[HN Gopher] The Linux Experiments YouTube channel has been termi...
___________________________________________________________________
The Linux Experiments YouTube channel has been terminated
Author : mngnt
Score : 411 points
Date : 2021-09-07 10:57 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| globular-toast wrote:
| Can someone add some context to this? I have never heard of this
| channel and a link to a screenshot of a generic message from
| Google tells me nothing.
| Shorel wrote:
| Google is EVIL.
| jbj wrote:
| I hope he can get it back, it is a great resource for well
| researched news in my oppinion. I just tried out /e/ recently
| after learning about it on his channel
| mcjiggerlog wrote:
| The Linux Experiment is probably my favourite linux-focussed
| YouTube channel. Nick has been doing absolutely fantastic work
| and his channel being permanently deleted would be an absolute
| travesty and a clear mistake. He is producing high quality,
| thoughtful, inoffensive content. Here's to hoping the channel is
| rightly reinstated ASAP, along with an apology and explanation
| from Google.
|
| Also, if you don't know the channel and want to check out his
| videos, you can still watch them on Odysee -
| https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment.
| enriquto wrote:
| > Here's to hoping the channel is rightly reinstated ASAP
|
| I for one am not looking forward to this. Youtube is no longer
| an acceptable platform for distributing your videos. If a
| person who makes good videos is forced out of youtube, that can
| only be a good thing. Hopefully their videos will help make
| another service more popular.
|
| Youtube terms of service are public and unacceptable. People
| who get burned by them had it coming.
| amelius wrote:
| YouTube should be forced to allow "Watch this video on
| $COMPETING_SERVICE" links.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| AIUI creators can post links or to other services? So you
| can link Patreon, or link Twitch or what-have-you, and
| people can then find your content elsewhere.
|
| Presumably, it's better financially for big channels to
| keep users on YouTube.
| spurgu wrote:
| What a little authoritarian you are. :)
|
| That train of thought applied across the web would end up a
| clusterfuck. Who decides what and why?
|
| Authors can already post whatever links in the description,
| why do you want to force someone to do something?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| How are people gonna view the description if the channel
| is suspended? The web is already a clusterfuck, perhaps
| its most powerful incumbents should be subject to certain
| restraints. I'm sure you can make this argument better
| without engaging in name calling and emotional attacks.
| mattl wrote:
| YouTube is fairly ubiquitous in terms of support on hardware
| players. Any alternative would need to be similar. Vimeo
| perhaps?
| Uehreka wrote:
| If there was a clear alternative that'd be one thing, but
| there isn't, and I suspect this creator is one of those high-
| quality-but-small-audience channels where they don't have
| enough pull to bootstrap an alternative themselves. So it
| seems kind of naive to say "that can only be a good thing".
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Does there need to be "a clear alternative?" A video host
| is a video host. I don't care where I watch videos, I only
| care about what I'm trying to watch. I never understood
| this insistence that a video has to be on a certain site.
| The more video hosting sites there are the better.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Media publishers, broadcasters, or netcasters (as with
| YouTube) serve a number of critical roles. Among these
| are both audience and advertiser aggregation.
|
| Audient aggregation matters because _once on site_ ,
| recommendations and discovery systems increase the
| likelihood of some other site content being viewed or
| accessed.
|
| Advertiser appeal matters if advertising provides a
| significant portion of site revenues (and it virtually
| always does, for large-scale properties). Advertisers
| themselves seek audiences, with particular interest in
| both size and composition. As with audiences, there are
| cognitive and organisational costs to maintaining
| multiple relationships, so that advertising platforms
| tend to grow and monopolise over time. Small niche
| platforms are of very limited interest.
|
| Both factors intersect with other elements, including
| site infrastructure development and maintenance, such
| that large sites have vastly superior economies of scale.
| This includes a lot of activities and benefits with low
| public visibility including moderation, abuse, legal, and
| general business overhead effects.
|
| The overall result is a pronounced tendency to create
| large and durable media monopolies. New technologies may
| disrupt earlier established entities for a time. But the
| old structures have an exceedingly high likelihood of re-
| emerging. More pointedly, technologies of greater
| efficiency only amplify the tendency to form, and the
| size of, such monopolies.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| YouTube provides content curation in addition to mere
| video hosting. In the current state, I can open up my
| YouTube subscriptions page and see a list of all new
| videos from people I'm interested in. If every video
| creator hosts their work on a different platform, I no
| longer have a one stop shop for video consumption. I
| subscribe to lots of people on YouTube, but there are
| probably only two or three that I care enough about to go
| check a different site for new content.
| pwdisswordfish8 wrote:
| The situation you just described does not match YouTube's
| value being in that it "provides content curation". The
| situation you described involves _you_ doing the
| curation, and YouTube acting as a glorified RSS reader.
|
| If you can subscribe to channels on YouTube and be
| satisfied with that content (and not from e.g. YouTube's
| recommendations for stuff you don't subscribe to), then
| you can do those same things whether the videos are
| hosted on YouTube or not, just like millions of people do
| with their podcast subscriptions that are never actually
| hosted "on" iTunes.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Is that something an average teen with an iPhone can do,
| or wants to do? And apart from the subscription feed,
| there's recommendations based on the videos you already
| watched. If creators were distributed across different
| platforms, this wouldn't work.
| pwdisswordfish8 wrote:
| > Is that something an average teen with an iPhone can
| do, or wants to do?
|
| Use an app that can listen to podcasts? Uh... yeah.
|
| > apart from the subscription feed, there's
| recommendations based on the videos you already watched
|
| So you're just going to ignore the context and pretend
| that you're saying something insightful? The comment
| you're responding to specifically pointed out that the
| original commenter _doesn 't_ cite YouTube's
| recommendation engine as the source of value for him/her.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I think curation might be one of the drivers of the
| problems we have nowadays, I'd prefer a host that does no
| curation.
|
| > If every video creator hosts their work on a different
| platform, I no longer have a one stop shop for video
| consumption.
|
| Yes you can, use an RSS reader and subscribe via RSS.
| This problem was solved before tube sites were even
| widespread, and then the UX for subscriptions devolved,
| primarily because these sites want to lock you in and
| make you feel how you do. But you can still curate your
| own feed and have all your video content in one feed, I
| do it, you just have to use RSS.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I used to use RSS a decade or more ago. It always felt
| clumsy and half-supported at best. Perhaps you could
| share what RSS reader you use?
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Sure. On desktop I use Thunderbird, on mobile I use
| something called Feeder, it is a FOSS RSS/Atom feed
| reader with built in Webview so you can watch the video
| in app if you like.
|
| YouTube and Bitchute both support RSS, also Peertube has
| RSS built in if you watch anything self hosted using that
| software, as far as all the other tube sites out there
| I'm not sure because I don't subscribe to anyone on those
| sites, but I would expect that they do more than likely
| as RSS is still a web standard.
|
| All but Peertube I've found sort of hide syndication in
| some way to encourage their account based subscription
| because they'd rather you use that. It might take a
| minute when you want to subscribe on a new site you don't
| usually use to figure out their feed URL format.
|
| It can be a little clunky to add subscriptions I guess,
| but how often are you doing that? What matters more is
| integrating all your subscriptions into one feed, you're
| watching every day multiple times a day, you're not
| subscribing every day.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| > It can be a little clunky to add subscriptions I guess,
| but how often are you doing that?
