21–30 of 217 posts
This is really scary. People who warned of the slippery slope of censorship were definitely right.
There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451
Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.
I had to Google what a Nootropic even was. TL;DR It is suggested they improve cognitive function (memory, focus, etc.). They are not fully regulated and you can find examples for sale on Amazon. As such, no idea if short or long-term usage is safe but it's interesting product if you simply read what the labels claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The owners of the platform. They are not a public service nor to they have to pretend to be one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space YouTube essentially has a monopoly on video. Monopolies and other actors can be forced to comply with public space laws or to respect principles that normally apply only to the government.
If we generate a serious following that is dependent on the platform we're giving up a tremendous degree of creative control and direction for our fans.
Not to mention the serious lock-down on live-streaming musical content, and copyright restrictions. If so much as five seconds of the wrong song is playing in the background, the whole episode gets pulled.
Can we do a cover of 'x'? Other people have, but will ours get pulled?
Here we have an instance where hundreds of other similar videos and channels exist, yet these three individuals were singled out.
If there was at least consistency in the censorship and copyright stuff, or a proper channel for communication, the platform would still be viable.
But, like the Apple iOS App Store, you can produce an entire project, upload it, and, if it even gets up there to start, you've basically just gotta cross your fingers and hope it stays there, because the right to pull it at any time is there.
tl;dr: at least if YouTube, Apple, etc, were consistent with censorship and offered proper channels of communication they would be much more viable platforms.
"Cronin’s YouTube channel was up to about 22,000 subscribers when he received a notice from YouTube about one of his videos, “Relax and Improve Your Sleep with Natural Calm Magnesium.” The notice said the video had been removed for violating YouTube’s community guidelines, but didn’t specify further." Magnesium isn't even a nootropic. That is, while it may have some ability to boost cognition, it isn't a substance pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The owners of the platform. They are not a public service nor to they have to pretend to be one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space YouTube essentially has a monopoly on video. Monopolies and other actors can be forced to comply with public space laws or to respect principles that normally apply only to the government.
YouTube will probably remove fitness videos soon, since some people invariably are stupid and will hurt themselves with the exercises on display, a completely analogous situation.
Exercise is much different from research chemicals. One difference is you don't need to buy exercise from shady sites that will eventually be shut down by the FDA.
And even if it was about RCs - talking about them and sharing experiences should be allowed, censorship of information only aids misuse.
"Cronin’s YouTube channel was up to about 22,000 subscribers when he received a notice from YouTube about one of his videos, “Relax and Improve Your Sleep with Natural Calm Magnesium.” The notice said the video had been removed for violating YouTube’s community guidelines, but didn’t specify further." Magnesium isn't even a nootropic. That is, while it may have some ability to boost cognition, it isn't a substance pr…
Problem is medical claims are highly regulated in the West. So there is a likely legal liability for youtube in the US and in the UK. In fact, they might have already had pressure from regulators.
It would help if YouTube would say so. I'm not sure Google's usual total opacity is going to play to their favor here. As I said in another comment, I personally see no reason to trust their judgment in these matters, but if they said "Hey, we're getting regulatory pressure from X about Y and we need to remove your stuff" that would be a step in the direction of restoring my trust. (I've got other reasons I'm very unlikely to ever trust them very much overall, but I am capable of nuance, so I have no problem saying I would at least trust them more.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The owners of the platform. They are not a public service nor to they have to pretend to be one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space YouTube essentially has a monopoly on video. Monopolies and other actors can be forced to comply with public space laws or to respect principles that normally apply only to the government.