The kind of content required by researchers, documenting current events, relooking at historical events with current information is always going be hugely controversial according to different POVs.
This kind of content will require its own network not reliant or subject to the whims of business interests or the rules of any single nation. Infact it's essential this content is not located on platforms offered by increasingly compromised and arbitrary SV companies prone to lip service to free speech when convenient.
There is enough funding in the world to create this than rely on companies like Google and the content should simply move from youtube.
> a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. Centralized (state and/or corporate) control over information is itself an incredible asset to bad actors. Goebbels et al..
Pre-hutton BBC was good and Al Jazeera still is. It's not all Goebbels, especially when that state media has a charter that asserts its independence and commitment to objective reporting.
One major problem with state-owned centralized media, in my opinion, is that objectivity usually degrades into propaganda whenever that's seriously requested by a senior government official, e.g. in times of war. IIRC the BBC was not always forthcoming about setbacks during the early parts of WWII, for example.
I'm sad for the user, but every time I read this type of story I'm hopeful it may be an inflection point; maybe people will wake up to Google, how integrated it is in our lives, and how big of a black box it is. If nothing else, its one more brick in the wall.
I'm afraid this is what happens when the exercise of democratic freedoms is cordoned within the platforms of corporations who have no duty to uphold them. Google's unilateral suspension of AdSense accounts without reason or recourse has brought this realization to lots of people on a less overt level.
I know google's a private corporation and is free to delete what it wishes from its own databases, but I thought it's mission was to "organize the world's information"
Well, she is easier to defend than Nazis. So, here I go... Freedom of expression, not just free speech the legal concept, should be a societal goal. Google has every right, legally, to delete this stuff. However, in an ideal world, they'd do no such thing and would let people judge based on the merits of the message. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to work towards that ideal world. Maybe the solution…
How tightly bound we are to just a few large tech companies is... unfortunate. I would love it if it were easier for the common person to host their own stuff. Between all the concerns involved (security, hardware, demand, etc.) I'm not sure how feasible it is. I've given it a lot of thought, and have slowly unwound my custom tech setups - from domains, to emails, to hardware. Mostly for the "bus" factor. When my dad…
Yes, I've posted about this a few times - but it is too big of a project and not novel enough to get many skilled engineers interested, I think:
We need a Zoho-like replacement for Google Apps that is open source, and has a host-agnostic ecosystem around it. Someone should be able to launch the apps in their own docker containers, with a button click on AWS, and evolve features like protonail et al.
Not all of Google's apps need replacing, but it should include custom DNS, calendars, collaborative editing of documents, email, browser-syncing, storage, and possibly even a mobile data management and decentralized chat! Who wants to start building a team to work on it? :)
Help me understand- Alexa O'Brien has a Youtube account with many hours of video. She also has a google account, drive, etc. Some of her videos contained material that Google (being Google), didn't like. Despite the fact that it was all very important journalism, Google arbitrarily decided it was #extremism, therefore #banned. I would say that 5 years ago I would have been shocked and outraged, but lately I just abso…
Do you think Google should have the authority to decide who is a journalist and who isn't? What criteria should they apply to determine that? Other than just reading the description alongside a video and just uncritically believing what the poster wrote, how should they determine the reasons and motivation for posting a video? What this argument comes down to is "How dare Google pull this video posted by a nice white…
Hmm, interesting. Personally I think everyone should be allowed to post it, regardless of proclaimed profession.
However, what I think Google is attempting to do here, is prevent "ISIS beheads infidels, join now, link in description".
Obviously they are failing miserably at that, and there might even be something sinister going on.
But, that is how I would distinguish between journalist and devout terrorist.
Censorship doesn't serve the interests of Google nor the government.
If Google deactivates accounts then Google loses data. In big data it's best practice to keep everything, discard nothing. Government loses an opportunity for surveillance which could potentially be important. Why would we for example shut down White Supremacist accounts when doing so removes the possibility of keeping tabs on them. It makes them quieter, has a chilling effect and their activities go underground. Where's the benefit in that? By closing "bad" accounts like Right Wing white supremacy groups the public never sees their material which unless you happen to be one of them always discredits them. Censoring these unpopular groups only protects them from discrediting themselves from the larger public and we lose valuable clues or evidence in the event someone is plotting a crime or has already committed a crime.
In this particular story involving Manning, Google shutting down an account with information critical of the government makes Google and the government look bad. It does more harm to their public image than good. This material has already been available for a very long time and nothing new is learned. Why bother to censor? Neither Google nor the government stand to gain anything and only open themselves up to lose.
For all the censorship Google or the government engages in, in practice nothing of substance is ever covered up anyway.
Pre-hutton BBC was good and Al Jazeera still is. It's not all Goebbels, especially when that state media has a charter that asserts its independence and commitment to objective reporting.
One major problem with state-owned centralized media, in my opinion, is that objectivity usually degrades into propaganda whenever that's seriously requested by a senior government official, e.g. in times of war. IIRC the BBC was not always forthcoming about setbacks during the early parts of WWII, for example.
To play devils advocate - are you ok with YouTube brings discovery and hosting platform for extreme Islam propaganda, or neo nazi/far right? Or what about less extreme content deliberately designed to mislead and draw attention to an issue (see the constant barrage of lies published in tabloid newspapers directed at certain hot topics, ranging from slightly misleading to downright lies). I also don't see what the ISO…
Your comment has been deemed as recommending fascism by an automated algorithm. /s (which is so complex even Google doesn't know how it works) There isn't anything in this world that is not political. Everything is to a varying degree.
Technical documentation. Recipes. How-to pages. Some games. Some books.
Not everything is, should be, or needs to be political.