6 ms·

We really need to finish with this content removal business and simply hold people accountable for the content. In other words, YouTube or any "utility level"

by mrtksn 4y ago

We really need to finish with this content removal business and simply hold people accountable for the content. In other words, YouTube or any "utility level" platform should not have the right to remove content by its own and just request information to protect itself. For example, if someone is posting about something harmful the videos should remain and the person who does that should face the consequences. It's not just that the platforms suck in judging the content, the more important aspect is that this content is also part of historical record. I would like to be able to watch and examine content from criminals, from fraudsters or pranksters. For example, it's fascinating that Heaven's Gate cult website is still alive and kicking[0]. I'm glad that I can take a look at the real thing but if their mass su*cide happened today, I'm sure that all kind of materials about them would be promptly removed and we will be forced to accept only the official narrative(which might be or might not be correct on this case but that's not the point). None of us would be allowed to read their texts, listen to their conversation and judge it by ourselves. [0] https://www.heavensgate.com https://www.heavensgate.com

framapotari 4y ago
> For example, if someone is posting about something harmful the videos should remain and the person who does that should face the consequences. Ok, so now a video is up and people are tricked by it and injure themselves in the process. Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm?
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Sue the person who uploaded the video, as it happens with all the malicious activities with the real world. Sure, we can have tools to reduce risk - maybe there can be a warning under the video that the contents are disputed and some people claimed harm. If those people are lying the video uploader can sue them. Just because some people don't know how to behave and have delusions that nothing is real on the internet, we can't have total speech control in an attempt of "saving the kids". Just as with the real world, people need to develop the right habits to stay safe.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    > Just as with the real world, people need to develop the right habits to stay safe. Just as with the real world, you don't have a right to a broadcasting platform for anything you wish.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      You actually have that right in any sane country. The limitations are on the frequency you can broadcast or the volume if you do your broadcast through sound systems. Actually, only on extremely crazy dictatorships you will have police storming you before you finish your broadcast. On most places, you can be sued but the police wont try to silence you as if your words are a spell.
      - framapotari 4y ago
        Where did the police come in? We were talking about Youtube selecting what to make available on their platform. Is that analogous to the police stifling your speech in your view?
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Yes, it is in the same effect due to the ubiquity of the platform. IMHO, platforms with that significant user base should be regulated as utility.
        lancesells 4y ago
        So you think all guidelines should be eliminated? https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9288567?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9288567?hl=en
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Guidelines on the nature of the content? Yes. Things harmful for the platforms itself? Removing stuff like spam is fair IMHO.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm? You talk as if this isn't exactly what happened in the current framework of private censorship. Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation and at least you'd solve the problem of pointless censorship.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    If the video goes down and fewer people see it, fewer people die. How was the censorship pointless? You didn't "solve" any problems, you just ignored the actual complexity of the real world to uphold your ideals.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Speech is not magic spell. Sure, in Turkey the government believes that Netflix makes people gay and they regulate Netflix to ungay the Turkish youth but this is just as ridiculous as the censorship on other topics on other parts of the world. If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video. Sure, you can put labels agains poor judgement like they do on physical products.
      - framapotari 4y ago
        > If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Many things can be a fix to many problems. Listening devices at homes can be a fix to domestic violence for example. The point is, for "a fix" of an issue we are trading things and I don't find it a good trade. Total unchallenged censorship is ot a good compromise to "save the kids".
philistine 4y ago
The thing is the whole house of cards was built on pseudonymous growth. Most Youtube accounts can be traced back to specific people and corporations, sure, but it takes a lot of manual effort to figure it out and the success rate is not 100%. And what do you do when the person is based in a country with no regards for the rule of law, no extradition treaty with the US, yet its citizens still have the ability to post videos to Youtube? What you're proposing would not only slow down the growth of Youtube, it would contract it. And proposing to Google that anything they do should get smaller for the benefit of mankind is somehow a cardinal sin against capitalism.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  I have this proposition that I wrote about previously. The core of the idea is that the platforms can remove your content only if you are anonymous and you can re-instantiate your content and override moderation by accepting full responsibility through revealing your true identity. So if it happens that someone post some really nasty material, the police knocks on their door and content is removed only then(some type of content can be straight out illegal, like specific types of porn).
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Here's a better idea: hold the publisher responsible for what they publish. Don't force the public to dive down rabbit-holes trying to figure out who uploaded the dodgy content, find out what jurisdiction they're in, and try to find an advocate in that jurisdiction to hold the uploader to account.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Sure, the publisher can also be responsible but YouTube is not a publisher. They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Youtube removing videos is like the electric company cutting of your electricity when they believe there's something harmful on the TV. There are plenty of publishers on youtube and as they do curate their content, they should definitely be responsible. They are already responsible actually.
ghostoftiber 4y ago
> simply hold people accountable for the content. Yes but by what level of accountability? If I make a video about changing a clutch, and then some kid drops a gearbox on his face and kills himself, who is responsible? Is Demolition Ranch responsponsible for mass shootings? Is the History channel actually racist because it rebroadcasts Hitler all the time?
- mrtksn 4y ago
  That's up to the courts to decide. Definitely not Youtube's business though.
  - ghostoftiber 4y ago
    Right. It's kinda hard to get upset about youtubes content and then claim it's up to the courts to decide, huh? ;)
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      What's hard about it?
yonaguska 4y ago
Even just bringing thumbs down would go a long way. They took a very useful metric away from technical how-to videos.
DoughnutHole 4y ago
YouTube didn't introduce content moderation (apart from copyright, and flat out illegal material) because daddy government told them to. They introduced moderation because companies threatened to pull advertising because they didn't want their brands plastered next to awful content. YouTube totally has the right to leave plenty of dangerous or morally repugnant content up. But they don't have the right to other companies' advertising money if said companies jump ship.
hedora 4y ago
I would agree that eliminating content removal would make sense if they also eliminated their recommendation system. From a legal perspective, making them legally liable for any content they promote (but not content they merely distribute) might fix the problem.

