What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Youtube to ban videos promoting segregation and discrimination

(Which is to say, physical market really does need to be regulated, a lot. But a harmful, greedy monopoly in the physical market looks exactly like a tried-and-true consensus that's unlikely to be incorrect in the ideas market.)
 
Now, that's a pretty sad observation.
And a pretty accurate one, at times.
But is it a necessity or just a consequence of a deeply flawed systems like the, say, idea-sorting algorithm that prevents ideas from getting into honest battle with each other? (Along with suspicious lack of presence of subjects like "logical reasoning" oor "debating" in schools.)

I really, really disagree on regulating the market of ideas by banning, although regulating it in softer ways that encourage productive competition may be necessary.
Absolutely a different thing from the physical market, IMHO.
Not that different, as I pointed out in the above post. Banning is... one of the tools available. You also have enforcement of equal air time for political candidates, regulation of political advertising, strong laws against defamation and lies, and so many tools that allow a sane playing field. These are the tools that are used in capitalism such as anti-monopoly laws, laws against stock manipulation, laws that forbid you to sell at a loss, etc.

But there are also laws that ban some products that are inherently and absolutely damaging with no redeeming purpose. Children toys with lead paint, cars that explode when they crash, inherently unsafe passenger planes, nuclear plants without safeguards, that stuff. Well, the same applies to political ideas: Nazism, racism, segregation, calls for political violence? Fuck that.
(Which is to say, physical market really does need to be regulated, a lot. But a harmful, greedy monopoly in the physical market looks exactly like a tried-and-true consensus that's unlikely to be incorrect in the ideas market.)
The consensus can be forged by manipulative tools just like a monopoly can be made by underhanded means.
 
Political air - time reguations and advertisement reguations? Yeah, I'm absolutely down for that. Restricting quantity of the speech isn't the same as restricting it's content.
Laws against "defamation and lies" ? Yeah, NO. What's the arbiter for truth ?

I'm in a position that people you hate the most should be allowed to speak. I think that long-term, it's the best position, slowly burning the rubbish down instead of quickly pushing it below the carpet.
 
Political air - time reguations and advertisement reguations? Yeah, I'm absolutely down for that. Restricting quantity of the speech isn't the same as restricting it's content.
Laws against "defamation and lies" ? Yeah, NO. What's the arbiter for truth ?

I'm in a position that people who say that people you hate the most should be allowed to speak. I think that long-term, it's the best position, slowly burning rubbish instead of quickly pushing it below the carpet.
Q: the arbiter for truth ?
A: generally the courts
 
"The consensus can be forged by manipulative tools just like a monopoly can be made by underhanded means."
Sure, but a consensus can be destroyed by fair competition from a small idea, while a monopoly is immune to small companies.
 
Political air - time reguations and advertisement reguations? Yeah, I'm absolutely down for that. Restricting quantity of the speech isn't the same as restricting it's content.
Laws against "defamation and lies" ? Yeah, NO. What's the arbiter for truth ?
Usually, the arbiter for that are courts, and judges are not elected by popular votes nor are named by the government.
I'm in a position that people you hate the most should be allowed to speak. I think that long-term, it's the best position, slowly burning the rubbish down instead of quickly pushing it below the carpet.
Except that, once again, the real world does not work like that, not anymore than capitalism does. Monopolies, white phosphorus matches, they aren't removed by free market and unregulated competition but by regulation. You are parroting a propaganda piece that hasn't been verified in History, which is full of counter-examples.
 
Now, that's a pretty sad observation.
And a pretty accurate one, at times.
But is it a necessity or just a consequence of a deeply flawed systems like the, say, idea-sorting algorithm that prevents ideas from getting into honest battle with each other? (Along with suspicious lack of presence of subjects like "logical reasoning" oor "debating" in schools.)
It's not a consequence of any algorithm, it's a consequence of human nature. Neither logical reasoning, nor debating, nor any kind of education can fix this because ultimately it has nothing to do with logic, facts, or reason. People believe falsehoods due to emotions and heuristics based on personal experiences, no amount of evidence can convince someone of something they don't want to believe.