|
| And you're saying that as a techie. How do you think the
| average subscriber of Markiplier, Pewdiepie or Logan Paul
| would feel about that? Things like peertube will always
| be a super small niche because there are two dozen
| alternatives to YouTube and they all suck if you depend
| on YouTube for income. As long as those oopsies don't
| happen to the big YouTubers on a regular basis, the
| status quo will remain.
|
| Plus, as much as people complain about YouTube
| recommendations, I found a couple small but interesting
| channels already. Imagine everything were distributed
| across ten different platforms.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| > How do you think the average subscriber of Markiplier,
| Pewdiepie or Logan Paul would feel about that?
|
| I don't care about them. People can do what they want.
| I'm not trying to revolutionize the world. I'm just
| trying to live life the way I want to and help people who
| are interested in doing things that I do.
|
| It doesn't require you to be a techie to copy paste a
| URL. It's as easy as adding a contact on your phone.
|
| I watched an interview with Jaron Lanier yesterday
| actually talk about YouTube recommendations, he talks
| about an experiment, click the top recommendation and let
| it play 10 times and see what you get. You have to keep
| in mind just because they've been helpful a few times
| doesn't mean they're more helpful than no curation at
| all. Confirmation bias exists. Remember YouTube before
| Google owned it? Most of the content was not as good as
| it is now but it was still much easier to find new
| interesting things. That algorithm is superior to
| anything that's been implemented since, and honestly
| every iteration makes it worse. The fundamental
| difference with it was that it recommended based on what
| other people watched, not based on some hand waving about
| getting to know you and your preferences.
|
| If everything were distributed across ten platforms then
| viral spread of content could only occur organically.
| That would be amazing.
| enriquto wrote:
| Ultra-famous accounts with zillions of subscribers are
| likely on a first-name basis with the youtube admins who
| cater to them. The move out of the platform will of course
| start from below.
| Bayart wrote:
| Maybe Pewdiepie, but quite a few channels in the millions
| have hinted that getting through to a human was
| impossible without a Twitter campaign.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Markiplier, one of those ultra famous accounts who is on
| a first name basis with their rep, has posted a few
| stories about how content gets demonitized for no reason
| and even his rep has no clue why and is powerless.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| And still there is nothing else that gets him close in
| reach and monetization. Even if only one out of ten
| videos is monetized that's most likely still better than
| anything else.
| martin_a wrote:
| > where they don't have enough pull to bootstrap an
| alternative
|
| Maybe I'm thinking too easy, but what about self-hosting.
| Some "all inclusive" hosting with Hugo or whatever static
| page builder you like.
|
| That should be enough to get your content out to the
| masses.
|
| Throw in Disqus if you really need to, set up an RSS feed
| and a newsletter and let's go.
| oblio wrote:
| Congratulations! You've solved the easiest part.
|
| Now get back to us in 5 years, when you'll have managed
| to build a comparable audience just by using SEO.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Wait. Is building an audience using SEO supposed to be a
| good thing or a bad thing?
| oblio wrote:
| It's neither, it's just not a trivial undertaking.
| [deleted]
| betwixthewires wrote:
| For video hosting I'd go with Peertube.
| martin_a wrote:
| No!
|
| These networks, no matter how they work under the hood,
| are obviously the problem, as they are single points of
| failure.
|
| Run your own stuff. Most channels will not have enough
| visitors/viewers to kill a shared webhosting package, so
| there's no big deal in doing this on your own.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Peertube is tube site software that you can run yourself.
| It is a way to run your own stuff.
|
| https://joinpeertube.org/
| ipaddr wrote:
| Curious how does the network deal with adult or censored
| content? If self-hosting does one need to join the
| network?
| betwixthewires wrote:
| So "the network" in context of sites like Facebook or
| YouTube is a fancy marketing term for "the website."
| Peertube servers actually federate, so there is actually
| a network there.
|
| You don't have to federate. As host, you can host
| whatever you want (you are of course subject to laws in
| the country you're hosting in) and censor whatever you
| want on your server. You can basically do anything you
| want.
|
| If you host adult content like pornography it is very
| likely the larger federation will not federate with your
| server, and for adult content that isn't pornographic in
| nature it is probably best to require content warnings.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| Self hosting?
|
| That sounds like an unregulated place for all the people
| who were thrown out by those with at least some ethics
| left.
| roenxi wrote:
| High-quality-but-small-audience might have an easier time
| than most, I suspect. To get niche content people have to
| be willing to trawl the internet.
|
| Still wild guesses, but I'd be worried about mid-sized
| channels with a lot of ambivalent viewers, not really
| invested, not going to swap platforms. Although how all
| that factors in to various monetisation strategies is
| complex.
|
| Anyway, the situation is really interesting. I don't think
| YouTube can pull off the censorship campaign that they are
| trying for. They're fighting some really fundamental
| economic forces - it is too cheap to get people a message
| if they want to hear it.
| input_sh wrote:
| What do you mean by clear alternative? Feature parity?
| There's at least 10 nearly feature-compatible software out
| there. I can name five without looking it up: PeerTube,
| LBRY/Odysee, Cinnamon, Nebula (okay this one's a bit of a
| stretch because you can't outright sign up and post videos,
| you need some creator to invite you), DTube.
|
| Thing is none of them will make you YouTube money, so
| smaller creators don't bother, while larger ones usually
| just cross-post stuff, leaving no incentive for their
| audience to bother with the alternative.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Does anyone have more context? This is one of my favourite
| Linux channels... what the fuck.
|
| This drive-by algorithm BS is ridiculous.
| fouc wrote:
| Seems like odysee doesn't have captioning. Looks amazing but no
| captioning is a deal killer.
| drcongo wrote:
| What is Odysee? I'm intrigued because at first glance it seems
| to be better than YouTube in almost every way possible. Page
| loads are quick, if you turn off AutoPlay it actually stays
| off, the controls are actually usable on an iPad etc.
| fragileone wrote:
| It's a peer-to-peer video client, with part of it's data
| being directly shared (similarly to torrents) and part via a
| blockchain. This makes it highly resistant to censorship and
| thus is where many people are moving their channels to.
| bitL wrote:
| Can you self-host it like PeerTube?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| there is something called tilvids.com that hosts
| educational as well as edutainment content. a good fit
| for the linuxexperiment. either that or do like
| videos.lukesmith.xyz and build your own. It is really not
| difficult or does not cost a fortune
| corobo wrote:
| > This makes it highly resistant to censorship
|
| We should probably stop using this phrase as a feature
|
| Instant thought was "ok so other than this channel it's all
| racism"
| bmsd_0923 wrote:
| What we really need is to stop listening to people who
| have this kind of attitude.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| burnished wrote:
| I see you are getting a lot of pushback and I think its
| unwarranted. I agree with you, the phrase is becoming
| tainted. I would like a way to differentiate between
| places that are wary of the whims of power and places
| where opinions are so appalling they can't be a part of
| polite society. We currently talk about them the same,
| and there has been an uptick of the latter recently that
| makes being able to differentiate more relevant.
|
| As a side note its sort of interesting to me how your un-
| popular, perhaps controversial yet not particularly
| offensive opinion is going to be censored from this
| discussion in which people are opposing your perhaps
| reasonable association with the phrase 'resistant to
| censorship'. "how dare they voice a dissenting opinion!"
| they might tell themselves, as they press the little
| button that will make your words fade away.
