4 ms·

Yeah, this is a dumb slippery slope. If you want to depend on Youtube for saving lives, pay for premium.

Someone1234 4y ago
A slippery slope towards what? Doing morally right things and making the world a better place? What next, the Heimlich Maneuver, dressing a wound, signs of heat stroke/treatment, etc.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  The slippery slope is punishing YouTube for this, IMHO. As soon as you require qualifications to help, you’ve now effectively outlawed good samaritans. I can see YouTube’s lawyers deciding to ban first aid advice on their platform if lawyers or regulators get involved (or even if the PR situation gets out of control). And this isn’t some absurd hypothetical. At my work, they’ve gotten rid of all first aid kits in the buildings. You’re supposed to go to the clinic if you get hurt because they want to make sure the incident can have the correct paperwork done. This isn’t even a for-profit company that I work for, this isn’t to maximize profits or anything. It’s bureaucracy run amok, in the name of worker’s comp or OSHA safety or liability, the situation was made objectively less safe. So don’t punish YouTube for this. Outrage at YouTube for this is going to make the problem 10x worse by cutting off first aid instruction on YouTube, and that’s not an exaggeration. Not every problem can be solved by drumming up outrage.
  - Someone1234 4y ago
    > The slippery slope is punishing YouTube for this, IMHO. We are criticizing YT. Nobody is proposing "punishment." > So don’t punish YouTube for this. Wasn't suggested. Seems like you're using this as a jumping off point to discuss other, largely unrelated, things. You're also using the term "outrage" in a way that makes me think it is a trigger word for some kind of in-crowd.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Mass, highly vocal criticism = outrage = PR problem -> YouTube effectively punished for allowing first aid instructional videos on their website.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    > As soon as you require qualifications to help, you’ve now effectively outlawed good samaritans. Every Good Samaritan law I know of specifically says that we avoid punishing people trying to help provided they weren't trying to benefit. Try to help someone and make a mistake? Generally, AIUI (IANAL) you're unlikely to be held liable. Offer to help if they pay you and mess up? You get to be liable. Showing ads is a profit motive; if YT wants to be a Good Samaritan they can do it without ads. Disclaimer: IANAL so I could be wrong about the legal bits, but I think the ethical basis works.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Youtube isn't specifically targeting CPR videos for ads, though, it's a universal policy.
- DrThunder 4y ago
  A slippery slope towards forcing private businesses that have no foot in the realm of healthcare to enact healthcare. I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion this is a morally justifiable action to take. It sounds like you just want a party to blame for your own ineptitude and lack of personal responsibility. It's not the responsibility of a tech company to save your life, nor should it be. Mandating something like this is just asinine.
adolph 4y ago
Yes, if you can possibly save a life using Youtube, then there is a moral imperative pay for it so you won't be delayed by ads. I understand that maybe not all people have the means or are unbanked. The best route to universal Youtube is to fund it through government taxes.
- dheera 4y ago
  The problem is it takes several minutes to register and put in a payment method. People never know they are going to be put into life-saving situations until they actually are in one. It would be good for YT to learn from this incident and flag all emergency tutorial videos to be ad-free for all.
  - adolph 4y ago
    I think they do recurring periodic subscriptions fees. It isn’t like a coin operated juke box. It is the healthcare duty to subscribe now before the emergency need.
AvAurora 4y ago
If my grandma would have waited till black fridays 50% off before choking to death maybe i would have had the money to save her, what an unconsiderate bitch.

A slippery slope towards what? Doing morally right things and making the world a better place? What next, the Heimlich Maneuver, dressing a wound, signs of heat stroke/treatment, etc.

Robotbeat 4y ago
The slippery slope is punishing YouTube for this, IMHO. As soon as you require qualifications to help, you’ve now effectively outlawed good samaritans. I can see YouTube’s lawyers deciding to ban first aid advice on their platform if lawyers or regulators get involved (or even if the PR situation gets out of control). And this isn’t some absurd hypothetical. At my work, they’ve gotten rid of all first aid kits in the buildings. You’re supposed to go to the clinic if you get hurt because they want to make sure the incident can have the correct paperwork done. This isn’t even a for-profit company that I work for, this isn’t to maximize profits or anything. It’s bureaucracy run amok, in the name of worker’s comp or OSHA safety or liability, the situation was made objectively less safe. So don’t punish YouTube for this. Outrage at YouTube for this is going to make the problem 10x worse by cutting off first aid instruction on YouTube, and that’s not an exaggeration. Not every problem can be solved by drumming up outrage.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  > The slippery slope is punishing YouTube for this, IMHO. We are criticizing YT. Nobody is proposing "punishment." > So don’t punish YouTube for this. Wasn't suggested. Seems like you're using this as a jumping off point to discuss other, largely unrelated, things. You're also using the term "outrage" in a way that makes me think it is a trigger word for some kind of in-crowd.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Mass, highly vocal criticism = outrage = PR problem -> YouTube effectively punished for allowing first aid instructional videos on their website.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > As soon as you require qualifications to help, you’ve now effectively outlawed good samaritans. Every Good Samaritan law I know of specifically says that we avoid punishing people trying to help provided they weren't trying to benefit. Try to help someone and make a mistake? Generally, AIUI (IANAL) you're unlikely to be held liable. Offer to help if they pay you and mess up? You get to be liable. Showing ads is a profit motive; if YT wants to be a Good Samaritan they can do it without ads. Disclaimer: IANAL so I could be wrong about the legal bits, but I think the ethical basis works.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Youtube isn't specifically targeting CPR videos for ads, though, it's a universal policy.
DrThunder 4y ago
A slippery slope towards forcing private businesses that have no foot in the realm of healthcare to enact healthcare. I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion this is a morally justifiable action to take. It sounds like you just want a party to blame for your own ineptitude and lack of personal responsibility. It's not the responsibility of a tech company to save your life, nor should it be. Mandating something like this is just asinine.

adolph 4y ago

Yes, if you can possibly save a life using Youtube, then there is a moral imperative pay for it so you won't be delayed by ads. I understand that maybe not all people have the means or are unbanked. The best route to universal Youtube is to fund it through government taxes.

dheera 4y ago
The problem is it takes several minutes to register and put in a payment method. People never know they are going to be put into life-saving situations until they actually are in one. It would be good for YT to learn from this incident and flag all emergency tutorial videos to be ad-free for all.
- adolph 4y ago
  I think they do recurring periodic subscriptions fees. It isn’t like a coin operated juke box. It is the healthcare duty to subscribe now before the emergency need.

AvAurora 4y ago

If my grandma would have waited till black fridays 50% off before choking to death maybe i would have had the money to save her, what an unconsiderate bitch.