by mrtksn 4y ago

framapotari 4y ago

> For example, if someone is posting about something harmful the videos should remain and the person who does that should face the consequences. Ok, so now a video is up and people are tricked by it and injure themselves in the process. Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm?

mrtksn 4y ago
Sue the person who uploaded the video, as it happens with all the malicious activities with the real world. Sure, we can have tools to reduce risk - maybe there can be a warning under the video that the contents are disputed and some people claimed harm. If those people are lying the video uploader can sue them. Just because some people don't know how to behave and have delusions that nothing is real on the internet, we can't have total speech control in an attempt of "saving the kids". Just as with the real world, people need to develop the right habits to stay safe.
- lancesells 4y ago
  > Just as with the real world, people need to develop the right habits to stay safe. Just as with the real world, you don't have a right to a broadcasting platform for anything you wish.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    You actually have that right in any sane country. The limitations are on the frequency you can broadcast or the volume if you do your broadcast through sound systems. Actually, only on extremely crazy dictatorships you will have police storming you before you finish your broadcast. On most places, you can be sued but the police wont try to silence you as if your words are a spell.
    - framapotari 4y ago
      Where did the police come in? We were talking about Youtube selecting what to make available on their platform. Is that analogous to the police stifling your speech in your view?
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        Yes, it is in the same effect due to the ubiquity of the platform. IMHO, platforms with that significant user base should be regulated as utility.
        lancesells 4y ago
        So you think all guidelines should be eliminated? https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9288567?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9288567?hl=en
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Guidelines on the nature of the content? Yes. Things harmful for the platforms itself? Removing stuff like spam is fair IMHO.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm? You talk as if this isn't exactly what happened in the current framework of private censorship. Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation and at least you'd solve the problem of pointless censorship.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  If the video goes down and fewer people see it, fewer people die. How was the censorship pointless? You didn't "solve" any problems, you just ignored the actual complexity of the real world to uphold your ideals.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Speech is not magic spell. Sure, in Turkey the government believes that Netflix makes people gay and they regulate Netflix to ungay the Turkish youth but this is just as ridiculous as the censorship on other topics on other parts of the world. If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video. Sure, you can put labels agains poor judgement like they do on physical products.
    - framapotari 4y ago
      > If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        Many things can be a fix to many problems. Listening devices at homes can be a fix to domestic violence for example. The point is, for "a fix" of an issue we are trading things and I don't find it a good trade. Total unchallenged censorship is ot a good compromise to "save the kids".

philistine 4y ago

The thing is the whole house of cards was built on pseudonymous growth. Most Youtube accounts can be traced back to specific people and corporations, sure, but it takes a lot of manual effort to figure it out and the success rate is not 100%. And what do you do when the person is based in a country with no regards for the rule of law, no extradition treaty with the US, yet its citizens still have the ability to post videos to Youtube? What you're proposing would not only slow down the growth of Youtube, it would contract it. And proposing to Google that anything they do should get smaller for the benefit of mankind is somehow a cardinal sin against capitalism.

mrtksn 4y ago
I have this proposition that I wrote about previously. The core of the idea is that the platforms can remove your content only if you are anonymous and you can re-instantiate your content and override moderation by accepting full responsibility through revealing your true identity. So if it happens that someone post some really nasty material, the police knocks on their door and content is removed only then(some type of content can be straight out illegal, like specific types of porn).
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Here's a better idea: hold the publisher responsible for what they publish. Don't force the public to dive down rabbit-holes trying to figure out who uploaded the dodgy content, find out what jurisdiction they're in, and try to find an advocate in that jurisdiction to hold the uploader to account.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Sure, the publisher can also be responsible but YouTube is not a publisher. They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Youtube removing videos is like the electric company cutting of your electricity when they believe there's something harmful on the TV. There are plenty of publishers on youtube and as they do curate their content, they should definitely be responsible. They are already responsible actually.

ghostoftiber 4y ago

> simply hold people accountable for the content. Yes but by what level of accountability? If I make a video about changing a clutch, and then some kid drops a gearbox on his face and kills himself, who is responsible? Is Demolition Ranch responsponsible for mass shootings? Is the History channel actually racist because it rebroadcasts Hitler all the time?

mrtksn 4y ago
That's up to the courts to decide. Definitely not Youtube's business though.
- ghostoftiber 4y ago
  Right. It's kinda hard to get upset about youtubes content and then claim it's up to the courts to decide, huh? ;)
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    What's hard about it?

yonaguska 4y ago

Even just bringing thumbs down would go a long way. They took a very useful metric away from technical how-to videos.

DoughnutHole 4y ago

YouTube didn't introduce content moderation (apart from copyright, and flat out illegal material) because daddy government told them to. They introduced moderation because companies threatened to pull advertising because they didn't want their brands plastered next to awful content. YouTube totally has the right to leave plenty of dangerous or morally repugnant content up. But they don't have the right to other companies' advertising money if said companies jump ship.

hedora 4y ago

I would agree that eliminating content removal would make sense if they also eliminated their recommendation system. From a legal perspective, making them legally liable for any content they promote (but not content they merely distribute) might fix the problem.