4 ms·

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 s

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.

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.