YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#41

Post by atomical » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #37

pboutros wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451

The channels in question aren't accused of containing false/misleading videos, they're accused of containing disallowed facts. Noone disputes that modafinil promotes wakefulness or that magnesium makes many sleepy.

Facts, lies, or unproven?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#42

Post by Tushon » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

politician wrote: post #16

butterfi wrote: post #6

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.

That's so far from true. A "video hosting services" search away is >10 results, of which I recognize at least 3 as professional level excluding Youtube (Vimeo, Ooyala, and Wistia). They may not have the entire ecosystem around it, but you need to be a little specific if you want anything approaching a valid claim for "monopoly on video" _hosting_. If you're talking about traffic, that's a separate story and is only a sign they are generally providing a usable product.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#43

Post by weego » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

sometimelydat wrote: post #23

They will not stop at nootropics, nor psychedelics; They will stop at nothing.

I mean, I think you'd find they would stop at content that was suitable for their ad partners to run profitable ad campaigns on. That is after all how they keep the lights on.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#44

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:48 PM UTC

fmihaila wrote: post #21

pboutros wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451

> There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451 reply Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.

"False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam."

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#45

Post by josteink » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:48 PM UTC

While it seemed against the times when I, in the age of YouTube, Spotify and Netflix, decided to start to build my media library with Plex...

...with artists suddenly withdrawing their music from streaming services...

...and Netflix constantly upping their price while enforcing ever more stringent HW-requirements for “good enough” DRM throughout your media rig for “premium” content...

...and YouTube happy to censor anything not approved by the Sanfran extreme left...

I have to say I really start appreciating having a personally curated, persistent library of media which is mine to own, and mine to decide where and how I use.

Everything old is new again, I guess.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#46

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:49 PM UTC

LoSboccacc wrote: post #35

akvadrako wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not - just don't use youtube.

sure, feel free to use any of these alternative services that offer a large potential reach and allow easy monetization of user content:

None of the alternative services will get there if no one is willing to use them.

There is always the old fashioned way of getting sponsors yourself and hosting the video on your site.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#47

Post by vkou » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:49 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #14

pboutros wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451

Depends on who gets to decide what "false/misleading" is. I'm not sure how this could be any less transparent. I personally see less than no reason to trust YouTube's judgment in these matters.

Any time you open the paper, turn on the TV, crack open a book, or visit Hacker News, you are trusting some curator, gatekeeper, editor, or censor's judgement.

Even bazaars like 4chan are moderated.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#48

Post by jstandard » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

avoutthere wrote: post #34

The timing suggests that this might be related to GDPR.

In what way do you think this relates to GDPR?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#49

Post by emodendroket » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #36

jerf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on who gets to decide what "false/misleading" is. I'm not sure how this could be any less transparent. I personally see less than no reason to trust YouTube's judgment in these matters.

So should it be illegal to run a curated platform?

It certainly presents problems when all the most popular channels for communication are controlled by a handful of companies.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#50

Post by crankylinuxuser » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 8:55 PM UTC

That's a bummer. But I guess Google knows better, or something.

Pardon me, while I go watch "Peppa Pig Goes to the dentist crying Elsa". It's been on YT since Feb 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVx4hA0Tcdo

Aside the snark, its time to regulate how our data is used, what decisions are made upon it, and a proper grievance for companies that do that. The GDPR is a good start, to be honest.