4 ms·

I’ve said these about other platforms as well, but we need to heavily regulate large social media and content platforms like YouTube. They should not be able to

I’ve said these about other platforms as well, but we need to heavily regulate large social media and content platforms like YouTube. They should not be able to arbitrarily demonetize, censor, shadow ban, or ban any content or users, which is where they are going unless Louis Rossman bends the knee. They also should not be allowed to operate in anti competitive ways like we see here. These big tech companies and social media platforms are too big and play too important a role in our modern society to just do whatever they want, and we should be treating them more like a utility. Alternatively, let’s split up all these big companies like Google and heavily tax all businesses that earn more than $10B in annual profit. Or both.

mycologos 3y ago
Who do you think should make the content decisions for these platforms?
- azemetre 3y ago
  I think removing section 230 protections from these companies would be sufficient enough. You can’t have it both ways on being an editor of content (the algorithms) then claim you aren’t a publisher.
  - GauntletWizard 3y ago
    Would you also remove section 230 protections from every forum with a spam filter? How about human moderators (like this one)?
    - azemetre 3y ago
      Obviously not, I should have been more specific but I’m obviously referring to the large corporate internet gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, etc).
  - seoulmetro 3y ago
    But the government likes this, as it lets them push censorship under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "misinformation", "fake news". They've also tricked people into thinking they need it to filter out the former things. They don't, and are actively harmed by the censorship.
    - azemetre 3y ago
      YouTube, Facebook, Instragram, etc are already doing this. Also what's nice about the government is that they are compromised of citizens where we can vote in new people to lobby the changes we want. How can I do this at Google or Meta? That's something only the privileged can afford.
      - seoulmetro 3y ago
        Yeah you would be blown away if you ever discovered what they censor on those platforms. They turn the filter to 11. You can't even swear on YouTube anymore.
  - amf12 3y ago
    Do you know what would happen after that? Every company, blog, etc would ban more and more content.
    - azemetre 3y ago
      That's fine, it'll allow more competition from those that are actually not publishing their content versus those that are doing both publishing and editorializing. I should have clarified and specified that I was only referring to these trillion dollar multi-national corporations that can obviously afford to regulate their platforms themselves. Regulations can be targeted you know, they don't have to be full-stop.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    I have to ask: why do people think removing §230 will make (in their views) overly censorious social media platforms less censorious? The entire point of §230 is to make them immune to the liabilities of failing to moderate; in a world where, say, failing to take down a defamatory video makes the entire platform liable for defamation, the only logical course of action is to essentially take down everything somebody might find offensive. And if you're already incensed by how ready platforms are to do that today, that alternative reality would surely be far worse.
    - f33d5173 3y ago
      It bifurcates platforms in two: those with no moderation, and those that have detailed human review for every video. A site like youtube is largely unworkable under the latter model, but is more workable under the former model. Either youtube would adopt such a model, or they would pivot to being essentially netflix with all licensed content. In the latter case another site would spring up or an existing site would become popular for people without an existing following to post videos, which would necessarily use a moderationless model.
      - AlienRobot 3y ago
        >It bifurcates platforms in two It won't. If Youtube had no moderation, it would have no ad revenue. This would effectively kill every single website where users can publish content without having to go through a publishing contract first. Youtube, Medium, Newsgrounds, every single comments section on news articles, all web forums, Discord, reviews on Amazon, Steam. I'm not even sure websites like buy me a coffee and patreon would be able to survive, because if they can't moderate their posts, that doesn't mean mastercard can't ban them, as mastercard isn't subject to publishing laws.
        f33d5173 3y ago
        Mastercard et al are able to act as censors of the internet because websites have discretionary moderation policies. If, when mastercard demanded policy changes, websites could only respond with "sorry, it's out of our hands", then mastercard would give it up pretty quick. If they didn't, then bitcoin would become temporarily quite popular until they did. People want to be able to pay for things online, and credit cards are able to boss websites around only insofar as they don't push the envelope too far.
  - AlienRobot 3y ago
    Youtube doesn't edit content. When Spez changes what a commenter says, that's editing content. Banning content isn't editing it.
PierceJoy 3y ago
I don’t think that works in practise. Social media companies need to be able to use algorithms for discovery. The firehose approach doesn’t work at large scale. Algorithmic discovery will always have some type of bias and you’re just setting up a scenario where companies won’t be able to make any changes without getting sued. Utilities are essential to life. YouTube is not. If you don’t like the way YouTube operates, create your own. Kick did that. Parler did that. Elon did that by buying Twitter. If you don’t want to create one, join one of those.
iteygib 3y ago
If social media was ever regulated, it would have to (and should be, IMO) done from the angle of the financial regulation. If social media is compared to a marketplace, then the marketplace can be regulated to ensure financial health of the system. What it shouldn't be regulated for is the content itself. I don't like congresspeople of any party wanting to regulate something because they see less of the news they like on one platform, regardless of if it's factual merit. These are voluntary entertainment sites. If you want to see a platform that carries your news, then instead you free to talk with your wallet, to petition the company and get other users on board, and totally free to start your own platform (or, as seems to be the trend nowadays, free to buy someone else's if you can't make one yourself)

mycologos 3y ago

Who do you think should make the content decisions for these platforms?