Your options here are either indoctrination into opposing ideas or control of the availability of ideas. Education won't solve a problem that isn't caused by innocent ignorance in the first place.
 
If anyone is wondering how the campaign is going... it's a toss up. Some hate speech is getting rightfully targeted, and a whole fucking lot of content arguing against hateful bullshit is also being taken down. Because, as we all know, tech companies are terrible at using tech and just carpet-bomb all the things.


*slow clap for YouTube*

I would argue that, at this moment, the alt-right is winning by having those who are trying to call them out getting targeted.
 
If anyone is wondering how the campaign is going... it's a toss up. Some hate speech is getting rightfully targeted, and a whole fucking lot of content arguing against hateful bullshit is also being taken down. Because, as we all know, tech companies are terrible at using tech and just carpet-bomb all the things.


*slow clap for YouTube*

I would argue that, at this moment, the alt-right is winning by having those who are trying to call them out getting targeted.
Totally called it back on page 1...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
The zombie shambler called tumblr is slowly laughing at the next outbreak.
 
The problem youtube facing is the same as always: such a campaign need manpower, and youtube doesn't want to shell out the necessary money for that manpower. So automation they went, and so here we go again when algorithms fucks up as usual.

I'm not sure what are youtube's algorithms this time around, but I'm guessing it's the usual cocktail of combing the video titles, channels, and comment sections. You can already guess the usual counter tactics: code words for titles, new channels, and bots spamming the videos of their opponents.

I mean, we're already seeing innocents getting knocked out (and more channels straight up locking their comment sections).
 
The problem youtube facing is the same as always: such a campaign need manpower, and youtube doesn't want to shell out the necessary money for that manpower. So automation they went, and so here we go again when algorithms fucks up as usual.

I'm not sure what are youtube's algorithms this time around, but I'm guessing it's the usual cocktail of combing the video titles, channels, and comment sections. You can already guess the usual counter tactics: code words for titles, new channels, and bots spamming the videos of their opponents.

I mean, we're already seeing innocents getting knocked out (and more channels straight up locking their comment sections).
Amateurs trying to do a professional's job, or the failure of public service done with profit in mind?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
Amateurs trying to do a professional's job, or the failure of public service done with profit in mind?
It's just youtube failing at doing things beyond its capabilities because of unrealistic expectations. A lot of people (even some in this thread) expects this magic sudden solution and all the channels & videos that offend them will suddenly disappear in a puff of magic. Well, no shit it didn't happen.
 
I absolutely do not see why a website owner, should be forced to host content that he considers reprehensible. I wouldn't want to be forced to host such content on here and I don't get why YouTube should not be held to the same level of standards.

The line of reasoning that it counts as a public space is odd, as it implies YouTube is a public service, sure if you want to nationalise such a service and then debate it, fair enough, but there is a basic concept of private property being private property at stake here. If you're not going to brake up the mega corps, then I don't see why we should treat them any differently to other things people own, such as homes.

I think the line of reasoning goes that this will slippery slope into actual government restrictions on speech. One issue is such an idea ignores the concept of psychological accounting on different types of speech, meaning there's going to be a rapid influx of emotions once a government did step over the line on what is and isn't considered reprehensible.

In turn, if we are to jump into the realms of simplistic political slogans like that, I think it would be reasonable to argue in turn that such concepts could also be legally twisted to justify forcing normal people to host content that in their mind is wrong. It would be very interesting to note that the whole gay wedding cake dramas are basically a variant on this argument, with the sides typically reversed.

Or we can agree that consent, power and slopes are far more complicated then that, which is why it's an informal fallacy for a reason.

I do not think restricting speech is always a certain block on extremism though, it certainly is harmful to have unfetted speech just flowing around and crowding out facts as the US shows; but I'd consider extremism more a result of the overall economic situation and banning Nazis is a plaster, but still something that doesn't address root causes, as the AFD in Germany shows.

