Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

righteousruminations.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#31

Post by ouid »

gwright wrote: post #19
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments a…

How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored.

It's stupid to restrict your definitions by intent. Treat the restriction of information as the problem itself, rather than the fact that it was done with any specific motive.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#32

Post by gwright »

braveo wrote: post #25
gwright wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments a…

Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.

Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions.

Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about.

I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#33

Post by ouid »

rodgerd wrote: post #21
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

I look forward to your principled commitment to opening your home to everyone with a bullhorn and an opinion to share with you.

if that's your experience with youtube, I suggest doing something different.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#34

Post by gwright »

ouid wrote: post #31
gwright wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments a…

How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored. It's stupid to restrict your definitions by in…

It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions.

If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#35

Post by cortesoft »

beachy wrote: post #26
cortesoft wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but they aren't doing anything to suppress the video, they are just refusing to host it. If you expand the definition of censorship to anyone who refuses to host a specific piece of content, then it basically loses all meaning. The New York Times is censoring me by not publishing my article. This science journal is censoring me by not publishing my paper.

Except that Youtube's position is that they will host anything, of any quality, unless it crosses one of their red lines. Whereas NYT will only publish stuff of high quality.

So the NYT just has higher editorial standards, but the practice is the same.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#36

Post by dragonwriter »

gwright wrote: post #19
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments a…

> Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense.

It's the original sense.

> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities.

Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.)

> When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind.

Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion.

> I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost.

That battle was lost centuries ago. What the censor librorum does in granting, or denying, the nihil obstat has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government.

> Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.

It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#38

Post by naaaaak »

DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

> for being politically too extreme

YouTube defines "politically too extreme" as anything that's slightly left of Fox News.

Google's News tab now promotes tmz, the onion, and buzzfeed as "news" over sites that actually break news and typically go against the "narrative". http://i.magaimg.net/img/co6.jpg

There's a reason I'm dropping all Google products and services from my life.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#39

Post by gwright »

Natsu wrote: post #24
snoman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're making the implication that, in order to not be classified as censoring, YouTube is required to host anyone's content, regardless of how it is perceived by their stakeholders. That seems fishy. Revoking a service is not the same as censoring, I would argue.

There's some difference between removing individuals for specific behavior and in going after identifiable groups of people. As well as whether a service is some sort of public accommodation or not. So it's one thing to ban someone from some public accommodation for specific behavior and another thing entirely if you don't serve that kind of people or if you play games with the rules and enact a grandfather clause th…

The phrase 'public accommodation' has some very particular legal meanings that have nothing to do with content hosting.

Perhaps you are explicitly arguing that the legal framework of public accommodations should be extended to content hosting but you need to make that argument explicitly with full understanding of that framework and not by casually dropping that legal term into the discussion.

Going after 'identifiable groups of people' is phrased to sound terrible but doesn't seem to be what is happening. The policy changes are about content not content creators. Not arguing for or against the policies just pointing out that they aren't targeting content creators in a illegal discriminatory manner.

You may have a point about the rules changing but that is basic contract law. Nothing new there and in any case there needs to be a mechanism by which the hosting terms can evolve, they aren't immutable.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#40

Post by shams93 »

Is it really censorship or are we seeing the effects of the end of net neutrality with 0 rated services. I'm wondering whether advertisers are using placement as an excuse to try to weasel out of long term ad contracts if youtube's numbers are taking a huge hit to 0 rated video services favored by the carriers? Would you want your ad dollars trapped in a service in decline with long term contracts or try to find some way to get out of it even if its some excuse about a couple ad placements to find a way to break the contract and free those ad dollars for 0 rated carrier favored services?
Post reply on HN