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm the asker of the original question, and I actually
| agree with you on a lot of this. As soon as I read
| @fragileone and @iotku's excellent answers to my question
| my heart sank a little at the thought of a site even more
| racist than YouTube. Almost every site that pops up
| claiming an anti-censorship position is quickly filled
| with pretty abhorrent content. Downvoting someone on HN
| for pointing it out doesn't make it untrue.
| int_19h wrote:
| It gets filled with all kinds of content, of which racism
| and other far-right talk is merely the most visible part
| because it's in the spotlight. But it's not just far
| right that's getting "deplatformed". Even politically,
| there are plenty of leftist groups that were wiped out
| from e.g. Facebook during the recent purges. All those
| people also have to look for other platforms.
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm not saying there aren't other valid uses, just that
| racism is pretty much guaranteed on a no-censorship site.
| It _should_ be something that we can all agree on as
| being "bad", even when dressed in its Sunday best from
| the likes of Jordan Peterson.
| swebs wrote:
| When did Jordan Peterson ever discuss race?
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| I'm open to the possibility of hearing Jordan Peterson
| saying something racist, but haven't in watching hours
| and hours of his videos. Please source.
| int_19h wrote:
| We can agree on it being bad, but that doesn't
| necessarily mean that we have to censor it, and
| especially so when such censorship has an already-
| demonstrated tendency to quickly expand in scope.
| spurgu wrote:
| Uh, what are you even saying? That racism is so prevalent
| that it pops up everywhere naturally? And only censorship
| can fix it?
| corobo wrote:
| I'd rather say the wrong thing and have a discussion than
| say nothing and remain ignorant! I did appreciate the
| irony haha
|
| Downvotes are kinda tedious but I understand the original
| idea behind them. Such is life :)
|
| Can't reply to the entire wasps nest I kicked over but
| I've read, agreed, disagreed, learned. Decent result
| overall!
| slightwinder wrote:
| This is not so far from the truth. In the past,
| censorship usually only happens to people doing something
| illegal, meaning copyright infringement, radical
| political content or other disturbing content (usually
| porn or violence-related). So most of those people have
| seek for alternative platforms where they are free.
|
| But more and more the line is shifting, and we see
| censorship happening with far tamer content. Youtube
| specifically seems to crack down on security-related
| content for a while now. I've seen similar things
| happening over trivial content in the past. Things which
| nobody working in the business would consider as
| problematic, like how to setup VPN and firewalls. It's
| not really clear why this is happening. People at Youtube
| are claiming the content seems to be ok, but system says
| nope.
| pm90 wrote:
| > In the past, censorship usually only happens to people
| doing something illegal
|
| What past are you talking about? Censorship has been
| everywhere for most of human history.
| ArtDev wrote:
| Fan fiction has a lot of problems with censorship as
| well. Recently, Games Workshop went after all fan
| animations on Youtube based on the fictional sci-fi
| setting it owns; Warhammer 40,000.
| afroboy wrote:
| You can always downvote.
| wiskinator wrote:
| You're getting downvoted, but I completely agree.
| 'Resistant to censorship' has become a dogwhistle for
| "you can post your racist / fascist BS here".
| CyanBird wrote:
| My first thought was "oh the heck will you take out all
| the porn and potential faaar more ilegal types of porn
| from that"
|
| And
|
| "I don't want to need down load a ledger which might
| contain even encrypted versions of that"
| [deleted]
| martin_a wrote:
| Yeah, sounds like an unregulated place for all the people
| who were thrown out by those with at least some ethics
| left.
|
| update: yeah, downvotes, whatever... "censorship" these
| days is often enough because people tell other people to
| use horse dewormer or drink bleach. It's not because
| they're having highly sophisticated discussions about
| global politics, but simply because they're actively
| harming people, spreading hate and whatnot. platforms
| should be able to decide whether they want to "poison"
| their living room by giving a platform to such content.
| bloopernova wrote:
| And the folks downvoting you would probably call
| themselves "free speech advocates".
|
| Which in my experience means they speak from a position
| of high privilege to not see the massive negative effects
| of the hate speech they strive to protect. Or that their
| purpose on this site is to spread division and hate.
| dmantis wrote:
| US guy detected. Go travel to Russia, China, Middle East
| and other funny countries, you would find a lot of
| interesting things which you can be jailed for, not just
| banned by gov request on social media platform.
|
| If you talk about international platforms, you should
| kinda think about that.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Not everything's for just the US.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| > If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only
| one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be
| no more justified in silencing that one person, than he,
| if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
| mankind.
|
| >...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an
| opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity
| as well as the existing generation; those who dissent
| from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If
| the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
| opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they
| lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer
| perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by
| its collision with error.
|
| --John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|
| Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions,
| it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving
| everything that opposes it.
|
| All these calls for censorship make me think we really
| are doomed to repeat history forever.
| mcguire wrote:
| What happens if nobody listens to your proofs? What
| happens if they prefer the lie?
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| What if only one truth is allowed, and it is wrong or a
| lie? You are putting all your eggs in one basket.
| mcguire wrote:
| Marx was almost right: " _Hegel remarks somewhere that
| all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so
| to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as
| tragedy, the second time as farce._ "
|
| Postmodernism, the first time around, was the comedy.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| Then they will learn hard lessons.
| mcguire wrote:
| Or their victims.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| What you're really asking is "What happens if people do
| not do what we tell them to do? What happens if they
| disagree with us?"
|
| Is it appropriate to force people to adhere to your
| strictures if they won't do so voluntarily?
| mcguire wrote:
| (So we've already given up on "Truth is not determined by
| a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by
| rigorously disproving everything that opposes it" then.
| Fine. Truth is relative.)
|
| No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent
| people start being hurt by the lie?"
|
| What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident
| but cannot get medical help because the intensive care
| facilities are full of people who disagree with the
| truth? Thoughts and prayers?
|
| Does freedom come with any responsibility?
| teakettle42 wrote:
| > No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if
| innocent people start being hurt by the lie?"
|
| That would suggest we might benefit from a better
| mechanism for establishing the truth.
|
| The best mechanism we've come up with so far is open and
| vibrant debate.
|
| Do you have a better suggestion?
|
| > What happens if you are seriously injured in an
| accident but cannot get medical help because the
| intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree
| with the truth?
|
| The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to
| be entirely fabricated.
|
| How would you propose we stem misinformation like that
| Rolling Stone article?
|
| > Thoughts and prayers?
|
| Open and vibrant debate.
|
| > Does freedom come with any responsibility?
|
| Sure it does, though assessing _culpability_ is often a
| nightmarish impossibility, especially a priori.
|
| Should we establish prior restraints on individual's
| freedoms to enforce correct speech and beliefs?
|
| If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
| mcguire wrote:
| " _The best mechanism we've come up with so far is open
| and vibrant debate._
|
| " _Do you have a better suggestion?_ "
|
| I do not. But open and vibrant debate only works when
| people are capable of determining when the debate has
| been settled, at least for the moment. And are willing to
| accept the settled decision.
|
| Have you ever had a serious chat with a creationist? Of
| course, there is no positive evidence that can disprove
| the young earth theory, any more than you can disprove
| solipsism. The creationist argument ultimately fails
| because of the implications of its own flexibility. I've
| known people who claim that the faster they drive, the
| better they drive. Or that they are perfectly safe to
| drive stoned or drunk. fortunately, in those cases
| _culpability_ is, as you point out, is easy.
|
| Anti-intellectualism comes in many varieties. Someone can
| be so skeptical that they do not accept any argument
| because, say, Big Media and The Man are out to oppress
| them...somehow. Someone else can be so un-skeptical as to
| believe the first comforting story that comes along in
| spite of any facts suggesting that reality is harsher.
|
| Open and vibrant debate is the only way to establish the
| truth, but truth is not established by popularity, nor by
| who yells the loudest.
|
| " _The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out
| to be entirely fabricated._
|
| " _How would you propose we stem misinformation like that
| Rolling Stone article?_ "
|
| I have no idea what Rolling Stone article you are talking
| about. Is it one of these:
|
| https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-
| dies-wa...
