YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

Post by pests » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 9:59 PM UTC

tropdrop wrote: post #16

LiquidPolymer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. I admit I am attracted to these stories and try to choose carefully. If I may - two recommendations: "My Only Story" - an adult man notices with horror that the man who secretly raped him as a school boy in South Africa is still working as a teacher. He quits his job and starts…

Don't forget Robert Durst of The Jinx – an American real estate heir got away with murder for decades. The Jinx was a true crime documentary for which Durst, for some reason, agreed to be interviewed. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but at some point throughout the interviewing Durst gave himself away and the evidence accrued within the documentary ended up being used to finally put him behind bars for life.

I was going to comment on this one.

I actually just watched the earlier movie about this case.

All Good Things

Which led Durst into doing his first ever interview with the creator who then went on to create The Jinx which led to his arrest.

Post by singleshot_ » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 10:59 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #49

singleshot_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” but merely not within the scope of the coherent speech product YouTube seeks to produce. This is, of course, their right single the platform belongs to them. You can make such videos all day long, but you would have to deliver them yourself, which is consistent with how free speech works in America.

> Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” They're "banned" on youtube, which many people would argue is a monopoly. Certainly banning specific types of content on the largest and most popular video platform will have a massive impact on how many people will ever see that kind of content I don't think it's unreasonable to raise concerns about censorship on platforms that have a disproportionate impact on what…

Anyone who would argue that YouTube is a monopoly would probably also argue that Burger King and McDonald’s are monopolies. I agree that refusing to distribute snuff porn on YouTube probably has deleterious effects in the audience for that content.

But it is unreasonable and against the core free market principles of our capitalist society for you to be too concerned about what I publish with my web site. I have a first amendment right and you can’t force me, my company, or my property to carry speech.

Which isn’t to say you can’t be concerned about lack of visibility for content that’s banned by big platforms. You can. You probably should! But compelled private speech is not the answer, which is why you will, for example, frequently get pushback against the idea that this is even censorship. (I’m pedantic, but not enough so to adopt that view).

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI