31–40 of 451 posts
YouTube has been changing in weird ways in the last year or so. The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be wrong on this). A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting comments, it seems th…
The Linux Experiment is probably my favourite linux-focussed YouTube channel. Nick has been doing absolutely fantastic work and his channel being permanently deleted would be an absolute travesty and a clear mistake. He is producing high quality, thoughtful, inoffensive content. Here's to hoping the channel is rightly reinstated ASAP, along with an apology and explanation from Google. Also, if you don't know the chan…
I for one am not looking forward to this. Youtube is no longer an acceptable platform for distributing your videos. If a person who makes good videos is forced out of youtube, that can only be a good thing. Hopefully their videos will help make another service more popular.
Youtube terms of service are public and unacceptable. People who get burned by them had it coming.
Why should we care? The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF. Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your homework first.
Why should we care? The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF. Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your homework first.
It should be on YouTube to provide evidence that they have.
Why should we care? The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF. Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your homework first.
How can Nick prove a negative? How about Youtube shows what violated the terms? Why can't they back up their claim with evidence, instead of Nick being forced to provide proof to disprove a claim without any?
Once again, using the private platform argument here: YouTube (owned by Google) reserves the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service. You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube. YouTube will never change…
Once again, using the private platform argument here: YouTube (owned by Google) reserves the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service. You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube. YouTube will never change…
> the private platform argument No part of what you said is an argument. Do private platforms have unlimited latitude? If not, what are the underlying philosophies underlying current limitations, and can those be seen to imply that other limitations should be made? Should private platforms have unlimited latitude? Those are discussions that could be had. "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want" is not on…
Who is arguing that? No need to create a straw-man argument.
> "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want"
Who are you quoting here?
So YouTube (owned by Google) doesn't reserve the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service?
I already said the offended users can appeal, didn't I? I'm just saying that not only this can happen to anyone, but YouTube (Google Inc.) will not change and we'll see more of this regardless if it is automated or not.
YouTube has been changing in weird ways in the last year or so. The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be wrong on this). A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting comments, it seems th…
This seems rather vague. Can you give examples of propaganda?
There have been countless articles and posts written about this problem over the last several years.
I would challenge _you_ to go educate yourself on this rather than ask others to bring this widely available and widely accepted information to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the private platform argument No part of what you said is an argument. Do private platforms have unlimited latitude? If not, what are the underlying philosophies underlying current limitations, and can those be seen to imply that other limitations should be made? Should private platforms have unlimited latitude? Those are discussions that could be had. "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want" is not on…
> Do private platforms have unlimited latitude? Who is arguing that? No need to create a straw-man argument. > "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want" Who are you quoting here? So YouTube (owned by Google) doesn't reserve the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service? I already said the offended users can appeal, didn't I?…
> Who are you quoting here?
Nobody. But if the fact that Google reserves the right to ban people for reasons described in its ToS is an argument for something, I'd like to know what else it could be an argument for. Who cares what Google reserves?
edit: I'm being sloppy. "Google reserved the right to delete for this reason," and "private things that reserve rights get them", and "Google is private" equals "Google gains this right." This would be an argument you could make. However, you haven't made this argument.
Are you making an argument about choosing youtube? I might be mistaking a pragmatic observation for a political/legal discussion.