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-
| icu...
|
| https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-
| michelle-...
|
| " _Open and vibrant debate._ "
|
| Not really an answer to my question, but I'm sure it's
| very comforting to intensive care patients spending hours
| to days on gurneys in hospital hallways.
|
| https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-
| int...
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-
| tran...
|
| Freedom is easy if it _doesn 't_ come with
| responsibility, precisely because culpability is often a
| nightmare to identify. How many people are you willing to
| injure or kill in the name of freedom?
|
| Should we just get used to the fact that there are no
| limits on lies and an idea just dreamed up by some rando
| on the internet is just as true as something from a so-
| called expert?
|
| If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
| hermitdev wrote:
| This is really prescient with the ongoing "debate" around
| vaccine mandates.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| Conversely, what if your assumed truth is false and you
| successfully censor any attempt to disprove it?
| mcguire wrote:
| Conversely, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a
| great way to drum up an evening's entertainment.
| ZWoz wrote:
| Yelling "Fire!" in theatre is miscontructed-misunderstood
| idea and probably legal:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-
| tim...
| mcguire wrote:
| Excellent nit!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_
| the...
|
| https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-
| constitution/inte...
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >All these calls for censorship
|
| Isn't the root problem here is the near monopoly held by
| god-tier corporations? Shouldn't FB/Goog have the right
| to moderate their content as they see fit? Shouldn't
| their network effect de facto monopolies be regulated so
| that there is room for other voices?
| sanderjd wrote:
| People have a right to speak, but they don't have a right
| to have their speech amplified by others. There is no
| right to broadcast. Mill would agree with this, assuming
| you could explain to him how broadcast media works, which
| didn't exist in his time.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| Mill wasn't talking about _rights_ ; he was talking about
| the propensity to suppress unpopular speech, why that's
| dangerous, and accordingly, and the moral necessity (and
| implications) of open discourse.
| starfallg wrote:
| >Truth
|
| An illusion of truth can be created by repeatedly stating
| falsehoods by agents with an agenda to push. The question
| isn't about censorship, but rather how we can make our
| liberal democratic societies resistant to this type of
| manipulation, which inevitably results in terminal
| decline.
| a_c wrote:
| Much debate in the society stems from unfalsifiability
| causi wrote:
| Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own
| exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for
| racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom,
| except for porn. Freedom, except for violence. Freedom,
| except for political dissent or mis-gendering or the
| promotion or criticism of a religion.
|
| As someone who falls near the middle on most issues I
| probably detest a larger percentage of speakers than
| anyone who's solidly on the Left or the Right, but I have
| no issue understanding that my freedom depends on their
| freedom. If the people I despise are not free to speak
| then neither am I.
| didibus wrote:
| Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that
| hate speech and propaganda has been a part of almost all
| atrocities ever done in the past?
|
| Or put some other way, how do you reconcile that your
| freedom can be affected by someone's else's freedom? Like
| what if I use my freedom to turn others against you and
| have them hate you and berate you and bully you and
| ridicule you and refute you, and potentially have them
| vote for laws that take actions against you, or possibly
| have them commit hateful acts towards you, etc.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Not the OP, but basically you are complaining about
| _humans_. I am not convinced that by banning certain
| expressions you get any security against future
| oppression.
|
| Stupid hateful people might get trapped by anti-hate-
| speech laws, but the smarter ones, precisely the ones you
| need to be careful about, are fairly good at avoiding
| them and may even use the threat of prosecution to raise
| sympathy from the part of population that dislikes the
| incumbent government.
|
| Most European countries have vibrant extremist movements
| (left, right, Islamic) even though their freedom of
| speech is much more limited than the U.S. standard.
| didibus wrote:
| I see your point, and I think that needs thoughts for
| sure.
|
| I think most people (including myself) don't know why
| some harbor hateful resentment and intolerant ideals. And
| it isn't clear how to deal with it. It's very possible
| that we need to resist the temptation to try and simply
| brush those people aside. But I think one thing that
| isn't clear is if one of the cause for this increase is
| related to the internet providing bigger megaphones to
| those smart ones who like to recruit members to their
| ranks.
|
| And part of that for me is how recommendation algorithms
| on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube operate, it seems to
| be tuned towards sensationalized and hateful content. So
| it does give you the impression that those platforms are
| failing to educate people with values of tolerance,
| liberalism, freedom, and individual rights which the USA
| is founded on.
|
| It's a great question though, you probably don't fight
| intolerance with intolerance, but at the same time, you
| might need to be ready to fight it if it comes to that.
| But how do you avoid having it reach this point?
| zozbot234 wrote:
| I have no issue with people turning against, hating,
| berating, bullying, etc. me. These are simply matters of
| feeling and opinion. I _do_ have a problem when other
| people feel entitled to escalate such conflicts by
| reacting to these unwelcome points of view with real,
| actual violence, including government censorship. Even,
| and perhaps especially, when these people are purporting
| to act in my defense.
| didibus wrote:
| Ok, but what are you referring too? Because I'm not sure
| I'm seeing any government censorship (except for maybe
| the voter suppression and the child protection laws as
| well as some of the anti-protest forces deployed by the
| government in recent protests like BLM). And I'm mostly
| seeing violence driven by hate speech, like the various
| shootings happening.
|
| I would be very against government censorship or
| interventions against constitutional rights of free
| speech and right to assemble and protest, and right to
| vote.
|
| Maybe I just don't have the data you have, but right now
| I'm not too sure I follow you.
| sanderjd wrote:
| The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people
| at no cost is one that we just invented in the last
| twenty years. It is not a right.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Then it should be either:
|
| a) removed from everybody or
|
| b) removed from nobody.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all
| rights.
|
| Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don't agree
| with, ok but you aren't allowed to use public roads since
| we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station.
|
| Freedom of assembly: we don't support your protests
| cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at
| your own house.
|
| Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but
| if you attempt to record it in any way we'll block you.
|
| A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all.
| You're arguing for a society built like a prison. You
| should be ashamed.
| mcguire wrote:
| So you've nationalized Youtube, eh?
| tg180 wrote:
| YouTube, as well as other major Internet companies, have
| a near-monopoly over their sectors which leaves them
| lacking any competitive drive to be better, do better, or
| for people to go elsewhere.
|
| Without realistic alternatives it is spontaneous (even if
| erroneous) to think about the implication of private
| infrastructure over public rights. But the real matter is
| an issue of scale.
|
| I am convinced that sooner or later governments will wake
| up and that the tech giants will be broken up or severely
| limited: the European GDPR and the Chinese crackdown on
| the sector are only the first signs.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-
| bills-a...
| mcguire wrote:
| I have no doubt that you are right. But that's a kind of
| censorship, too, isn't it?
| BizarroLand wrote:
| This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can
| see a flaw with a system does not mean there is a flaw.
|
| Sometimes the flaw is with you & or your line of thought.
|
| In this case, equating "not being allowed to post far-
| right propaganda on every concourse of communication" is
| not the same as being harassed at your own home because
| people are allowed to protest.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is
| tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is
| eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
|
| It stands to reason then that if all speech is truly free
| eventually some speech will be censored. America doesn't
| allow people to say "Fuck" on public TV broadcasts,
| therefore all speech isn't free. No one is harmed by a
| curse word. Worst case a child will learn the word a few
| years earlier than when they usually do, and yet we
| censor that anyway.
|
| Therefore, you can't say that all speech is free speech
| on all channels.
|
| What you say in person may at worst get you into an
| altercation or ostracized, but you have the right to say
| it. Once your voice is amplified out of earshot you are
| no longer truly free to speak as you will.
|
| You can say what you want to say, yes, but the
| repercussions of your words amplify with every
| repetition. Not everyone is aware of that, and when you
| are on a platform where, by words, you can incite a group
| to violence safely from the other side of the country,
| you should have your speech monitored and censored if
| need be.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close
| to a free speak maximalist his views on when you
| shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high
| bar that almost nothing ever hits.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one
| sentence claim is valid?
|
| Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support
| your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do
| compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at
| me.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| What the hell kind of response is this? You try to puppet
| Popper's work, I tell you that's not at all what he said,
| you affirm you never read any of it and complain it's
| unreasonable to expect you to read it.........
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Well, you're the first person I've encountered who has
| said that the well-known and oft-quoted bit of his work
| that I even provided a link to in wikipedia with quotes
| taken directly from is completely false in all regards.
|
| You followed that up with a command to read more of his
| work without narrowing down out from which of his 25
| books would provide any context to back your assertion
| up.
|
| I just want a little more context than a single sentence
| from some person on the internet to re-evaluate my
| hypothesis. That shouldn't be too much to ask. Especially
| since you're asserting that you know more about the
| subject than the people who authored the Wikipedia page
| and every person who has written an article about it.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was
| close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you
| shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high
| bar that almost nothing ever hits.
|
| > So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one
| sentence claim is valid?
|
| > Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to
| support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to
| do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw
| at me.
|
| Your snark isn't warranted. The Wiki article you yourself
| cited says where Popper introduced the concept and even
| speaks about what his limitations were.
|
| I will let you read that again to find them, rather than
| providing a quote.
| kbenson wrote:
| > Your snark isn't warranted.
|
| Honestly, given the comment being replied to started with
| "go and actually read" I think the snark is warranted if
| they want. Also, for what it's worth I think they were
| trying to modulate that snark a bit by using "friend".
|
| If it's truly easy to realize what is being asked, a
| pointer in the right direction is useful. If it does
| require a lot of work, then providing some evidence to at
| least get someone started if not an actual reference
| would be called for.
|
| In any case, I'm not sure a comment that boils down to
| "if you actually read X, you'd know that what you just
| said is wrong" is worth defending, regardless of whether
| you think it's factually correct or not. You could have
| just pointed out that there was evidence of this position
| and left it at that.
|
| For what it's worth, I only bothered to reply because
| you're not the only person that took the comment that
| way. The strongest possible interpretation of the prior
| comment is "This isn't helpful to me. If you're going to
| state I'm wrong, please provide more information on how
| so I can address that usefully" which I think is a vary
| valid complaint to what it was responding to.
| Interpreting snark where it doesn't necessarily exist or
| providing additional snark in your own in response (not
| that you did this) isn't a useful way to move the
| discourse forward.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Also, for what it's worth I think they were trying to
| modulate that snark a bit by using "friend".
|
| The internet sucks for nuance, but "friend" in this
| context doesn't read as modulation to me, it reads as
| sarcasm (and thus intensifies the snark).
|
| Edit: Dropped a response that was due to a simple
| misreading. Sorry.
| kbenson wrote:
| > The internet sucks for nuance, but "friend" in this
| context doesn't read as modulation to me, it reads as
| sarcasm (and thus intensifies the snark).
|
| It does suck for nuance. The safest and most useful thing
| to do here (as a place that tries to keep things civil)
| is to assume it's not snark and treat it as sincere. If
| it was sincere, treating it as if it's not is causing
| more of a problem, and if it's not, treating it as if it
| is leads to useful responses.
|
| > I don't think that's the case. There are a couple of
| other comments that read the GGP as unnecessarily snarky.
|
| I think perhaps you misread me? I chose you as a
| representative comment to reply to because there were a
| few along similar lines. If it was just one, I probably
| wouldn't have bothered.
|
| > The only thing I did that was unique was note that he
| didn't have to search through "25 books" to get the
| answer, because his own source gave it directly.
|
| I'll just say that if that information was known to the
| original replier, it should have been included, and if it
| wasn't, perhaps the reply should have been reworded?
|
| That you actually provided useful info is another reason
| I bothered to reply to yours. As one that actually
| provided value to the discussion, I hoped to steer any
| additional eyeballs responses might draw to a useful
| comment, rather than a useless one.
|
| I don't want to clutter this discussion too much with
| meta forum etiquette stuff, which I'm already prone to do
| at times, so I'll try to refrain from any additional
| responses on this.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I think perhaps you misread me? I chose you as a
| representative comment to reply to because there were a
| few along similar lines. If it was just one, I probably
| wouldn't have bothered.
|
| I did, sorry.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| When I use the word friend with a stranger, I mean it to
| say, "I have no ill intentions towards you". I'll look
| for a better way to express that in the future if the
| intent isn't coming through.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| There's no snark intended.
|
| Maybe using the word "callous" made it seem that way, but
| that is an accurate depiction of what their response was,
| rough, without thoughtfulness, the reflexive expression
| of an above average mind unconcerned with how their
| message was received.
| abecedarius wrote:
| Just look up where he wrote about this paradox of
| tolerance? It was in a _footnote_. (To guard, I 'd guess,
| against people deliberately misinterpreting his words in
| the main text and going "Ha, look at this doctrinaire
| free-speech absolutist." I've read the book that was in.)
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Why does where it was written matter? Saying that it
| being written in the footnotes invalidates the argument
| is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
|
| You would actually need to refute the argument directly
| for your assertion to have any weight to it.
| luckylion wrote:
| That's such a weird reply. You claimed, were told that
| it's not accurate, and then went on the offense with a
| slightly nicer version of "why should I read about the
| things I claim? How about you prove that it's not as I
| read on that one meme on imgur.com".
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I didn't ask why I should read it. I asked for what to
| read. If they so much as selected the single book they're
| basing their claim on that would cut down their homework
| assignment by 96%.
|
| I don't need chapter and verse, just a homing beacon
| would suffice.
|
| Besides, we're roughly adults here. Someone saying "Nuh-
| uh" to an oft-quoted article has the gravitas of damp
| toast. Why shouldn't I question their response?
| didibus wrote:
| My read of Popper was that we should be prepared to even
| use force against intolerant people who are not willing
| to engage in rational debate.
|
| What Popper didn't anticipate is that the square of
| public opinion would become the internet, and a big
| question this creates is if the internet is a place where
| rationale debate and proportional representation of ideas
| is possible or not.
|
| If the internet were to make the public square of opinion
| a place of irrational debate, I think Popper would be
| very much against it, and would want us to do something
| about it.
|
| Here's a quote from him:
|
| > as long as we can counter them by rational argument and
| keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would
| certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to
| suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may
| easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on
| the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing
| all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen
| to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach
| them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or
| pistols
|
| So the condition he puts forward is: can we counter the
| intolerants on the internet by using rational arguments?
| If we can, than suppression (he claims) would be unwise,
| but if we can't, than suppression by force (he claims)
| might be warranted.
|
| At least that's how I interpret Popper.
| bradknowles wrote:
| Your freedom of speech does not extend to yelling
| "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.
|
| Your freedom of speech does not extend to inciting a
| riot.
