Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 217 posts

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#101

Post by Crash0v3rid3 »

joew42k wrote: post #88
amelius wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. A big chunk of our culture is hosted by that company. Not sure if that makes a difference, but imho, it should.

It totally does. Why is such a big chunk of our culture is hosted by a private company?

I guess because people chose to upload it there. We can’t stop people from going to YouTube, that’s where the audience is.

It’s a bit concerning that you mention being hosted by a “private” company. Would you prefer the government hosting this data?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#102

Post by JackCh »

otakucode wrote: post #97
JackCh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "my preferred definition of censorship specifies that it can only be done by governments, and [company] is not a government" rhetoric that always appears with these sort of stories is truly tiring and pedantic. Nobody here thinks that youtube is a government. The problem isn't people thinking that youtube is a government; the problem is people thinking that censorship is something only a government can do, or thi…

YouTube could not survive on its own. YouTube only exists so that Google can guarantee they see no competition in the video space. It loses money by the mountain-load. It is propped up by Google Search and the titanic amounts of money AdSense brings in. If you wanted to build a competitor to YouTube, you would need investors willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build the infrastructure - and willing to…

Maybe this makes this problem a candidate for nationalization then, but it's questionable at best if that would actually improve the situation (particularly for people residing outside of the country that nationalized it, presumably America.)

I'm just spitballing here, but if Youtube were handed over to the United States Postal Service (which has a reasonable but far from untarnished reputation for being content neutral. probably a better recent track record than google's), maybe that would be an improvement. Using tax dollars to subsidize a content neutral video platform would raise a lot of questions though, no least of which being how to handle monetization so that content producers get paid for what they upload. If the replacement platform can't compensate content producers, I don't think it will succeed. And of course it would also open the platform up to government directed censorship which can have more serious consequences than corporate directed censorship, but on the other hand gives the censored an arguably better chance of rectifying the situation through the courts. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_censorship#Countries_kn...)

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#103

Post by WillReplyfFood »

vertexFarm wrote: post #51
jrhurst wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is medical claims are highly regulated in the West. So there is a likely legal liability for youtube in the US and in the UK. In fact, they might have already had pressure from regulators.

“Nothing illegal, no medical advice offered, I've always been incredibly careful about this.” The article then goes on to name several videos with titles like "increase energy," "improve concentration and memory," "improve sleep," etc. Are there any lawyers around who know of a legal definition for "medical advice" or "medical claims?" Because these videos sound a lot like medical advice despite his insistence that t…

You obviously can do a blind test on yourself though- just mix your test substance with placebos at random- chronic the outcome on a day to day basis.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#104

Post by politician »

Tushon wrote: post #42
politician wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space YouTube essentially has a monopoly on video. Monopolies and other actors can be forced to comply with public space laws or to respect principles that normally apply only to the government.

That's so far from true. A "video hosting services" search away is >10 results, of which I recognize at least 3 as professional level excluding Youtube (Vimeo, Ooyala, and Wistia). They may not have the entire ecosystem around it, but you need to be a little specific if you want anything approaching a valid claim for "monopoly on video" _hosting_. If you're talking about traffic, that's a separate story and is only a…

When I search for video on search engines, I only see hits to YouTube and far far fewer hits to Vimeo. I never see hits for Ooyala and Wistia; honestly, you could be making those sites up for all I know.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#105

Post by kirykl »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #35
akvadrako wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not - just don't use youtube.

sure, feel free to use any of these alternative services that offer a large potential reach and allow easy monetization of user content:

in the US you have a right to free speech, not mass reach

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#106

Post by politician »

akvadrako wrote: post #27
politician wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space YouTube essentially has a monopoly on video. Monopolies and other actors can be forced to comply with public space laws or to respect principles that normally apply only to the government.

They don't have a monopoly - what an absurd idea. You can just publish videos on your own site.

Microsoft didn't abuse a monopoly on Windows in the 90s either, as you could just run a Linux distribution on your own machine. Right? Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Just because someone can run a small-time operation out of their garage, doesn't mean another company doesn't have a monopoly.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#107

Post by JackCh »

otakucode wrote: post #94
jerf wrote: post #9

"Cronin’s YouTube channel was up to about 22,000 subscribers when he received a notice from YouTube about one of his videos, “Relax and Improve Your Sleep with Natural Calm Magnesium.” The notice said the video had been removed for violating YouTube’s community guidelines, but didn’t specify further." Magnesium isn't even a nootropic. That is, while it may have some ability to boost cognition, it isn't a substance pr…

YouTube isn't going after 'crazy idea[s] in need of being censored.' They're going after anything they can to shut down as many small channels as they can. Their end goal is a situation akin to traditional TV networks. Far less variety, very much walled off from participation, and much more centralized. This will enable Eric Schmidt and his colleagues to exercise much more control over human culture. He explained tha…

I think this may be a case where the truth is difficult for the general public to believe because it sounds too "conspiratorial".

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#108

Post by politician »

tptacek wrote: post #30
politician wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space YouTube essentially has a monopoly on video. Monopolies and other actors can be forced to comply with public space laws or to respect principles that normally apply only to the government.

How exactly does Youtube have a monopoly on video? What's the underlying scarcity they're exploiting?

Ad placement via search results dominance.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#109

Post by busterarm »

JackCh wrote: post #102
otakucode wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube could not survive on its own. YouTube only exists so that Google can guarantee they see no competition in the video space. It loses money by the mountain-load. It is propped up by Google Search and the titanic amounts of money AdSense brings in. If you wanted to build a competitor to YouTube, you would need investors willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build the infrastructure - and willing to…

Maybe this makes this problem a candidate for nationalization then, but it's questionable at best if that would actually improve the situation (particularly for people residing outside of the country that nationalized it, presumably America.) I'm just spitballing here, but if Youtube were handed over to the United States Postal Service (which has a reasonable but far from untarnished reputation for being content neut…

I don't think nationalization is the answer, but busting up that monopoly probably is.

Google's entire business model seems to be to operate everything as a loss-leader for AdSense. It turns out that that's extremely anti-competitive and I'm growing to think that it probably should be illegal.

The only way that anyone can compete with the free services that Google provides is to run it off the profits from a massive cash cow like AdSense. Until somebody finds some service/revenue model that provides that, it's just not going to happen.

The only way that anyone can compete with AdSense is to own users interactions with the browser like Google's free services do. Until somebody owns that much of your traffic, no-one will compete with AdSense.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#110

Post by samlevine »

joew42k wrote: post #54

Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. Nobody's stopping makers of these videos from hosting the videos themselves. This is not censorship in the way we have traditionally understood. It only feels like it because Youtube is where the biggest audience is. It's the same whenever Facebook penalizes a post in the timeline, or whenever Google hides content from the search resul…

IANAL, but my non-expert understanding is that exercising editorial control (as opposed to just having site standards and censoring content that violates them) makes websites liable for content infringement.
Post reply on HN