YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #172

skrowl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google / Facebook are private companies, and they should absolutely be able to pick and choose what is posted on their platform if they want. However, they SHOULD NOT be able to have it both ways where they censor posts they don't like (like a publisher would do) but enjoy protections afforded to actual open / neutral platforms. Once you start censoring things that aren't breaking any laws, you're now a PUBLISHER and…

The problem that you're missing, is that these companies choose the aspects of being a publisher when it's convenient to them and a platform what that is more convenient. Publishers are responsible for the content that they put out. The New York Times can't publish some of the things that people put on Facebook without legal repercussions. When the government wants to stop some behavior happening on Facebook, Faceboo…

Post by decoyworker » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #107

I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…

Post by untog » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

whenchamenia wrote: post #260

untog wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to not be understanding my point. The videos being removed are not some "radical right" that serves as the opposite of your definition of "radical left". They are "channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies". BLM, Antifa, etc. are not the "left" equivalent of these "right" viewpoints.

As someone who finds them both distasteful and hateful; yes, they are very similar. All sides need to reign in their extremists, or become defined by them.

Post by ap3 » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #107

I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…

Post by gfodor » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

bityard wrote: post #188

AndrewStephens wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was shocked when news sites started publishing comments as a matter of course. They worked so hard to research and create a 2000 word article that accurately reflects the world (in accordance to their editorial guidelines) using their good name - and then let fReEtHiNkErChAd and 2020BloodInTheStreets chime in at the end. It would be OK if they strictly moderated the comments, but few sites seem to do that.

> They worked so hard to research and create a 2000 word article that accurately reflects the world (in accordance to their editorial guidelines) using their good name I'm not sure which news sites you read but most of the ones I've seen count only as journalism in a very vague and abstract sense. The information is thin, the writing poor, and major important questions go unanswered and ignored. If there is indeed an…