Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content. That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent. You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to
You don't defeat bad ideas by promoting them either; you defeat them with shame, i.e. consequences for being willfully ignorant or acting like a jackass. But the internet rarely delivers meaningful feedback to the folks that craft this type of "distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content." Now, you might be the sort of person that would choose to live with a group of sadistic trolls for the edification that might re…
You can't defeat bad ideas with shaming; shaming means you don't have an argument and are approaching the topic as a belief. You cannot persuade others with your beliefs.
You can defeat ideas only with better, well argumented ideas.
You don't defeat bad ideas by promoting them either; you defeat them with shame, i.e. consequences for being willfully ignorant or acting like a jackass. But the internet rarely delivers meaningful feedback to the folks that craft this type of "distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content." Now, you might be the sort of person that would choose to live with a group of sadistic trolls for the edification that might re…
You can't defeat bad ideas with shaming; shaming means you don't have an argument and are approaching the topic as a belief. You cannot persuade others with your beliefs. You can defeat ideas only with better, well argumented ideas.
I used to believe that as well. But it seems that even a "well argumented" idea can get very little traction unless the circumstances are right, i.e. your interlocutor doesn't care much about the topic. There was some study about this a little bit ago, where pointing out problems with an erroneous but established "fact" just caused people to dig further into their position, even after the "fact" their position was supposedly based on was proved to be completely and irredeemably false.
This is the problem with letting idiots and hucksters push out garbage "facts" - they build communities that are uninterested in counter-arguments. It doesn't even matter if the "facts" are somehow eventually refuted, because the attitudes informed by them have already hardened. And, the only way I can think of to prevent those idiots and hucksters from being so effective is to introduce some kind of social restraint - thus, shame.
Every other generation: a degenerate who deserves to be thrown in prison or die of aids. Let’s not pretend that the older generations have any moral high ground regarding non traditional sexualities.
No need to pretend. I hate to break it to you, but millennials weren't the first gay people. Gay people were accepted in society for a very long time before 2000. There wasn't suddenly some kind of awakening and the world changed. Yes, there was persecution, just as there is today. But nothing near what Hollywood likes to make you young people believe in other to sell tickets and streams.
> But nothing near what Hollywood likes to make you young people believe in other to sell tickets and streams.
Maybe I got my information instead from friends who are history faculty who study queer history? Or maybe it comes from family experience of a gay relative who was unable to see his dying lover during the AIDS crisis because his lover's parents were bigots and the law didn't recognize their relationship?
Videos are big. I have a YouTube channel and don't back my videos up. Quite the opposite, I regularly delete them to free up harddisk space. I do cross post them to lbry.tv though which I've found a lot better than peertube.
First time I've heard of lbry.tv - just curious, what's the main attraction for you?
Features and monetization. Peer tube instances had serious upload limits, and it’s been a while since I looked but there were some major missing features like descriptions or editing or something. I actually really like pornhub’s monetization options but there is no audience there for the videos I make. Lbry struck a balance between features and not a porn site.
I make computer security videos so there is a non negligible chance my YouTube will get deleted.
YouTube is free to do what they want but sensible actions should be informed by the law. Currently, you can't be charged with anything for describing how to do something. It goes even further: you can sell a kit with instructions on how to make something illegal and this is perfectly fine.
Piracy is illegal.
We should make it legal. Copyright should be abolished.
I can't stop thinking about the concept of "policy-based innovation" a new startup could build off of to disrupt an industry, but I feel like it violates one of the primary tenets of Starting a Startup because a big player can theoretically "just change their policy" to eat your lunch. For example (given enough capital), is there genuinely an opportunity to build a YouTube-like platform that simply doesn't have the p…
Ideally people would host their own content. Then there would be no "policy" at all. Every channel should be its own website, and if they want they could engage in mutual link agreements with other content creators they like. Something like wordpress for video content, and maybe with some torrent tech involved so more viewers would distribute the bandwidth.
There is Peertube which is part of the Fediverse, where multiple instances each with their own policies exist.
You can have an account on an instance and still discover/follow content on other instances (if they were not banned by your instance owner)
To me this seems like a good middle ground between having your own website and relying on a monopolistic service.
Downside still is that your identity is fixed to an instance, but there are discussions on how to change that.
It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information somehow mints cybercriminals; however, this is the position YouTube has repeatedly and is increasingly taking with striking innocent content creators sharing information about how security vulnerabilities work and how to test for them. This type of content is widely available on mainstream online blog sites, in published books, and through established,…
I believe this is why it's important to have your own domain name, so you can have your own website with content you create and control. If you just want to make funny cat videos (or something similar) then YouTube is probably not a bad choice.
It still doesn't work. It's sad but even payment processors are able to make editorial decisions on who can accept payments. You can control all your content and still be at the mercy of payment processors, ISP, domain hosts, and even getting delisted or hidden from Google basically kills your website. It's even worse when you see all of these working in concert together. I believe all in the same weekend Alex Jones was banned from Facebook, Google, Twitter, and even Paypal after he made a video harassing a journalist. It's not like Alex Jones was doing anything that bad, basically just shouting at some dude for like 10 minutes, but they basically said that's enough and somehow all together decided in one fell swoop to implement the Ban. Apple joined shortly after banning him from iTunes. Pornhub recently just had Mastercard and Visa cooperate together to stop providing payments to them. Now whether all those were deserved is a debate, but it just shows that even without government intervention, no company, business, or person is safe from basically being forcibly removed entirely from where all traffic on the internet occurs, at the whim of a consortium of massive companies working together.
I think it’s clear that we have fundamentally differing opinions on what constitutes “ethics”. If I make something, it’s perfectly ethical for me to decide my criteria for giving it to somebody else. If the cost I impose or the restrictions I require are too onerous, nobody is going to agree to enter into a transaction with me. But if they do, they’ve agreed to pay my cost and abide by my terms. The same is true of m…
You're free to sell software at any cost the recipient is willing to pay, at least such that it squares with your concience. However, if you don't sell the source code with it , I consider that unethical. Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different. We have social obligations. That's what being a society is .
Hmm, just to try and understand your view a little better, it sounds by that logic that toy makers should also provide technical schematics when they sell toys so that consumers could add or fix elements of what they bought?
If they run ads on them they do. Demonetized just means the creators don’t see any.
YouTube doesn't run ads on demonetized videos - that's what demonetizing a channel is all about. It means the advertisers don't want to pay for the ads to show next to those videos.