|
| There are obvious limits to "free speech".
| bradknowles wrote:
| You are free to hold whatever opinions you want.
|
| You are not free to force me to listen to them.
| gmadsen wrote:
| What I've come to realize is this asks far too much of
| the average person. Ideas do not win on their logical
| merits. Rationality is not the driving force of opinion
| for the majority of people. The alternative is probably
| worse, as some sort of totalitarian regime, but I just
| don't think billions of humans are capable of ensuring
| their own survival as a species
| lelanthran wrote:
| >> This makes it highly resistant to censorship
|
| > We should probably stop using this phrase as a feature
|
| > Instant thought was "ok so other than this channel it's
| all racism"
|
| If you want to be in a place where only approved thoughts
| are allowed, there's plenty of places in the world and on
| the net that would accommodate you _right now._
|
| No need to turn every place into an arm of Mini-truth.
| christophilus wrote:
| > ok so other than this channel it's all racism
|
| It's sad that that was your instant thought. My
| experience so far with Odysee has been pretty good. It's
| no YouTube, but for the channels I follow, it's good
| enough. I hope it continues to to build momentum.
| sanderjd wrote:
| It definitely is sad, but the sad part is that it's a
| true comment on human nature. Every other application
| that advertises in this way has eventually ended up being
| primarily used for racism, glorifying violence, and
| spreading falsehood. What happens is that even if they
| attract good natured users early on, they are eventually
| discovered by people who have been run off of other
| platforms after publishing actually awful things, and
| then the good intentioned early users leave because they
| don't want to be associated with that newly dominant
| crowd on the platform. It's a constant pattern.
| intpx wrote:
| the only thing sad is that its the reality of the
| situation. Tor started off with some pretty pie in the
| sky ideals and now over half of its active use is for
| illegal activity. Tech censorship doesn't even register
| on the scales of stuff that is de-platformed from social
| networking platforms.
| ArtDev wrote:
| A lot of the content removed on Youtube is fan fiction.
| Many companies are effectively IP trolls. Games Workshop,
| for example.
| brigandish wrote:
| _illegal activity_ is a phrase that covers things that
| are _actually_ wrong, and increasingly, things that we
| are _told_ are wrong by our betters.
|
| How much of the "over half" is the former and how much is
| the latter?
| JasonFruit wrote:
| And people opposing powerful institutions, and people who
| are concerned they may be censored in the future, and
| people who love free speech and want to enrich any medium
| that promotes it, and people who have unpopular opinions,
| right or wrong... and some racists too. That's the way
| freedom works: some people use it to do good stuff, and
| some people don't. I believe it's worth it, even if some
| people might hurt others' feelings.
| Igelau wrote:
| You seem to have missed the thread topic and are make-
| believing that "censorship" is a dog whistle. Not a fun
| game.
| zbrozek wrote:
| Certainly wasn't my first thought. Though there may be a
| better phrase.
| bArray wrote:
| Sure, racists are censored by big tech, but also
| hackers/security researchers (if they show exploits for
| example), qualified medical doctors/researchers who
| oppose the official position of the WHO, journalists that
| share disturbing news (Facebook have been long deleting
| records of atrocities in Myanmar for example), creators
| that show the method for recreating dangerous
| experiments, etc, etc. And that's not to mention the
| selective monetization and promotion as a backdoor form
| of censorship too.
|
| I think this just points out a fundamental misconception
| that censorship only applies to the ideas you oppose to
| and nothing else. I believe it's fully correct for the
| word 'censorship' to be used in this context.
| int_19h wrote:
| "Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts
| kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone
| who has lived long in a foreign country will know of
| instances of sensational items of news--things which on
| their own merits would get the big headlines--being kept
| right out of the British press, not because the
| Government intervened but because of a general tacit
| agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that
| particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this
| is easy to understand. The British press is extremely
| centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who
| have every motive to be dishonest on certain important
| topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also
| operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays,
| films and radio. At any given moment there is an
| orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all
| right-thinking people will accept without question. It is
| not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but
| it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian
| times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the
| presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing
| orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising
| effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is
| almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular
| press or in the highbrow periodicals."
|
| "One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the
| renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist
| claim that 'bourgeois liberty' is an illusion, there is
| now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only
| defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves
| democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies
| by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It
| always appears that they are not only those who attack it
| openly and consciously, but those who 'objectively'
| endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other
| words, defending democracy involves destroying all
| independence of thought."
|
| "The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual
| freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our
| characteristic western culture could only doubtfully
| exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals are
| visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle
| that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or
| damned, not on its merits but according to political
| expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view
| assent to it from sheer cowardice."
|
| Sounds familiar? It was written during WW2:
|
| https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-
| foundation/orwel...
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| At the bottom of that page it says:
|
| "Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the
| Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972 with an
| introduction by Sir Bernard Crick. Ian Angus found the
| original manuscript in 1972."
|
| So, I don't think this was written during WWII.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > So, I don't think this was written during WWII.
|
| If it wasn't, it was probably written very soon after the
| end. It uses "this war" to refer to WWII and it doesn't
| appear to discuss anything post-war.
| int_19h wrote:
| Animal Farm itself was written in 1943-44.
|
| The essay I linked to was written in 1945 - if you read
| it, it actually talks about the ongoing war etc, e.g.:
|
| "... we are allies with the USSR in a war which I want to
| see won"
|
| It wasn't _published_ until 1972, for exactly the reasons
| Orwell outlines in it. Indeed, publishing Animal Farm
| itself was hard enough - many American and British
| publishers refused to do so, on the ground that the book
| clearly satirizes the USSR, which was then a war ally.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Preface
| kbenson wrote:
| What this is really describing is what we now call the
| Overton Window[1], and how it's controlled to a degree. I
| think it's a mistake to think it can be controlled
| completely, but depending on the society and the makeup
| of the media control, more or less control can be
| exerted. China has much more control over it for their
| citizens than the United States or the media companies
| within it, most likely.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
| iotku wrote:
| It's worth noting that while based on LBRY (The supposedly
| censorship resistant blockchain protocol) Odysee is a bit
| more opinionated front end with restrictions on things such
| as pornography.
|
| By the standards of "alternative" video sites there's a
| pretty diverse set of content including mirrors from some
| well known YouTube creators (KhanAcademy, EEVBlog,
| GreatScott, Veritasium, HarwareUnboxed, Not Just Bikes,
| EposVox) who don't produce heavily political content
| (whereas many other alt tech video sites are just 99%
| political content going a single direction)
|
| Given goals towards freedom of speech, some content won't
| align with you politically (and some might), but there's
| enough decent content that you can potentially use it as an
| alternative platform successfully.
| joe_guy wrote:
| > Given goals towards freedom of speech, some content
| won't align with you politically (and some might), but
| there's enough decent content that you can potentially
| use it as an alternative platform successfully.
|
| I find high curation is the only way I find a service
| like YouTube to be usable.
|
| There's an endless sea of content on there. It's not
| important that I agree with it or not, it's important if
| it's quality, which the overwhelming majority of it
| isn't.
|
| I'm looking at the landing page of odysee now.
|
| * Why can't Wolverine shack up with doctor strange?
|
| * 1 minute of Luigi in a bag!!!
|
| * Top sleep hacks
|
| * Guess how old this Korean actress is?
|
| I can't block these channels or show disinterest even
| though I made an account.
|
| My issue isn't the politicalness, it's quality and
| relevance.
| iotku wrote:
| >I'm looking at the landing page of odysee now. [...]
