621–630 of 872 posts
I’ll take the downvotes or whatever argumentation incoming but this is obviously (to me) Google being bad at technology and intentionally opaque about it, and just as mealy mouthed about the subject matter as always because they don’t give a fuck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In China you would risk being arrested for such a thing. Not just see your channel or video taken down by a platform.
In Canada you get arrested for peacefully protesting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-freedom-convoy-protest-a... Note all the attempts in the article to paint them as "armed" and "extremists". There was no violence, no destruction of property. It was a legal demonstration until it was made illegal by invoking the Emergencies act. And this use of the law in my opinion was an abuse as it clearly is for terrorist t…
But I don’t see how that’s related to the discussion about YouTube suspending a channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.
Or, if you don't like it, don't watch the channel or leave a dislike or comment why the claim is wrong. This isn't even a call to violence or targeted harassment. It's the opinion of a man about election results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s true that YouTube is a private entity and should be able to do whatever is in its profit maximizing interest. But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one pla…
> But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? No. > Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. The answer is no. Vimeo exists. Facebook and Twitter both feature user-generated video content. I hear TikTok is a thing. In addition to these platforms basically anyone can self-host in…
I’m not making a case for anything - I’m explaining the narrative behind a growing POV.
But I will say that YouTube is different than Facebook videos or TikTok. YouTube is meant to be a searchable video index across topics and time. It’s a video search engine and hosting service in one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others. That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.
Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how many "many" is, but my understanding is the vast majority of people involved were merely trespassing.
What would you call it if Democrats and BLM protesters had stormed the Capitol in 2017 demanding the vice president be hanged for not agreeing to turn over the election result? Please don't try and with a straight face claim it would be trespassing. I'd have called it insurrection.
Anyway, while I do disdain the use of violence for political ends, I do think the events have been exaggerated and misrepresented by the corporate press for political purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but the problem here is you're making a moral statement based on what YouTube is, making it an is-ought problem. Youtube ought to share the message of a president who incited a riot and tried to overthrow a democratic election, because it is blocking it. You're not addressing why YouTube is blocking it or the state of it's own rights as a private platform, just making blanket moral statements about opinion.
No the point is whether YouTube is better if it allows us to evaluate. I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. I don’t want to be treated like the child here though. If I click on a Ukraine war video or I want to find a quote from trump to pick apart there should not be filters preventing it. The product is better if I am in control. YouTube ought to stay out of it. It do…
This is a different argument.
You already have the agency of being in control, you can pick any platform to watch from. Youtube is exercising it's own right to censor, similar to how you want to censor for your kid, based on what you think is harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She raised specific complaints regarding the process, but never suggested that they invalidated the results. She proclaims the election was stolen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
No, she doesn't use the word stolen, and she conceded; but the article you linked to provides evidence of interference. > The investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton
> You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...
The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.
I must have missed the covenant to not enforce their patents that youtube extends to parties they've deplatformed and the indemnity they offer against the enforcement third party patent rights that they've obtained through cross licensing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Video streaming is not a monopoly It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened. The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear th…
>It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access. >The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. Whether or not the governm…
This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.