Not even the president is safe from censors..
YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
681–690 of 872 posts
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#682Fuck YouTube. If they're going to control what news I get, I'll choose other than YouTube. I do not need them. I have read from both hard left and hard right, and am intelligent enough to make my own decisions about what makes sense. Let them play their games, whether silly or dangerous. I form my own opinions. Losers!
This isn't about you, it's about the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction. YouTube isn't a news network. It's a video platform catering to a global audience, many of whom are really really bad critical thinking. Same with Facebook. We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad. I'…
> We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad.
Not true because law enforcement is still in place to take care of crime. Some amount of crime and confusion are also the price you pay to get the benefits of freedom.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#683Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#684A strange decision, but so is the decision to watch news on YouTube.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#685Moderating a top web destination today isn't possible to do correctly. You could automate moderation with ML, automatic recognition, user-flagging but the sheer number of false positives, and alleged false positives, means you basically need to have a full human moderation team to have real accuracy. You could just use human moderators, but then you have to pay for them all. Ads based websites can't afford that. You…
I think the main thing lacking on modern platforms is a quick, reliable way to verify the reputation of any given content creator. First off, it obviously needs to be relative reputation, and not centralizedI think some sort of cross platform web of trust, where you publicly endorse some friends, some content creators, and some investigative journalists, etc. You also publicly repudiate sources of information that yo…
So, like, a social credit score....?
I'm being quite reductive, but at the same time your points could be interpreted to resemble the concept. Fruit for thought
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? What's the difference? It's not whether it's public or private making the decisions (they are both considering the amount spent in lobbying), it's the degree of control you ought to worry about. There needs to be an actual free market where people have a realistic set of alternatives. Pointing out public versus private is IMO misidentifying the problem.
> Really? What's the difference? For starters, Google doesn't get to raise a private army or arrest The Hill for misuse of their services.
Historical various East India Companies did exactly that while also holding monopolies.
With enough size and political influence they could do it, it just hasn't been in fashion.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#687Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but the problem here is you're making a moral statement based on what YouTube is, making it an is-ought problem. Youtube ought to share the message of a president who incited a riot and tried to overthrow a democratic election, because it is blocking it. You're not addressing why YouTube is blocking it or the state of it's own rights as a private platform, just making blanket moral statements about opinion.
No the point is whether YouTube is better if it allows us to evaluate. I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. I don’t want to be treated like the child here though. If I click on a Ukraine war video or I want to find a quote from trump to pick apart there should not be filters preventing it. The product is better if I am in control. YouTube ought to stay out of it. It do…
Reality is any platform without moderation turns into a cesspool. Individually you want to be in control, but in aggregate the product rots. I can’t really think of any user generated content product without some form of control that hasn’t turned into complete shit. If you know of any please enlighten me.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#688Earlier quoted context omitted.
The restaurant isn't forced to make good food. But in this analogy isn't it more like the restaurant being forced to put up a poster of your bad review? The overall point being made is, why should a private entity be forced to do something they don't want to do?
No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would otherwise be. Criticizing a video game, or a movie, or a restaurant or a streaming service does not imply the use of force to do anything nor does it imply having to get the government involved. It just means we think a product could be improved upon. I think Yo…
But you are saying in this analogy that the restaurant should post negative reviews from its customers, say on its website. Why should they? It’s not like they’re taking down negative reviews (videos) from things they don’t own.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#689Fuck YouTube. If they're going to control what news I get, I'll choose other than YouTube. I do not need them. I have read from both hard left and hard right, and am intelligent enough to make my own decisions about what makes sense. Let them play their games, whether silly or dangerous. I form my own opinions. Losers!
This isn't about you, it's about the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction. YouTube isn't a news network. It's a video platform catering to a global audience, many of whom are really really bad critical thinking. Same with Facebook. We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad. I'…
> "We all know what happens when content isn't curated"
Curation is about selection, not exclusion. As in selecting art for an exhibition on the basis of its value or quality. Curating is not about excluding or banning content via clumsy and vague censorship.
> "and it's really, really bad."
When trigger-happy censorship is the norm, really really really really bad things can happen.
> "become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction".
Bullshit like what? They (The Hill) were discussing and analyzing news, not propagandizing vulnerable youtube viewers.
It's disappointing you imply we need mandatory shielding from information, including analysis of news and events, with penalties for those not falling in line. Putin would agree with you. He threatens and shuts down media outlets for mentioning the word "war".
Mindless youtube viewers are not the tipping point to society meltdown.
I've watched a few 'The Hill' clips on youtube before, and I noticed they disagree with each other and provide alternate views. It's not a propaganda machine, so shouldn't be treated like one.
You may want your news and analysis to be grounded in loyalty to a monolith narrative and distributed via sanctioned memes. Others want more than that, such as counter-points, alternate views, robust debate, transparency and discussion. We learn more that way.
In my country Australia, we have a national "Q&A" TV panel show on the public broadcaster, covering news and politics. The idea is discussion, yet on the recent episode a young Russian Australian man was booted out of the studio audience because he mentioned he supported Putin's action in Ukraine. Instead of challenging the man's views, he was booted out live on air.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPIxtJd2uU&t=304s
This isn't how civil discourse should operate.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#690Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the bit where the platform removed content for the mere mention of Trump. So you agree YouTube is perfectly ok to remove content because it mentions 'the opinion of a man about election results.'? And if Trump was to hypothetically win in 2024, would it be perfectly fine for YouTube to remove any content which is dissenting of Trump? I'm sure a dislike or negative comment would stop that...
Yes. There is nothing stopping Trump from creating his own video platform. He is supposedly a billionaire isn’t he?
And of course nothing from stopping Biden creating his own platform should the tables turn, right?
It's true the large social platforms are privately owned and so they can censor to their hearts content, but given the obliquity and integration these largest platforms have in the social fabric, is that reasonable?
Should they at least have clear moderation policies? It's an issue that needs some hefty discussion and evaluation especially, as we're seeing in this thread, the outsized influence on and control of public discourse they have.