Live data from Hacker News

YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

nytimes.com

611–620 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#611

I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…

Is a privately owned museum a "public square"? Or a sports stadium owned by a private company? Or a Cinema? Or a threatre? No, neither is youtube. It's a place the public visit not a piece of public infrastructure. Repeating "public square" over and over again does not make it so.

Well, social media is heavily based on network effects, so it's not like consumers can just leave one platform for another and reach the same people.

If your cell company prevented you from calling your crazy uncle on Christmas eve because he believed aliens built the pyramids, that would be considered a violation of your right to free speech AND free association, and it would be very creepy.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant to say "You're not pro-LGBT if you think women aren't women." Why are you segregating "trans women" as different than just "women"?

Because they are different. No transwoman can give birth or have a period. None of them has a womb. None of them are genetically female. Most of them have all the advantages of a man like higher bone density, more upper body strength. Why are you so afraid of different groups of people being physically different? As long as you treat all groups as humans, it shouldn't be a problem. Denying basic biological facts is n…

The distinction is supposed to be that "biological facts" no longer include gender. Gender is now fluid psychological term, not a biological one. In other words, you said "advantages of a man" instead of "advantages of a genetic male", which is now wrong.

But apparently I'm incorrect in thinking that you're not supposed to discuss "trans women" as a group, which is still confusing to me.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a privately owned shopping mall is legally a "public square" in a number of states in the US, with the justification that it is explicitly a place for people to gather and interact, just like the main street of a town in the 19th century. Which of these cases is Youtube more like? It's already hard to tell, and it's continuing to change. I expect the legal status of online forums to evolve over the…

I assure you that if you were to set up a booth in a shopping mall and start screaming slurs and lecturing about how gays and blacks and Jews are undermining the foundations of the superior white civilization, you would very quickly be removed from the mall.

That seems probable, yes.

What if you set up a booth in a shopping mall in the spring of 2016 in California or Massachusetts and gave away pro-Trump stickers? I assure you there are plenty of people out there in both states, many of them likely working on YouTube, who view that as equivalent to your hypothetical. I know a number of them personally.

Trust me, I'm not a fan of the sort of rhetoric you describe. But I also don't like slippery slopes with no guardrails. I expect we'll end up with guardrails here in the end, after a few decades and a bunch of court cases, but it's going to take a while.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is this supposed to threaten me? I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. >You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that. The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. >You can't display swastikas in a Bundesl…

> The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. And it's a good idea to force private spaces to allow everything on their spaces or declaring it public spaces even if they are not? What about the implications? If your private space becomes a public space, does it make you some kind of government? > As I understand, you can't display them anywhere i…

>And it's a good idea to force private spaces to allow everything on their spaces or declaring it public spaces even if they are not?

It's a good idea to force some of them to allow some things. You don't believe private property rights are somehow absolute, do you? You understand that there can be competing concerns that are more important than property rights is some cases, surely.

>If your private space becomes a public space, does it make you some kind of government?

I'm not sure what that means. Plenty of private companies are heavily regulated, such as utilities. They're not governments.

>The amount of people present on a private property do not take away the owners rights.

Tell that to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

>Nobody takes that away from them. They can still express themselves elsewhere. Those places exist.

Anyone can express himself in his own living room. But that doesn't do him any good. Telling certain people that they can't express themselves somewhere that it matters, while letting other people express other political viewpoints in that same place, and justifying that by telling them they are free to express themselves in a dark room, is not going to be particularly satisfying to them. Sure, anyone can go put his videos on a website of his own creation, but if no one is on that website, it's not going to do any good. And people know that. Your alternatives are not real alternatives, because they don't solve the problem those people are trying to solve.

>And I guess this is the core of the problem.

Your problem, perhaps. Not mine.

>based upon a misunderstanding of private vs. public.

What do you think I'm misunderstanding? I know what you mean by censorship, and I don't care to make you feel otherwise about the meaning of that word. I don't care if what YouTube is doing meets your definition of censorship. I care if people think YouTube should be stopped from doing what it is doing, regardless of what word is used to describe it.

>But they should. Especially if you want concern for your own position. This is how a healthy society works.

You're referring to people in different countries, where there is what you call real censorship. I don't live in a place that qualifies under your definition, so I'm not part of their society. And I'm not looking for sympathy from them.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Outsized in comparison with what? With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. > Political videos on youtube have billions of views So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform. > Do you think his politically oriented content has no impact on the politics o…

>With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. Which platforms in particular are you referring to? >So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform. I'm not saying that either. I'm saying it should be prohibited from curating its own platform because it's popular…

> Which platforms in particular are you referring to?

HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, voat, snapchat, tumblr, livejournal, gab, vimeo, dailymotion, metacafe and many others.

> because it's where a substantial part of the public political debate takes place.

Define "substantial part". I would argue that it is not at all substantial and the evidence is on my side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_vi...

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a privately owned museum a "public square"? Or a sports stadium owned by a private company? Or a Cinema? Or a threatre? No, neither is youtube. It's a place the public visit not a piece of public infrastructure. Repeating "public square" over and over again does not make it so.

On the other hand, a privately owned shopping mall is legally a "public square" in a number of states in the US, with the justification that it is explicitly a place for people to gather and interact, just like the main street of a town in the 19th century. Which of these cases is Youtube more like? It's already hard to tell, and it's continuing to change. I expect the legal status of online forums to evolve over the…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are different. No transwoman can give birth or have a period. None of them has a womb. None of them are genetically female. Most of them have all the advantages of a man like higher bone density, more upper body strength. Why are you so afraid of different groups of people being physically different? As long as you treat all groups as humans, it shouldn't be a problem. Denying basic biological facts is n…

The distinction is supposed to be that "biological facts" no longer include gender. Gender is now fluid psychological term, not a biological one. In other words, you said "advantages of a man" instead of "advantages of a genetic male", which is now wrong. But apparently I'm incorrect in thinking that you're not supposed to discuss "trans women" as a group, which is still confusing to me.

Sure, gender is different from sex. The point stands. There are major biological differences between females and trans women. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a part of life. Pretending everyone is equal is just lying to yourself.

But of course, people should be treated equally (in most cases).

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a privately owned museum a "public square"? Or a sports stadium owned by a private company? Or a Cinema? Or a threatre? No, neither is youtube. It's a place the public visit not a piece of public infrastructure. Repeating "public square" over and over again does not make it so.

Do any of those places host a substantial portion of the public political debate? If any of those places banned people, would that significantly reduce the ability of those people to meaningfully participated in the public political debate?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.

I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.

Parent made broad claims without evidence. Maybe those convinced you. They did not convince me. If you cannot respect that then what is the point of a discussion?

Also, I said I want "some objective proof". You twisted that into "complete proof". Its funny that you are doing the exact thing you're accusing me of.

Post reply on HN