azemetre 3y ago
I think removing section 230 protections from these companies would be sufficient enough. You can’t have it both ways on being an editor of content (the algorithms) then claim you aren’t a publisher.
- GauntletWizard 3y ago
  Would you also remove section 230 protections from every forum with a spam filter? How about human moderators (like this one)?
  - azemetre 3y ago
    Obviously not, I should have been more specific but I’m obviously referring to the large corporate internet gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, etc).
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  But the government likes this, as it lets them push censorship under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "misinformation", "fake news". They've also tricked people into thinking they need it to filter out the former things. They don't, and are actively harmed by the censorship.
  - azemetre 3y ago
    YouTube, Facebook, Instragram, etc are already doing this. Also what's nice about the government is that they are compromised of citizens where we can vote in new people to lobby the changes we want. How can I do this at Google or Meta? That's something only the privileged can afford.
    - seoulmetro 3y ago
      Yeah you would be blown away if you ever discovered what they censor on those platforms. They turn the filter to 11. You can't even swear on YouTube anymore.
- amf12 3y ago
  Do you know what would happen after that? Every company, blog, etc would ban more and more content.
  - azemetre 3y ago
    That's fine, it'll allow more competition from those that are actually not publishing their content versus those that are doing both publishing and editorializing. I should have clarified and specified that I was only referring to these trillion dollar multi-national corporations that can obviously afford to regulate their platforms themselves. Regulations can be targeted you know, they don't have to be full-stop.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  I have to ask: why do people think removing §230 will make (in their views) overly censorious social media platforms less censorious? The entire point of §230 is to make them immune to the liabilities of failing to moderate; in a world where, say, failing to take down a defamatory video makes the entire platform liable for defamation, the only logical course of action is to essentially take down everything somebody might find offensive. And if you're already incensed by how ready platforms are to do that today, that alternative reality would surely be far worse.
  - f33d5173 3y ago
    It bifurcates platforms in two: those with no moderation, and those that have detailed human review for every video. A site like youtube is largely unworkable under the latter model, but is more workable under the former model. Either youtube would adopt such a model, or they would pivot to being essentially netflix with all licensed content. In the latter case another site would spring up or an existing site would become popular for people without an existing following to post videos, which would necessarily use a moderationless model.
    - AlienRobot 3y ago
      >It bifurcates platforms in two It won't. If Youtube had no moderation, it would have no ad revenue. This would effectively kill every single website where users can publish content without having to go through a publishing contract first. Youtube, Medium, Newsgrounds, every single comments section on news articles, all web forums, Discord, reviews on Amazon, Steam. I'm not even sure websites like buy me a coffee and patreon would be able to survive, because if they can't moderate their posts, that doesn't mean mastercard can't ban them, as mastercard isn't subject to publishing laws.
      - f33d5173 3y ago
        Mastercard et al are able to act as censors of the internet because websites have discretionary moderation policies. If, when mastercard demanded policy changes, websites could only respond with "sorry, it's out of our hands", then mastercard would give it up pretty quick. If they didn't, then bitcoin would become temporarily quite popular until they did. People want to be able to pay for things online, and credit cards are able to boss websites around only insofar as they don't push the envelope too far.
- AlienRobot 3y ago
  Youtube doesn't edit content. When Spez changes what a commenter says, that's editing content. Banning content isn't editing it.

PierceJoy 3y ago

I don’t think that works in practise. Social media companies need to be able to use algorithms for discovery. The firehose approach doesn’t work at large scale. Algorithmic discovery will always have some type of bias and you’re just setting up a scenario where companies won’t be able to make any changes without getting sued. Utilities are essential to life. YouTube is not. If you don’t like the way YouTube operates, create your own. Kick did that. Parler did that. Elon did that by buying Twitter. If you don’t want to create one, join one of those.

iteygib 3y ago

If social media was ever regulated, it would have to (and should be, IMO) done from the angle of the financial regulation. If social media is compared to a marketplace, then the marketplace can be regulated to ensure financial health of the system. What it shouldn't be regulated for is the content itself. I don't like congresspeople of any party wanting to regulate something because they see less of the news they like on one platform, regardless of if it's factual merit. These are voluntary entertainment sites. If you want to see a platform that carries your news, then instead you free to talk with your wallet, to petition the company and get other users on board, and totally free to start your own platform (or, as seems to be the trend nowadays, free to buy someone else's if you can't make one yourself)