91–100 of 278 posts
Someone's gotta do something about Google. While they can't be responsible for someone putting all their eggs in the same basket, their terrible customer support policies can really ruin someone's work beyond repair.
In a lot of ways this kind of stuff is what we were warned about by many including the FSF. Cloud software you don't control, or which knows a lot about you, can be used to censor you. Always better to self-host and backup/distribute via the cloud as a secondary method. Easier said than done though.
Yeah, lots of people saw this coming light-years away. People really should stop ignoring the TOS.
Well, she is easier to defend than Nazis. So, here I go... Freedom of expression, not just free speech the legal concept, should be a societal goal. Google has every right, legally, to delete this stuff. However, in an ideal world, they'd do no such thing and would let people judge based on the merits of the message. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to work towards that ideal world. Maybe the solution…
Obviously, there should be a place, similar in price and ease as YouTube to where she can host such things, but YouTube is not the place. Ideally the new system will be set up to weed through what makes sense and what doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
xoogler here. I would definitely subscribe to occam's razor here. Rather than explicit censorship, this is probably something that just got snagged in the net of Google's semi-automated content moderation process, which is probably overzealous in combating #extremism. Having no human channel to contact doesn't help either.
> I appealed both decisions. Those appeals were apparently rejected, (at least that is what I gathered.because the videos were removed). That the community strikes stood (despite my appeals) was not explicitly clear during the process. Is the appeal process automated? If there is no way to circumvent an automated process then it has to work 100% correctly, 99% is simply not acceptable.
I don't agree with Google's actions here, but this has to be somewhat expected. If your day-to-day is closely entwined with terrorism, extremism, etc. you have to know that some of your content or actions aren't going to be welcome everywhere. I mean, people in the porn industry surely take precautions because they know they're content isn't welcome everywhere, why wouldn't the author? IMO google is going too far, bu…
It is kind of odd that the whole Google account is wiped and canceled. I post a YouTube video big G doesn't like, then they close my whole Google account. So now my Android phone, all my contacts, call history, purchased apps + music, etc, are now gone? And my nest thermostat resets to factory defaults? And all my AdWords campaigns for my small sole proprietorship. And...so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the trouble when nobody will allow you to host your legal content because they disagree with the message. Hell, even registrars are refusing to point to an IP address. I know... We all hate Nazis. I get it. I don't like them and, being not white, they definitely don't like me. But, they are the current good example of what happens when the controllers decide you can no longer share your legal content.…
It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here.
Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance.
Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a very blurry line between a common carrier and a publisher. Social media platforms don't want to be liable for content published on their site, but they also want the right to delete content at their own discretion. Somehow, the courts have granted them this wish. The USPS has a similar monopoly to YouTube, but they're obliged to transport any printed material that is legal. There's no hidden algorithm…
You are comparing a postal service (1:1) with a broadcasting service (1:many). ISPs should be neutral carriers, but websites should be free to offer whatever services and terms they like. Given equal services, supply and demand should kill the ones with the most unfair ToS. The question of liability is more difficult, it might help if users had to register as real persons or companies (i.e. providing ID).
I see no reason why 1:many platforms shouldn't have the same protections as a 1:1 platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a very blurry line between a common carrier and a publisher. Social media platforms don't want to be liable for content published on their site, but they also want the right to delete content at their own discretion. Somehow, the courts have granted them this wish. The USPS has a similar monopoly to YouTube, but they're obliged to transport any printed material that is legal. There's no hidden algorithm…
> The USPS has a similar monopoly to YouTube No, the USPS has a legally-protected monopoly, where alternative services are prohibited from competing with certain core functions. Alternative web video distribution services are not prohibited, and there are several that specialize in content that is unwelcome on YouTube. > The present ambiguity over their status What ambiguity? They are active distribution agents (neit…
Yet, even though they have many of the legal protections of being a pseudo common carrier, they have none of the obligations, such as the obligation to treat all content equally.
For example, it is illegal for your phone provider to eaves drop on your conversations and censor your phone conversations.
But it is NOT illegal for facebook to do the same thing. Why are they treated differently?
Well, she is easier to defend than Nazis. So, here I go... Freedom of expression, not just free speech the legal concept, should be a societal goal. Google has every right, legally, to delete this stuff. However, in an ideal world, they'd do no such thing and would let people judge based on the merits of the message. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to work towards that ideal world. Maybe the solution…
Above being more than a legal concept, it's also not really about expression, ie. the biggest value to society is not from Alexa O'Brien being able to express her thoughts and feelings, which is a minor benefit to her, but in us being able to read them and then choose the best ideas to adapt/copy/implement. The fact that you can make your (realistically, very tiny) contribution to the culture is much less important t…
Well, she is easier to defend than Nazis. So, here I go... Freedom of expression, not just free speech the legal concept, should be a societal goal. Google has every right, legally, to delete this stuff. However, in an ideal world, they'd do no such thing and would let people judge based on the merits of the message. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to work towards that ideal world. Maybe the solution…
Nah, I'm all for google doing this. Youtube is absolutely NOT the place to host these videos, as makes it very hard if not impossible to ferret out all the highly destructive hate speech that's occurring.. Obviously, there should be a place, similar in price and ease as YouTube to where she can host such things, but YouTube is not the place. Ideally the new system will be set up to weed through what makes sense and w…
What prevents the user from selecting a different video and who is the arbiter of 'what makes sense and what doesn't?'
I suppose those can be rhetorical questions, if you want. To be clear, I suspect I hold very extreme views on the concept of free speech, at least from your perspective. Lest you read too much into that, the speech I'm defending sometimes comes from people who would harm me simply by virtue of my not being white.
In this case, the lady is a journalist. Her reporting included extremist videos. You're saying YouTube is not the place to share investigative journalism because it's highly destructive hate speech.