5 ms·

> 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 v

> 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.
        framapotari 4y ago
        You don't want private entities making decisions on what content they host on their platforms, but you do want the government to make that decision (host everything) and force those private entities to abide by that decision under threat of penalty? And that is how we avoid dictatorships in your view?
        mrtksn 4y ago
        The government has a due process, if the government doesn't have a fair due process you change them until you have a fair due process. You change the governments by election and if that's not available by burning down their stuff. Companies don't have a fair due process. Google is infamous for not providing a human response for their algorithmic censorship. You can Google it.
  - effingwewt 4y ago
    Of course you do, as long as it's not illegal. People forget even TV had public access, which could get pretty ridiculous back in the day. Your argument is old, tired, and nonsensical.
    - framapotari 4y ago
      Where is this right to a broadcasting platform to publish anything you wish as long as it is legal enumerated?
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        Depending on your dictatorship, it will be different everywhere. In free countries you just broadcast. It's like the right to eat pancakes, it's not specifically regulated. Of course there are rules of what you are allowed to do or not, for example you can't broadcast in specific frequencies because those are licensed and if you like to do that you need to purchase a license. If you broadcast using loudspeakers, you will have regulations on the loudness of it. The commercial license might come with its own limitations. Depending on your location, you might get into trouble if you take advertisements for drugs or cigarettes or alcohol. You can lose your license over it but your broadcasting equipment wont try stopping you from doing it.
        framapotari 4y ago
        > In free countries you just broadcast Sure, and anyone who is banned on YouTube can still "just broadcast". Their rights were not harmed in any way. To borrow your analogy, you may have the right to eat pancakes but you don't have the right to eat at IHOP. You can be banned from every pancake selling diner in town yet you can still eat pancakes. No one has stopped you from eating pancakes.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        I can't agree with this one. Due to the different nature of the mediums(radio waves v.s. internet platform) you can't just broadcast because unlike radio waves Youtube will refuse to carry your signal. That's why I advocate for Youtube be impartial to the content and carry whatever the users put in it. If there's a problem with the content, let it be solved by the parties impacted. Again, unlike radio, with internet platforms each platform is in its own reality. With radio, when you broadcast your signal reaches everyone indiscriminately. On the internet you broadcast into platforms as if they are different universes with different populations.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Sue the person who uploaded the video, as it happens with all the malicious activities with the real world. A corpse is discovered in a garage with charred stumps where the hands should be. Investigators look through that person's browser history and find they watched a few hundred wood burning videos. What now, hundreds of lawsuits? Who would pay for that?
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".

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.
      - framapotari 4y ago
        You don't want private entities making decisions on what content they host on their platforms, but you do want the government to make that decision (host everything) and force those private entities to abide by that decision under threat of penalty? And that is how we avoid dictatorships in your view?
        mrtksn 4y ago
        The government has a due process, if the government doesn't have a fair due process you change them until you have a fair due process. You change the governments by election and if that's not available by burning down their stuff. Companies don't have a fair due process. Google is infamous for not providing a human response for their algorithmic censorship. You can Google it.
- effingwewt 4y ago
  Of course you do, as long as it's not illegal. People forget even TV had public access, which could get pretty ridiculous back in the day. Your argument is old, tired, and nonsensical.
  - framapotari 4y ago
    Where is this right to a broadcasting platform to publish anything you wish as long as it is legal enumerated?
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Depending on your dictatorship, it will be different everywhere. In free countries you just broadcast. It's like the right to eat pancakes, it's not specifically regulated. Of course there are rules of what you are allowed to do or not, for example you can't broadcast in specific frequencies because those are licensed and if you like to do that you need to purchase a license. If you broadcast using loudspeakers, you will have regulations on the loudness of it. The commercial license might come with its own limitations. Depending on your location, you might get into trouble if you take advertisements for drugs or cigarettes or alcohol. You can lose your license over it but your broadcasting equipment wont try stopping you from doing it.
      - framapotari 4y ago
        > In free countries you just broadcast Sure, and anyone who is banned on YouTube can still "just broadcast". Their rights were not harmed in any way. To borrow your analogy, you may have the right to eat pancakes but you don't have the right to eat at IHOP. You can be banned from every pancake selling diner in town yet you can still eat pancakes. No one has stopped you from eating pancakes.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        I can't agree with this one. Due to the different nature of the mediums(radio waves v.s. internet platform) you can't just broadcast because unlike radio waves Youtube will refuse to carry your signal. That's why I advocate for Youtube be impartial to the content and carry whatever the users put in it. If there's a problem with the content, let it be solved by the parties impacted. Again, unlike radio, with internet platforms each platform is in its own reality. With radio, when you broadcast your signal reaches everyone indiscriminately. On the internet you broadcast into platforms as if they are different universes with different populations.
robonerd 4y ago
> Sue the person who uploaded the video, as it happens with all the malicious activities with the real world. A corpse is discovered in a garage with charred stumps where the hands should be. Investigators look through that person's browser history and find they watched a few hundred wood burning videos. What now, hundreds of lawsuits? Who would pay for that?

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".