|
| I think your examples are a valid criticism, it's just
| that many of the alternatives are far worse (depending on
| your standpoint)
|
| FWIW I would suggest looking at the home page of YouTube
| in incognito mode, most of the videos don't meet my
| quality standards either.
|
| * TikToks that will get you in trouble
|
| * Medical Emergencies: When Acts Go Horribly WRONG!
|
| * Family Guy roasting every country
|
| >I can't block these channels or show disinterest even
| though I made an account.
|
| Yeah I think appropriate filtering options are vital for
| less curated platforms to be more usable. That's not an
| impossible problem to solve, but I would have expected
| better options by now.
|
| >My issue isn't the politicalness, it's quality and
| relevance.
|
| I think it's mainly a chicken and egg problem, there's
| not as much quality content as I'd prefer so there's less
| relevant quality content.
|
| My biggest hope is that a certain threshold can be met
| where more quality content will be added and people
| aren't scared by the preexisting lower quality content
| that they don't want to be associated with.
|
| There's definitely a need for there to be some
| competition to YouTube (Google et al.), but it's a pretty
| large hill to overcome to get there.
|
| Of course YouTube still has a very strong hand in regards
| to monetization.
| strainer wrote:
| The prominent Linux tech blogger, Bryan Lunduke left and
| denounced them this summer despite having been an early
| adopter and supporter. He had made a complaint on how
| they chose to give an exclusive spotlight to a
| partiuclarly trashy channel and then recieved a reply
| from their "Cheif Marketing Officer" which was itself
| shamelessly vulgar and trashy and boasted that such trash
| is "the Odysee Brand". Lundukes explaination for leaving
| seems to be only archived in his subscription/free-to-
| view social network lunduke.locals.com.
|
| For worthwhile content I hold more hope for rokfin -
| www.rokfin.com/discover
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I have no general opinion about Odysee/LBRY, except that
| I expect it to fair as well as every other blockchain
| buzzword bingo social thing and every other YouTube
| compete, which is to say, I expect it to never gain
| traction in any sizable way (I would certainly never
| choose it as a way to build my video audience), but if
| the argument against Odysee is that it is too permissive
| of what content it allows (and the line seems to be stuff
| that is maybe trashy and not like, beheadings), I have to
| think _most_ of the potential users /creators see that as
| a good thing.
|
| Like, if the worst thing you can say about it is that a
| guy that refuses to say "damn" or "shit" or "fuck," is
| morally offended by some of the legal content, I'm not
| sure that will matter to people who are looking for a
| platform that won't kick people off the platform for
| arbitrary reasons.
| strainer wrote:
| > if the worst thing you can say about it is that a guy
| that refuses to say "damn" or "shit" or "fuck," is
| morally offended by some of the legal content
|
| But that's not what I described. Its not the content
| Lunduke had an issue with, it was the marketting decision
| to promote it with an exclusive spotlight, and then the
| following unprofessional communications revealing
| something really dodgy about the company. Conversations
| about it on reddit have been removed apparently. I found
| Lunduke has posted an account of it on youtube.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBZjUPavvs8
| jvdheuvel wrote:
| If you use the LBRY app from this repository you can get
| more results, https://github.com/paveloom-f/lbry-
| desktop/releases
| laurent92 wrote:
| Veritasium is not political? He is, very. It's just that
| you don't see it. It's not an accusation, just a reminder
| that the background noise is non-neutral, and he doesn't
| contrast very much on your background ;)
| wiskinator wrote:
| In what ways? I'm just curious. The channel doesn't seem
| political to me either, so I want to investigate my
| blindspots.
| meowface wrote:
| Veritasium is _very_ political?
|
| Can you link a video where politics comes in at all, let
| alone something that's very political?
| https://www.youtube.com/c/veritasium/videos
|
| Maybe the driverless car one can be seen as somewhat
| political (by advocating for use of self-driving cars),
| but it's not necessarily a polarizing issue split along
| US political party lines, at the moment.
|
| Or do you mean the host of the channel is very political,
| whether or not any of that is indicated in any of the
| videos?
| rg111 wrote:
| I found only this video to be slightly political:
|
| _Is Success Luck or Hard Work?_
| (https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I)
|
| I don't know about any other video that has any politics
| in them.
| kbenson wrote:
| Maybe, inasmuch as it's espousing an idea that is
| generally more associated with one party than the other,
| but the focus is really that idea, and it's supporting
| evidence, not how it related to politics or the parties
| and how they view it.
|
| I would hope people try to asses it on the merits of the
| arguments and examples, and not how they perceive it
| related to a specific political agenda they are for or
| against.
| iotku wrote:
| Eh perhaps, I revised the comment a few times here and
| there.
|
| I guess I would say I'm aiming towards examples that are
| big enough to be notable and not just directly focused on
| political analysis or similar or type channels.
|
| A lot of what throws somewhat sane people (I would
| include myself in that but of course I'm biased) off of
| using the alternate video sites is the second you load up
| the home page of something like BitChute or rumble and
| see nearly an entire page full heavily one-sided
| political content and many (justifiably) believe there's
| no content for them if they don't align there.
|
| Odysee could use some more quality content for sure, but
| they at least operate in such a way that I'm not
| convinced they're only for one type of content and some
| of the creators I watch in Linux/technology space have
| somewhat of a presence there.
| kxrm wrote:
| Except oddly dark mode requires an account. That's a strange
| requirement when they can pull this from the browser
| preference.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> you can still watch them on Odysee
|
| Never heard of them, but that page looks great! Bookmarked.
| dan1234 wrote:
| It's the video/consumer frontend to LBRY, a
| decentralised/p2p/blockchain based publishing platform.
|
| I hope it can achieve a critical mass because it does look
| interesting, but I don't hear many people talking about it -
| even in tech circles.
|
| https://lbry.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBRY
| morganvachon wrote:
| I just scrolled through their main feed and every other
| video was some kind of alt-right misinformation rant (COVID
| is fake, Joe Biden is dead/dying/has dementia, Antifa is
| killing kids, etc.). Just based on that alone I want no
| part of it.
| int_19h wrote:
| Most of the content on any such platform is going to be
| the kind that was banned from mainstream platforms for
| whatever reason. But it's not just alt-right agitprop
| that gets banned. And any individual targeted group is
| not large enough to maintain a viable platform of their
| own. So either we have a public platform place with the
| stink, or we have none at all.
| Forbo wrote:
| I think the complaint isn't that the content exists
| there, but rather that it makes up the vast majority of
| what is found there. If the majority of Netflix content
| is trash that I wouldn't want to watch, why would I
| continue using Netflix? I think the big issue here is
| that there hasn't been a need for opposing content to be
| published on the platform, and until there is it will
| remain slanted one way. This in and of itself will
| further reduce adoption by the opposition, as seen above,
| because of how immediately off-putting it is.
| int_19h wrote:
| You might continue to watch Netflix because the shows you
| do like are exclusively available there, and just ignore
| the rest of the library.
|
| It's not that there hasn't been a need for other stuff to
| be published - it's that there hasn't been a
| _proportional_ need. Which is exactly what I meant: any
| alternatives to established platforms are going to have
| the preponderance of content banished from those
| established platforms, in direct proportion. So if the
| purges on e.g. YouTube _mostly_ target right-wing
| extremism, but _also_ target some other content, then
| that 's the distribution you're going to see on
| alternative platforms. But what other choice do you have,
| if you're interested in that other content?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| You can nearly always find some other route to a given
| piece of content, or just lose interest in consuming it.