...

I wonder where the origin of defending the free speech of Nazis came from though, I have suspicions that it was started by actual Nazis themselves and dropped into a conservative audience, as a way of manipulating them. But now I'm just going into hypothesising here...

Because Nazis having been manipulating the right almost as long as they've been around, it's not hard for a malicious few to exploit the weakness of a majority, me thinks. ;)

That's the thing, right there. Hit the nail on the head. A lot of people don't perceive YouTube, Facebook, and other online media services as being private entities. They act like they're public forums, like face-to-face conversation on the street, when they're not and never have been. They're private property.

The bans of hate speech won't get rid of those ideas. They will only Balkanize the web even further. It's already happening. YT alternatives for right-wingers, like DTube, are really gaining traction, and guess what? These places will be echo chambers, where people aren't even challenged on their ideas at all.

What I foresee is that centralized websites are going to give way to peer-to-peer and blockchain based technologies which are user-centric and censorship-proof. Things like IPFS and whatnot. These will be impossible to regulate without governments and ISPs cutting off internet traffic entirely, and they can't do that because our economy relies entirely on a functioning internet.
 
That's the thing, right there. Hit the nail on the head. A lot of people don't perceive YouTube, Facebook, and other online media services as being private entities. They act like they're public forums, like face-to-face conversation on the street, when they're not and never have been. They're private property.

The bans of hate speech won't get rid of those ideas. They will only Balkanize the web even further. It's already happening. YT alternatives for right-wingers, like DTube, are really gaining traction, and guess what? These places will be echo chambers, where people aren't even challenged on their ideas at all.

What I foresee is that centralized websites are going to give way to peer-to-peer and blockchain based technologies which are user-centric and censorship-proof. Things like IPFS and whatnot. These will be impossible to regulate without governments and ISPs cutting off internet traffic entirely, and they can't do that because our economy relies entirely on a functioning internet.
I've never really got the alliance between the right and corporations. Monopolies put power into a non government entity by definition and erode socially conservative institutions and the profit incentive drives them, not the Bible or tradition.

Like abortion is a massive thing with the right and they support policies that fuck the poor leading to more abortions. The libertarian-evangelical alliance is odd indeed.

It's even funnier when you realise the classical liberals used to be the "left" and the social conservatives the "right". It was kinda similar to Hobbes vs Locke as a simplification and the dynamics now would likely confuse the daylights out of them.

...I once met a Trump supporter who was a big fan of Soviet Russia because of their more social conservative type policies and didn't care much about the economics. I guess Republican Communists are a thing lol
 
absolutely do not see why a website owner, should be forced to host content that he considers reprehensible. I wouldn't want to be forced to host such content on here and I don't get why YouTube should not be held to the same level of standards
I agree but what happens if a website says no 'fake news or gay agenda* and so on are they legally by these standards able to say fuck off? If so why not?
 
I agree but what happens if a website says no 'fake news, gay agenda* and so on are they legally by these standards able to say fuck off? If so why not?
That already happens on some sites lol
 
I agree but what happens if a website says no 'fake news or gay agenda* and so on are they legally by these standards able to say fuck off? If so why not?
Uh, we have stories here about people getting kicked off of Stormfront for trolling with basic human empathy. It is their platform, they choose what is and is not acceptable content. Nobody stops them from enforcing their hate standards, and if there are people or corporations depraved enough to endorse and advertise on that platform they are within their rights to boycott or shame the site for not holding to their rules of conduct.

The only problem that they have is that they keep getting booted off of hosting services because those services have standards. Great rivers of tears appear at regular intervals as their Freeze Peach(!) is threatened by their being hate speech peddlers.

Such a shame that people like Nazis, and climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers cannot be gifted their own part of the internet free of charge. Instead they have to keep crawling back to the public spaces and use other companies with vile standards of... standards... that they violate by existing.
 
