111–120 of 701 posts
I read up on what causes cancer so I can avoid those things.
I read up on security breaches because I'm interested in designing the D programming language so D programs are less susceptible to hacking attacks.
There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end to the demands to ban certain content. And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things…
Aren't we evaluating these things on their own terms now? It's definitely possible to have a YouTube that is harsh on calls to violence but allows cyber-security instructionals.
We're not sliding down the slope just yet. We took a step too low and need to climb back up.
edit:
I should not have used "we" above, since only Alphabet controls the platform.
To clarify, I don't think this is the natural end of a "slippery slope" from removing hateful/violent videos from YouTube.
This was not an inevitability of moderation. It is possible to have a "YouTube" that takes down violent content and leaves educational material up.
If it makes them money and no one in power objects, it stays up (see harassment of Carlos Maza). If it jeopardizes those in power or YouTube's bottom line, it comes down.
Moderation is not to blame. Profit motive is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sooner than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay with our freedom Just wanted to point out that I found this to be a powerful quote. Well said.
It's sooner. If you dig it's not hard to find videos of highly-placed employees of these companies talking about how they plan on manipulating future elections. It goes far beyond anything that Russia has even been accused of doing in the past three years, but it's the "right people" saying it, so it's not a scandal.
Not anymore a conspiracy theory. This is the actual big brother modeling our futures, a group of people powerful enough, with their own interests and their own agenda with access to most peoples minds/lives, and who already publicly explained how they plan to influence on global geopolitics and society building. I find it disturbing this level of censorship. At first, it was pedophiles, murders and violent criminal a…
This is on the same day I am seeing images of tanks being prepped for a military parade in Washington and standing room only concentration camps on the border.
I don't know which words to use now in this new era, but we're certainly not Americans any more, and we're definitely not free. This is something else entirely new.
Not anymore a conspiracy theory. This is the actual big brother modeling our futures, a group of people powerful enough, with their own interests and their own agenda with access to most peoples minds/lives, and who already publicly explained how they plan to influence on global geopolitics and society building. I find it disturbing this level of censorship. At first, it was pedophiles, murders and violent criminal a…
I don't think anyone is stopping you from putting your hacking video on your own website and letting users download it. That would be censorship. This is merely an aggregator/community that doesn't want to pay to distribute your content. So pay someone else!
Youtube updating its policy to ban videos they have already monetized from, while the creators get nothing. Youtube is a monopoly. Creators need to get off YT, and onto something else if it exists.
> if it exists Herein lies the problem.. Most creators/uploaders know on some level that YT is a toxic monopoly and would be happy to jump ship. Granted some more than others, but I've never observed any sense of loyalty towards the platform - it's just where everyone goes to share and watch videos. However, switching to vimeo/DTube/flixxo/etc means less views and smaller paychecks. Why would content creators in the…
Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city is so beautiful and provides for their every need. In the coming years, people who want to paint their house blue badly enough to leave paradise are heavily scrutinized and eventually considered outcasts.
Over the years, more and more colors are slowly banned, one by one. People start to notice and complain once their favorite color is outlawed. But decades have passed since Emperor G's generous invitation. Entire generations have lived, died, and raised children inside the city. No one knows how to navigate the wilderness anymore. And even if they could, why would they want to? Thorns and weeds have overgrown the wasteland; it's much safer to stay inside the city walls. Besides, it's cozy and we have everything we need in here.
In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses said aggregator/community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship?
Rhetorical question: If a YouTube video can show how to bypass it, does it really count as a "secure" system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could definitely get behind your point if the subject were the government. It's not, though I understand the sentiment is the same. At the end of the day YouTube is a private company. Yea, a very big one with huge reach, but private nonetheless. Taking a subjective moral position is something companies have been doing for a long time. If you disagree with them, don't give them your $ (don't use youtube).
Expect, YouTube is a monopoly in monetizing video content. It's like asking an app developer to not publish with [Apple, Google] if they disagree with their policies. Sure, they can choose to not publish, but with that choice goes away the ability to monetize their app in the real world Big tech has gotten even more powerful and necessary at a practical level, with none of the guarantees of fair treatment the governm…
I know this might not be a popular opinion. But showing people how to hack systems... that seems like an OK thing to ban. It's a crime. Teaching people how to commit a crime has always been not OK.
I don't know about banning something because it leads to illegal activity, however I do see why they ban some content. I'm Pro 2a but YouTube was demonetizing, and even removing some, many firearm videos 1-2 years ago and it had everyone in the firearm community in an uproar and the people screaming the most were the uploaders that had videos along the lines of: "what happens if I shoot a barbie doll with a 50 cal" "…
I seem to recall Mythbusters baking a loaded .44 Magnum in an oven, and that was on corporate broadcast TV.
I can't speak for the average person, but if I find myself curious about the results of something obviously dangerous, I like to look up a video of someone else doing it so I can find out with no risk. I don't find myself wanting to replicate dangerous experiments once I've watched a video.