30% to 40% of people don't have enough intelligence to filter propaganda". Whether that's true or not is debatable but there's no phrasing it better.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    Perhaps if you dropped your arrogance you would realise that other people in the thread don't share your opinion and don't want to get the same message across more clearly? You and YouTube seem to share the same sentiment that you somehow are smarter in every way than the said 30-40% of the population.
cf141q5325 5y ago
Have you thought about the implications of your opinion for democracy? Is it only acceptable as long as people are properly brainwashed?
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  As is being more and more noted, this "democracy" thing only seems to function "properly" when a great deal of censorship is used. A lot of people should be outright admitting democracy only "works" when their side wins.
lenkite 5y ago
Basically the only news that should be allowed is news that satisfies the mainstream political narrative so that folks are kept fully sanitized. This is far more important than silly things like freedom of speech. Any critical questioning of the "facts" is "misinformation". Who cares later if the "misinformation" later is found to be true ? The most important thing is to obey and follow the will of the collective - set by the whatever the media overlords and political masters judge as "correct thinking". Any attempt to deviate from the same is "radicalization" and must be suppressed by any and all means.
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  We’re talking about Trump denying the election results, which ended with a lot of violence in the Capitol. This is absolutely misinformation that did lead to radicalization.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    So did Clinton about the 2016 election and she still claims the same. Along with her consistent hardline that Trump is a Putin Puppet - which is misinformation that has been proved false again & again at great expense to the taxpayer - but still gets published. Zero bans for her - since she is a cherished member of the political mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-labels-trump-illegitimate-170547434.html https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-labels-trump-illegiti... https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-electi...
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      We have proof that Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky into framing his political opponents by witholding aid they needed to defend themselves from Russia. When Putin started his invasion, Trump praised him for being smart, then praised him again, suggesting he'd captured a whole country for a small cost in sanctions. What do you think you're expressing when you say that Trump isn't a Putin puppet? That he's not made of wood?
momenti 5y ago
> We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad. Not true because law enforcement is still in place to take care of crime. Some amount of crime and confusion are also the price you pay to get the benefits of freedom.
exodust 5y ago
> "We all know what happens when content isn't curated" Curation is about selection, not exclusion. As in selecting art for an exhibition on the basis of its value or quality. Curating is not about excluding or banning content via clumsy and vague censorship. > "and it's really, really bad." When trigger-happy censorship is the norm, really really really really bad things can happen. > "become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction". Bullshit like what? They (The Hill) were discussing and analyzing news, not propagandizing vulnerable youtube viewers. It's disappointing you imply we need mandatory shielding from information, including analysis of news and events, with penalties for those not falling in line. Putin would agree with you. He threatens and shuts down media outlets for mentioning the word "war". Mindless youtube viewers are not the tipping point to society meltdown. I've watched a few 'The Hill' clips on youtube before, and I noticed they disagree with each other and provide alternate views. It's not a propaganda machine, so shouldn't be treated like one. You may want your news and analysis to be grounded in loyalty to a monolith narrative and distributed via sanctioned memes. Others want more than that, such as counter-points, alternate views, robust debate, transparency and discussion. We learn more that way. In my country Australia, we have a national "Q&A" TV panel show on the public broadcaster, covering news and politics. The idea is discussion, yet on the recent episode a young Russian Australian man was booted out of the studio audience because he mentioned he supported Putin's action in Ukraine. Instead of challenging the man's views, he was booted out live on air.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPIxtJd2uU&t=304s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPIxtJd2uU&t=304s This isn't how civil discourse should operate.
onetokeoverthe 5y ago
xigoi 5y ago
Then why do they censor stupid bullshit only when it's right-wing?
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  > Hate speech, predatory behavior, graphic violence, malicious attacks, and content that promotes harmful or dangerous behavior isn't allowed on YouTube. Is Pro-suicide or self-harm content right-wing? Because it's not allowed on YouTube.
  - xigoi 5y ago
    That's not what we're talking about here.
cudgy 5y ago
> 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction. Taking away their ability to hear different viewpoints especially those they believe to be true just drives these people to radicalize even further. I’m not even touching the matter of dismissing almost half of a country. Very shortsighted perspective.
- hhjinks 5y ago
  I don't think that's true. They're probably referring to the people who fall down into alt-right/whatever radical group "rabbit holes." These people aren't radical from the outset. I'd say the real issue is the youtube algorithm, which causes the radicalization "highway" in the first place, but apparently youtube can't be bothered to fix their harmful algorithm, and would rather delete the content that is being promoted by it.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    I guess you are not a humanist. Your perspective is that people are easily manipulated and need to be told by other people whom are easily manipulated how they should think.
- frabbit 5y ago
  It strikes me that the effort that goes into trying to outright suppress disinformation is also a waste of time. It leaks through anyway and the consequences of being seen to suppress it leads to distrust. All that you can hope is that the person reading it is open to information and changing their mind. If they are not then there is nothing that can be done anyway. I have been drawn into trying to evaluate this claim that the Czech Republic / Czechia has had a statement issued by its "Supreme Prosecutor" that anyone supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine will face criminal penalties. I would love to be able to go to a reputable media source to evaluate it. It is inordinately difficult to judge. I would prefer that the BBC/CNN/LA Times spent time debunking this sort of thing or confirming it. As it is I am on my own with nothing but a wall of flag-waving and emotional condemnation instead of investigative journalism -- that's what I want from the media -- not opinion pieces: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560672 In looking at that story it was fascinating to see the struggle within the Czech Republic with various sides accused of being Russian mouthpieces and the establishment of state censorship apparatuses well in advance of this phase of the conflict with Russia.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
The proper solution is either to educate that 40% of kick them off the internet (and hopefully out of voting booths, too)
mathogre 5y ago
Actually, you're right. You made very good points here. I always assume other people are rational. While many are, many are not, and I often forget the latter. Thank you.

