YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#581

Post by dageshi » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #554

dageshi wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I think there's a core distinction between hosting content and as you put it "finding new content for them". Hosting may fall under some common carrier scenario, but recommendations/search fall under curation and curation is very much back in the realm of TV/newspapers where the proprieter exercises control. I think that does entitle them to shape the political conversation, although I could see some argument fo…

>Then I think there's a core distinction between hosting content and as you put it "finding new content for them". Yes of course those two things are different, but YouTube does both of them and both of them are necessary for meaningful participation in the public political debate. >but recommendations/search fall under curation and curation is very much back in the realm of TV/newspapers where the proprieter exercis…

I think google will largely remove content at the edges that it deems to be offensive or dangerous both to its audience and to its reputation, much the same way reddit went through a recent cleanup of similar "communities". So long as they are transparent with what they're removing, I really don't have a problem. I distinctly believe that a right to free speech is not a right to have an audience provided to you. If you want to build such a community on your own site then by all means, that's your prerogative and that's the freedom the web gives you.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#582

Post by HBKXNCUO » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #575

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying. >then you message is inherently violent Can you please be specific and give an example…

You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. (a) and (c) are contradictory. Supposedly you are justifying this by assuming YouTube is the only platform from which one can peacefully advocate their interests. It is n…

>You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence.

No, I'm not. First, the people driven to violence are not necessarily going to be the content producers. The audience can also be driven to violence by seeing the message they agree with censored. Second, the point is that there are no other equivalent platforms to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, in terms of their reach.

>It is not.

What are the other platforms where people can meaningfully participate in the public political debate?

>You could even return to YouTube with moderated content.

It's up to YouTube to decide what counts as "moderated content". They are currently under no obligation to act in good faith.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#583

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #578

root_axis wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote), but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub... None of the top channels are political. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in t…

>The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote) Young people eventually grow up to vote. Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? >but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there. > https://en.wi…

> Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube?

They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance.

> OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there.

And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well, that doesn't mean it's important.

> The second to most subscribed channel is not political as its main function, but there is most definitely political content on there.

PewDiePie is not a political channel and is completely irrelevant with regard to politics.

> Do you have any evidence to support the idea that people speaking on soapboxes are so important to politics that the government should step in to prevent municipalities from regulating their messages?

What?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#584

Post by LifeLiverTransp » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

AndrewStephens wrote: post #136

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…

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.

Comments would be better if there was a enforced delay in the conversation, and you would have to sign off on what you wrote. 24h laters, the rage of the past would be seen indignified by many.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#585

Post by fwip » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

QualityReboot wrote: post #579

fwip wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a trans woman, so I'm gonna go ahead and be gentle when I say that my understanding does not match yours. Some trans women are as you describe, preoccupied with passing and going stealth, especially for safety reasons. Many aren't. You can speculate on if the term is gonna go away, but right now it's the best adjective to describe trans people. It's not offensive or a slur, it's literally the community's chosen l…

I made my attempt to explain it upthread for cis folks who haven't got it sorted yet. I'm surprised that my understanding is already out of date or was wrong in the first place. Maybe 5 years ago or so, the rule I learned was that cis people should make no distinction between trans or cis, so as not to separate people into groups. I figured that extended to everything, which is why we don't make a distinction between…

Thanks, upvoted. :)

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#586

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

LinuxBender wrote: post #333

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but Youtube can delete whatever they want. It's their site. AFAIK, most people don't have legally binding contracts stating that Youtube must keep all their videos online. Even the big streamers that make money off Youtube have to follow whatever guidelines Youtube come up with. I bet there is wording that says something to the effect of "Subject to revision..." or like that…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#587

Post by HBKXNCUO » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #583

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote) Young people eventually grow up to vote. Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? >but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there. > https://en.wi…

> Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance. > OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there. And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well, that doesn't mean it's important. > The second t…

>They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance.

Outsized in comparison with what?

>And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well, that doesn't mean it's important.

Political videos on youtube have billions of views.

>PewDiePie is not a political channel and is completely irrelevant with regard to politics.

Like I said, not the main function of the channel, but there is certainly politically oriented content. Do you think his politically oriented content has no impact on the politics of his ~100 million audience?

I believe you're either acting in bad faith on this topic, or are unaware of https://www.newsweek.com/pewdiepie-christchurch-shooting-mos...

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#588

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #541

vowelless wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2.

WW2 was largely a war amongst whites and amongst east asians. It doesn't really map onto White Supremacy neatly. I'm surprised you didn't point to colonialism instead, which would be a better argument.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#589

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

dgjrhgi wrote: post #513

bityard wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Is there any service that compiles relevant news(filtering out propaganda etc.). I would prefer an team of people doing the compile by manually going through various news sources and sending out the summary email to subscribers. That would be a huge time saver for me. I wouldn't milk paying money for that kind of service.

That's the mission of most news providers.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#590

Post by repolfx » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

basementcat wrote: post #351

asdf21 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What no one really wants to admit here on YC is that the userbase here is something like the top .01% of (intelligence / literacy / analytical skills). Hell, even reddit, as low-brow as that has gotten, is still top 1% easily. But there are still plenty of staggeringly oblivious views in both places. It's hard to admit that dichotomy, because when we realize that the top 1% or .01% can still be so ignorant, we also g…

The major consequence of this for me is that it has caused me to reevaluate my views on representative democracy. Edit: As a clarification, while I still tend toward a preference for representative democracy, I now acknowledge that it is possible for a fruitful and productive society to flourish in systems that some may label as an "oppressive dictatorship".

Major consequence of what? If we accept for a moment the extremely questionable proposition that HN and Reddit posters are some sort of intellectual elite, yet "there are still plenty of staggeringly oblivious views in both places", all that means is that you wouldn't be able to find an enlightened dictator, would you?

And indeed what we see is that oppressive dictatorships never have high quality people running them. They're always overrun with corruption, absurd ideas, forged statistics, pseudo-intellectual waffle (see: the books and political thinking created by the leaders of the USSR) and to the extent they may seem more intelligent or erudite than the working classes it's only because they craft their image so carefully.

You say you now acknowledge it's possible for a "fruitful and productive society to flourish" in an oppressive dictatorship, but what on earth are you thinking of here? Surely not China, which has thrown millions of its own citizens into concentration camps, trashed its environment, routinely seems to report false GDP numbers, relies on capital controls to keep the rich Chinese from leaving, is famous throughout the world for IP theft, has practically disconnected itself from the global internet and has radically misallocated resources in many well documented ways? That fruitful and productive society?