Our ongoing work to tackle hate(youtube.googleblog.com) |
Our ongoing work to tackle hate(youtube.googleblog.com) |
https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1136088138357493761 YouTube tried to explain this decision on background to us, but I made the call to ignore it because they won't go on the record. YouTube has a major harassment problem, but an even bigger problem with transparency and consistency of policy enforcement. It is not our job to paraphrase their explanations. It is their job to own their policy decisions.
Edit to update: as of half an hour ago, the channel's monetization has been suspended. https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1136341801109843968
Update update: It's even dumber than it first looked. https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1136356046887313408
You are right that it was a room full of guys, but what you may not realize is a majority was Chinese or Indian.
And pretending otherwise to allow them to skirt the censors just makes the entire censor regime seem like a hollow power play by a company trying to keep from sinking in a turbulent political time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services
s/censorship/moderation/. And no, "we host everything" is a fast way to kill a potential competitor to YouTube. The first and fastest adopters of such a platform will be the people rejected from other platforms, which rapidly turns any "we host everything" platform into a cesspool that nobody else wants to use.
I'm not advocating for zero censorship. I just think this reads like they're heading down a slippery slope.
Because the Flat Earthers need MORE evidence that the TRUTH!!! is being suppressed by Big Corporations.
0: https://medium.com/acm-cscw/you-cant-stay-here-the-efficacy-...
"But my free speech!"
"Won't they just polarize even harder?"
"Won't they just operate in the ShAdOwS?"
Except that didn't happen. The people left for Voat, and then Voat died. Banning harmful communities works time-and-time again, and it would work for YouTube if they actually did anything. For every 'guideline update' or press release they do about content moderation, they do basically nothing. The one exception was the sketchy videos with children, but their solution has been pretty heavy-handed and reactionary. I think that's the problem: YouTube has never been pro-active in moderating its platform and it shows.
Edit: Changed to more reasonable assertion.
My question remains though, every power in the history of the world has oppressed others based on some logic. (hate?)
And in my limited understanding of human nature and history, the oppressors rarely (if ever) see themselves as evil.
All it takes is for Google to label questioning Google as hate, and they can do whatever they want.
I'm just pissed off by how many people embrace this shit with no notion of the principles that whizzed past while they were having a 2 minute hate against Nazis. Sure they weren't well served and this is just a public embrace of the biases that have already been in place. They were important though.
The guy who runs a printing press should not take pride in refusing jobs for people he doesn't like, should he? Is his service, which has social impact beyond his neighborhood, supposed to be available to all or would it be a bad thing if he decides not to print newsletters for nazis, or blacks, or this or that church because their doctrine is wrong... None of these are new issues and we've thrashed this shit out before.
I indulge in sarcasm because its quicker. sorry.
Standing reminder: the "slippery slope" is a fallacy, not an argument. You can do one thing without doing every possible further step past that thing.
The same goes with conspiracy theories. They aren't all wrong!
And for reference, political party is a protected class in DC, and that could extend to other areas. Politicians aren't allowed to block people on Twitter or Facebook, it's only a matter of time before the companies themselves aren't allowed to in many conditions.
There's also the concept of a public space in private ownership to consider. There's a big difference between your living room and a restaurant or park.
If you really believe where you’re argument is going, I demand you give me your twitter account to use, so I can tweet whatever I want. If you don’t do that, you’re censoring me, and I guess I should sue you or something.
I’m not hard find online. I’ll be waiting for your DM.
I’m also still waiting for that DM. Why are you censoring me?
Facebook and Twitter should not have the protections of both. Also, you never came up with a coherent argument of why political viewpoint shouldn't be a protected class across the US, as it already is in DC. Just some false narrative of associating a single account to a set of massive corporations that hold control over what equates to public discourse.
If you want a reason why politics is not a protected class I’ll give you third. First, there’s not wide spread persecution based on political beliefs. There simply isn’t. Second, eliciting political beliefs to a protected class is tantamount to undercutting all political association everywhere. You can’t argue for anything, as you’re “oppressing” the opposite view. Political speech is strongly protected already. What you’re arguing for is forced association, and compelled speech. Third, political speech is inherently mutable, which makes it completely irrelevant to a protected class, and do nebulous they are impossible adjudicate.
Far from a false narrative, I’m saying there is no difference a social network and any other private publication. It’s a private enterprise and they can do use it anyway they want. Just because something is big, doesn’t suddenly make it public. A newspaper also has a huge audience, but they don’t have to publish every rando’s letter. Nor do these platforms. Enforcing a TOS is well within their right.
If there wasn’t a Ga, or a Venemo, or a 8chan, or a Voat, maybe you’d have an argument. If we were talking about something at a very basic layer, you’d definitely have an argument. But none of that is what we’re talking about. It’s “I have to use twitter/YouTube/Facebook, because they’re popular!” Well.. too bad.its no different than the old mock headline, “Man upset that unpopular ideas are unpopular”