by px43 5y ago

mohanmcgeek 5y ago

> the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, Who are you or YouTube to make this judgement? More often than not, the "I'm smarter than the average person" types are the ones making the worst decisions.

brnt 5y ago
There is plenty of research supporting this thesis.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  And you don't need to do any research harder than reading history to see this in LBJ's prosecution of the Vietnam war with the "best and brightest" he inherited from JFK.
- tekknik 5y ago
  When will the egotistical narcissism stop? This type of “I’m better than you” talk is not acceptable when it comes to race, how come it’s acceptable when the subject is intelligence?
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    If we extrapolate this, these narcissists would be asking for an end to the Universal adult franchise and say that only the "properly informed" people should be allowed to vote. I've heard this argument in my country already from certain circles
edmundsauto 5y ago
That’s also what YouTube viewers think. Not making a decision, is also making a decision. Develop your own news curation source and stop relying on a corporation to do it. If that is too difficult, perhaps consider the challenge the news org faces. Everyone makes bad decisions. While you are angry at YT for what they have removed, are you also praising them for each thing they did not action? If not, you are getting upset about a very small percentage. That may be valid for your own issues, but it does not make it representative If you ever wonder why other humans don’t support your issue, and your issue is not representative, perhaps that is your answer to make more sense of things.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  I see you countering a bunch of right wing talking points which I have not even made. I was referring to GP's overt arrogance in justifying YouTube's intervention here. People can generally duduce for themselves what the truth is.
greyhair 5y ago
Always keep in mind that 50% of all people are dumber than average.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  The smarter-than-the-average people aren't the problem The people who are very sure that they're way smarter than the average are often not very smart.
Siira 5y ago
The problem is not that these people aren’t smart. It’s a good bet that they are. The problem is that they aren’t sufficiently benevolent. Their narratives are fundamentally optimized to benefit themselves first, and then others. Free speech limits power and increases competition, which is the most effective way to decrease rent seekers.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

What about all the times that YouTube banned videos that turned out to be correct?

px43 5y ago
Why would you assume that some machines at Google would always be better at weeding out misinformation than actual humans? There are obviously going to be a lot of false positives, but there are systems to compensate for that, and they seem to work well enough.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  Everything that you, or the YouTube moderators at California, disagree with is not misinformation. And the COVID situation showed how bad it was. I can't imagine why someone would think it works "well enough"

archerx 5y ago

Could this have been more arrogant or condescending?

px43 5y ago
How about you type up a response to them, and if you phrase it better than I did, and get the message across more clearly that I did, then I'll delete my post and you can get all the attention? I did my darnedest when writing that post, and I don't really think your meta-commentary is adding to the discussion.
- archerx 5y ago
  People should be able to watch what they want without a midwit nanny policing their thoughts. Have you submitted your application to run the ministry of truth yet? If you don’t understand how this kind of thinking is bad for the people and good for those in power I suggest you go and do some reading.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    The current "moderation" is in line with their opinion and they don't want to imagine what will happen when that changes. And YouTube gets no love because they also removed the dislike button (which is a much more robust way of moderation) because they didn't like the outcome
- anon2020dot00 5y ago
  It's not about the phrasing but about the message. How can it not be condescending to say "30% to 40% of people don't have enough intelligence to filter propaganda". Whether that's true or not is debatable but there's no phrasing it better.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  Perhaps if you dropped your arrogance you would realise that other people in the thread don't share your opinion and don't want to get the same message across more clearly? You and YouTube seem to share the same sentiment that you somehow are smarter in every way than the said 30-40% of the population.

cf141q5325 5y ago

Have you thought about the implications of your opinion for democracy? Is it only acceptable as long as people are properly brainwashed?

Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
As is being more and more noted, this "democracy" thing only seems to function "properly" when a great deal of censorship is used. A lot of people should be outright admitting democracy only "works" when their side wins.

lenkite 5y ago

Basically the only news that should be allowed is news that satisfies the mainstream political narrative so that folks are kept fully sanitized. This is far more important than silly things like freedom of speech. Any critical questioning of the "facts" is "misinformation". Who cares later if the "misinformation" later is found to be true ? The most important thing is to obey and follow the will of the collective - set by the whatever the media overlords and political masters judge as "correct thinking". Any attempt to deviate from the same is "radicalization" and must be suppressed by any and all means.

stingraycharles 5y ago
We’re talking about Trump denying the election results, which ended with a lot of violence in the Capitol. This is absolutely misinformation that did lead to radicalization.
- lenkite 5y ago
  So did Clinton about the 2016 election and she still claims the same. Along with her consistent hardline that Trump is a Putin Puppet - which is misinformation that has been proved false again & again at great expense to the taxpayer - but still gets published. Zero bans for her - since she is a cherished member of the political mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-labels-trump-illegitimate-170547434.html https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-labels-trump-illegiti... https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-electi...
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    We have proof that Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky into framing his political opponents by witholding aid they needed to defend themselves from Russia. When Putin started his invasion, Trump praised him for being smart, then praised him again, suggesting he'd captured a whole country for a small cost in sanctions. What do you think you're expressing when you say that Trump isn't a Putin puppet? That he's not made of wood?

momenti 5y ago

> We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad. Not true because law enforcement is still in place to take care of crime. Some amount of crime and confusion are also the price you pay to get the benefits of freedom.

exodust 5y ago

> "We all know what happens when content isn't curated" Curation is about selection, not exclusion. As in selecting art for an exhibition on the basis of its value or quality. Curating is not about excluding or banning content via clumsy and vague censorship. > "and it's really, really bad." When trigger-happy censorship is the norm, really really really really bad things can happen. > "become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction". Bullshit like what? They (The Hill) were discussing and analyzing news, not propagandizing vulnerable youtube viewers. It's disappointing you imply we need mandatory shielding from information, including analysis of news and events, with penalties for those not falling in line. Putin would agree with you. He threatens and shuts down media outlets for mentioning the word "war". Mindless youtube viewers are not the tipping point to society meltdown. I've watched a few 'The Hill' clips on youtube before, and I noticed they disagree with each other and provide alternate views. It's not a propaganda machine, so shouldn't be treated like one. You may want your news and analysis to be grounded in loyalty to a monolith narrative and distributed via sanctioned memes. Others want more than that, such as counter-points, alternate views, robust debate, transparency and discussion. We learn more that way. In my country Australia, we have a national "Q&A" TV panel show on the public broadcaster, covering news and politics. The idea is discussion, yet on the recent episode a young Russian Australian man was booted out of the studio audience because he mentioned he supported Putin's action in Ukraine. Instead of challenging the man's views, he was booted out live on air.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPIxtJd2uU&t=304s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPIxtJd2uU&t=304s This isn't how civil discourse should operate.

onetokeoverthe 5y ago

xigoi 5y ago

Then why do they censor stupid bullshit only when it's right-wing?

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
> Hate speech, predatory behavior, graphic violence, malicious attacks, and content that promotes harmful or dangerous behavior isn't allowed on YouTube. Is Pro-suicide or self-harm content right-wing? Because it's not allowed on YouTube.
- xigoi 5y ago
  That's not what we're talking about here.

cudgy 5y ago

> 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction. Taking away their ability to hear different viewpoints especially those they believe to be true just drives these people to radicalize even further. I’m not even touching the matter of dismissing almost half of a country. Very shortsighted perspective.

hhjinks 5y ago
I don't think that's true. They're probably referring to the people who fall down into alt-right/whatever radical group "rabbit holes." These people aren't radical from the outset. I'd say the real issue is the youtube algorithm, which causes the radicalization "highway" in the first place, but apparently youtube can't be bothered to fix their harmful algorithm, and would rather delete the content that is being promoted by it.
- cudgy 5y ago
  I guess you are not a humanist. Your perspective is that people are easily manipulated and need to be told by other people whom are easily manipulated how they should think.
frabbit 5y ago
It strikes me that the effort that goes into trying to outright suppress disinformation is also a waste of time. It leaks through anyway and the consequences of being seen to suppress it leads to distrust. All that you can hope is that the person reading it is open to information and changing their mind. If they are not then there is nothing that can be done anyway. I have been drawn into trying to evaluate this claim that the Czech Republic / Czechia has had a statement issued by its "Supreme Prosecutor" that anyone supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine will face criminal penalties. I would love to be able to go to a reputable media source to evaluate it. It is inordinately difficult to judge. I would prefer that the BBC/CNN/LA Times spent time debunking this sort of thing or confirming it. As it is I am on my own with nothing but a wall of flag-waving and emotional condemnation instead of investigative journalism -- that's what I want from the media -- not opinion pieces: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560672 In looking at that story it was fascinating to see the struggle within the Czech Republic with various sides accused of being Russian mouthpieces and the establishment of state censorship apparatuses well in advance of this phase of the conflict with Russia.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

The proper solution is either to educate that 40% of kick them off the internet (and hopefully out of voting booths, too)

mathogre 5y ago

Actually, you're right. You made very good points here. I always assume other people are rational. While many are, many are not, and I often forget the latter. Thank you.