I absolutely do not see why a website owner, should be forced to host content that he considers reprehensible. I wouldn't want to be forced to host such content on here and I don't get why YouTube should not be held to the same level of standards.

The line of reasoning that it counts as a public space is odd, as it implies YouTube is a public service, sure if you want to nationalise such a service and then debate it, fair enough, but there is a basic concept of private property being private property at stake here. If you're not going to brake up the mega corps, then I don't see why we should treat them any differently to other things people own, such as homes.

I think the line of reasoning goes that this will slippery slope into actual government restrictions on speech. One issue is such an idea ignores the concept of psychological accounting on different types of speech, meaning there's going to be a rapid influx of emotions once a government did step over the line on what is and isn't considered reprehensible.

In turn, if we are to jump into the realms of simplistic political slogans like that, I think it would be reasonable to argue in turn that such concepts could also be legally twisted to justify forcing normal people to host content that in their mind is wrong. It would be very interesting to note that the whole gay wedding cake dramas are basically a variant on this argument, with the sides typically reversed.

Or we can agree that consent, power and slopes are far more complicated then that, which is why it's an informal fallacy for a reason.

I do not think restricting speech is always a certain block on extremism though, it certainly is harmful to have unfetted speech just flowing around and crowding out facts as the US shows; but I'd consider extremism more a result of the overall economic situation and banning Nazis is a plaster, but still something that doesn't address root causes, as the AFD in Germany shows.

...

I wonder where the origin of defending the free speech of Nazis came from though, I have suspicions that it was started by actual Nazis themselves and dropped into a conservative audience, as a way of manipulating them. But now I'm just going into hypothesising here...

Because Nazis having been manipulating the right almost as long as they've been around, it's not hard for a malicious few to exploit the weakness of a majority, me thinks. ;)
As a publisher, you can curate anything posted on your website/forum. However, you are also liable for anything posted on your forum.

YouTube is currently a platform, which means anyone can post anything and YouTube is not liable just like your ISP is not liable for anything you do online.

As soon as YouTube starts banning legal content, they will be treated as a publisher. They have been straddling the line and it might be catching up to them soon.

I'm probably missing some nuances, but I think that's the gist of it.
 
YouTube is currently a platform, which means anyone can post anything and YouTube is not liable just like your ISP is not liable for anything you do online.

As soon as YouTube starts banning legal content, they will be treated as a publisher. They have been straddling the line and it might be catching up to them soon.
Nah, they can ban legal content all they want. They technically can be held liable for illegal content if they do not take it down fast enough if and when it is identified, but they have more leeway as long as they act in good faith.

Their biggest protection is that they can mostly claim to be under US law as a US company (barring courts pushing for more restrictions). So they have to comply with things like DMCA, but due to their size and history of compliance they do not get the entire site shut down over hosting videos that violate that law. If they were to stop flagging and taking down videos they could face regular outages as they get shut down for hosting illegal content. Which is why Content ID has become so fucking terrible, even if it means that they take down a lot of legal content, because it covers their asses.
 
Links to said stories? I need a WTF dose for the day.
I don't know how easy it would be to find. I believe it was Vashon, and being banned now means that it is hard to search for those posts. When I have some time later on I will see what I can do.
 
The best I could find without putting in serious effort was:
You want to know exactly why I joined, or tried to join, Stormfront? I was going to ask some questions regarding why exactly they now considered Slavs good enough, and how they squared that with the hero worship of Hitler and Prussian lead Germany, and with George Lincoln Rockwell. But with their forums being hyper moderated at the time, it was impossible, so I gave up on it.

"But why did you lie about the reason for so long?" To see if anybody could pick up on sarcasm through their "I hate that guy, pls ban him" filter.

I'm sure that there was more, but... again, effort. Getting too old for this shit.
 
I trust youtube to actually enforce this as much as I trust autocorrect to finish a [Autocorrect]stencil[/Autocorrect].
I'd prefer if they'd ban antivax shit. Nazis are always going to be horrible people, but nice people can be antivaxers like Williamson.
 
Back
Top Bottom