My sense is that unless content creators get views for calling out the behavior of other content creators, they risk losing likes and advertising revenue. Then they become the political agenda guy, and no longer the comic book movie critic, chef, video game expert, or theremin playing guy they were trying to portray. I'd like extremism resolved through naming and shaming, a living exile ideally, but I don't think drafting popular YouTubers to do so is completely realistic. Black Mirror, here we come?
YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
361–370 of 744 posts
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
White supremacy can be reasonably credited for the Holocaust, but not for the war itself. The usual intervention after a major war was for a few hundred years to carve up the major belligerent into smaller states. This happened fairly regularly throughout the early modern period but curiously stopped being a thing after the Napoleonic wars. I suspect this is because carving France back up into kingdoms at that point…
> White supremacy can be reasonably credited for the Holocaust, Not so! There is significant, though not watertight evidence that Hitler intended the Holocaust to be followed by mass extermination and enslavement of Slavic peoples (so-called Generalplan Ost), whom Nazi Germans regarded as an "inferior" race according to their racial ideology, and surely not "Aryan" - despite, y'know, Slavic languages sharing a common…
Sure. But to say the Nazis weren't white supremacists because their ideology differs from today's white supremacists isn't really saying anything at all. It's still racism, just differently defined.
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, a privately owned shopping mall is legally a "public square" in a number of states in the US, with the justification that it is explicitly a place for people to gather and interact, just like the main street of a town in the 19th century. Which of these cases is Youtube more like? It's already hard to tell, and it's continuing to change. I expect the legal status of online forums to evolve over the…
>On the other hand, a privately owned shopping mall is legally a "public square" in a number of states Even then, it does not mean that those malls should allow anyone to sell wares. What it means it allows people to visit without discrimination on basis of legally protected classes like gender and race. YouTube banning a channel does not ban individual from watching videos, it prevents them from uploading videos whi…
The original poster was referring to the Pruneyard rule, which is not about characteristics of shoppers (public accommodation), but about using the shopping mall's premises specifically to engage in speech directed to other shoppers.
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#364You ever been to a legit protest? Have you been near the police line at a protest when there are thousands of protesters and hundreds of police officers and tensions are high and really not nice stuff is being said all around? And the police officers just stand there at the ready. (Sometimes they don’t and they antagonize protestors or just plain assault then, but my experience has been that is the exception.) I have immense, enormous, huge respect for those officers. Sometimes the individual officers personal beliefs align with the protesters. Sometimes not. But they stand there. Just stand there. If things get violent then they shut things down. But a lot of times it feels like things don’t get violent because they are there and people know they will shut it down if things get violent. That’s what I want YouTube to be. YouTube should be the public infrastructure that is available for people to gather and exchange ideas upon, such that most people don’t even give a second thought to the importance of having public streets available to protest on, and the police are there when the law is broken or unprotected speech is spoken. That is it. The job doesn’t pay well. It’s not a glorified role. And it’s prob pretty miserable when things get heated. But it’s a beauty to behold when you step back from it all and take it in and see what is happening.
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not surprising there'd be groups advocating for that. They don't want to become a minority in their country, as both history and current events show that's a bad position to be in.
I can't tell if you're making a dispassionate explanation for why hate exists or if you're actually advocating for white supremacists...
My intent makes no difference, and the statement isn't limited to whites.
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#366Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, a privately owned shopping mall is legally a "public square" in a number of states in the US, with the justification that it is explicitly a place for people to gather and interact, just like the main street of a town in the 19th century. Which of these cases is Youtube more like? It's already hard to tell, and it's continuing to change. I expect the legal status of online forums to evolve over the…
>On the other hand, a privately owned shopping mall is legally a "public square" in a number of states Even then, it does not mean that those malls should allow anyone to sell wares. What it means it allows people to visit without discrimination on basis of legally protected classes like gender and race. YouTube banning a channel does not ban individual from watching videos, it prevents them from uploading videos whi…
> What it means it allows people to visit without discrimination on basis of legally protected classes like gender and race
No, the "public square" designation specifically allows people to do things like come to the mall and set up political protests and whatnot. It's not about _access_ to the mall; it's about speech protections.
Is uploading videos more akin to setting up a store at the mall, or more akin to standing on a soapbox at the mall and giving a political speech? It probably really depends on the video, on whether the video is being monetized, etc.
In particular, I feel there is an important distinction between demonetization and removal here, from an ethical/moral perspective. I can't speak to the legal perspective; I am not a lawyer.
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some people view free speech as more than a legal requirement. Its a philosophy of individual rights.
Wait what? The first amendment protections are just a limit on GOVERNMENT power. The right is that THE GOVERNMENT won't prevent your speech. Youtube isn't the government, therefore they can limit the fuck out of your speech when you're on their property. I think most agree that Government needs to be prevented from preventing our speech not that our neighbors must allow us to grandstand upon their property even if th…
You can argue that the Second Amendment was not written with machine guns and rocket launchers in mind. I'm going to argue that the First Amendment was not written with the foresight that nearly all of the total bandwidth of communication between all people would be done using technologies that transcend physical property.
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
> White supremacy is a much bigger deal with a worse tail risk than Islamic extremism. Wait... you're saying that white supremacy is worse than islamic extremism? Is you opinion perhaps a manifestation of your perspective? I'm sure there are some people in Syria, Afghanistan, etc... that would disagree with you. BTW, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, just that they are both bad, both a problem, and both sho…
White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century. A white nationalist uprising in Europe would be deadlier (again) than Islamic extremists taking over most middle eastern nations due to the resources that will be available to them.
If you're concerned about a white nationalist uprising, it seems to me that you must believe one of the following things. Either:
A) White nationalism is not in the interests of white people (perhaps because there is no such thing as white interests), but a very substantial number of white people are too stupid or immoral to come to that conclusion if allowed to discuss politics freely, and must be fed curated information to prevent them from falling under its spell, or
B) White nationalism is in the interests of white people, but we should stop them from persuing those interests for some other reason, or perhaps
C) Some other thing I haven't thought of.
Which is it?
Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
White supremacy can be reasonably credited for the Holocaust, but not for the war itself. The usual intervention after a major war was for a few hundred years to carve up the major belligerent into smaller states. This happened fairly regularly throughout the early modern period but curiously stopped being a thing after the Napoleonic wars. I suspect this is because carving France back up into kingdoms at that point…
> but not for the war itself. Have you never heard of Lebensraum? Generalplan Ost?
I'm not disputing that racism was at the heart of the Nazi Party, what I'm disputing is that the Nazi Party singlehandedly brought about the war. The war would have happened anyway. It would have been somewhat different without Hitler at the helm, but that Germany would give it another go was inevitable once the ink was dry on the Treaty of Versailles. There were many many more war hawks in Germany than the Nazis.