| Very little content is _sooooo_ compelling that it
| overcomes all other considerations. Otherwise people who
| had problems with YT would just set up on a big porn
| site, which tend to have good infrastructure and long-
| term viability (at least for as long as people want to
| keep watching porn, which is probably forever).
| jvdheuvel wrote:
| There is plenty of content on Odysee that is not alt-
| right of alt-left. https://odysee.com/@aantonop:8 (talks
| a lot about crypto) https://odysee.com/@HackerSploit:26
| (cybersecurity) https://odysee.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4 (all
| kinds of it stuff) etc. etc. put a word in the search bar
| and see what you get
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| YouTube has been changing in weird ways in the last year or so.
|
| The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though
| very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone
| who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't
| look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be
| wrong on this).
|
| A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting
| comments, it seems that most viewers don't pick up on this.
|
| At the same time, finding reviews or alike for products or
| services is near impossible -- the platform is filled with
| generic reviews which are indistinguishable form ads.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| The way that they've changed search to only link to checkmarked
| channels is infuriating. When Kabul was falling I wanted to see
| older videos of the embassy, from when it was opened, to see
| the buildings and how extravagant they were. I couldn't find
| any, though, because no matter what I searched I got videos
| from news channels released within the past 24 hours about
| evacuating the embassy. The war on "misinformation" needs to
| stop.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Watch one "conservative news" video and it will do a complete
| 180. Ads for "rations", "preparing for the end of the world",
| "how to be self sustainable", tons of PragerU propaganda, and
| some of the most low quality l BS you'll ever see from
| political ads.
|
| YouTube delivers content based on what you've watched.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Yeah I watched some 'forgotten weapons' and 'demolition
| ranch' videos, and it was _wild_ how quickly my feed changed
| from science and history stuff to conservative talking
| points. I spent a rather long time marking videos as 'do not
| recommend this channel, I dislike this video' etc, before
| things returned to normal.
| VRay wrote:
| Man, I had a similar problem
|
| I watched something right wing, I can't remember what, and
| for years YouTube was bombarding me with crazy half-truths
| and memes. I tuned them out just like most of the other
| bullshit I get bombarded with all day, but I wonder how
| many people have been radicalized this way..
| vl wrote:
| Another simple way to address this is to remove
| uninteresting videos from history, then recommendations go
| back to normal. We have to do it on our kids account
| periodically.
| dvdkon wrote:
| I just fully revoked Google from keeping any data on my
| viewing habits and for some time now my YouTube main page
| has been a rehash of popular videos from my subscribed
| channels (and the occasional cat video). I sure don't
| miss the craziness desperately trying to get me to watch
| as much as possible.
| sjmulder wrote:
| Late night show Zondag met Lubach put this to the test:
| https://youtu.be/FLoR2Spftwg (English CC available. Skip to
| 11:48 if you just want to see this bit.)
|
| They created a fresh account using a fresh browser, clicked
| the top result for "PCR test reliable", then some recommended
| videos. Just three clicks in they get to 9/11 and qanon
| conspiracy videos. By then their home feed too is full of
| that stuff.
| rjbwork wrote:
| I watch a lot of lefty "news" and infotainment. I still get
| ads for the conservative propaganda, survival rations,
| prepping, etc. I think it's because I also watch a lot of
| firearms hobby content.
|
| Kinda silly, but it does make me chuckle that people like Ben
| Shapiro, PragerU, and 4Patriots are subsidizing my lefty
| youtube subscriptions.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| What's particularly fascinating is how there is an almost
| complete absence of a leftist equivalent on YT. There are
| some leftist channels here and there, but you're not going
| to get bombarded with communist ads after watching one
| video like you might on the right.
| rjbwork wrote:
| It's strictly a function of funding and the economic
| power of the interested parties. Rich capitalists are,
| naturally, invested in promoting policies, ideologies,
| and politicians that will 1) keep them being rich
| capitalists and 2) make them richer capitalists. I don't
| know, but am fairly confident in stating, that there are
| not rich communists waging a communistic propaganda
| campaign in order to keep them being rich communists and
| making them richer communists. Certainly not in the
| Anglosphere, anyway.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| You're not wrong, but leftists also tend to spend an
| inordinate amount of energy and resources fighting
| internecine battles rather than trying to convert others.
| This does make it rather hard to do things like run self-
| reinforcing YT campaigns, assuming YT would tolerate
| them.
| klyrs wrote:
| I like to tell myself that's because real lefties adhere
| to the doctrine of Gil Scott Heron, The Revolution Will
| Not be Televised, even though they won't understand 99%
| of the cultural references
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I'm split between two causes myself.
|
| 1) The utter lack of support from monied interests.
|
| 2) The fact that leftists love nothing more than fighting
| slightly different types of other leftists.
| pohl wrote:
| I mostly consume guitar technique & music theory videos,
| yet I still see ads suggesting I might want to buy & bury a
| plastic tote full of MREs out in the wilderness just in
| case. Maybe it's because I live in Nebraska? -\\_(tsu)_/-
| da_chicken wrote:
| That's probably part of it, but you can tell YouTube to
| stop showing you those videos. The algorithm does work
| it's just kind of like a 7-year-old.
| kingTug wrote:
| Same here, 95% of my YT consumption is related to
| advanced music theory. The (constant) ads that drive me
| up a wall are the "learn to play guitar" services that
| feature children practicing their first guitar notes. Ive
| heard this from other musicians too - the algorithm
| thinks everyone is a novice.
| zenron wrote:
| Calling PragerU propaganda is like calling an Western history
| book written by a religious person contraband. What exact
| points do you take umbrage with or is this just a signal to
| your political preference?
| danparsonson wrote:
| Here's a counterpoint for you, regarding the 'war on cars':
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z8Tb7OA_F4
| tenaciousDaniel wrote:
| Meh, I'm still not seeing what make it propaganda,
| instead of just a terrible argument.
| [deleted]
| CRConrad wrote:
| Nobody is as blind as he who does not want to see.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Propaganda, according to Wikipedia:
|
| > Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to
| influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not
| be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to
| encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using
| loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a
| rational response to the information that is being
| presented.[1]
|
| PragerU's "About Us" Page:
|
| > Prager University is the world's leading conservative
| nonprofit that is focused on changing minds through the
| creative use of digital media. Taking full advantage of
| today's technology and social media, we educate millions of
| Americans and young people about the values that make
| America great.[2]
|
| I'd also encourage you to check out their "What is
| PragerU"[3] brochure (PDF) which goes into more detail.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
|
| [2]https://www.prageru.com/about
|
| [3]https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/UfBbMy7Kkcxxjz
| VTlR...
| devwastaken wrote:
| PragerU is the one funding advertisements with wild,
| baseless, and often scientifically dishonest "research". I
| don't recall traditional universities doing this. They
| firmly market themselves as "conservative intellectuals",
| telling you the "real truth" liberals won't recognize. I'd
| call that propaganda by definition.
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| why do you weirdo conservatives always talk like Ducktale
| villains?
|
| Anyway, I thought Candace Owens comments on nationalist
| socialism were just straight up insane, also their series
| defending creationism is completely hilarious.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _I can also imagine that it doesn 't look like propaganda to
| average Americans_
|
| It looks like propaganda to us too.
|
| We're not quite as dumb as the rest of the world thinks. That
| said, I suppose everyone's a bit dumber than they think they
| are, so take my statement with a grain of salt.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| >The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though
| very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational".
|
| I certainly don't see that on the youtube channels I frequent,
| but admit that the 'news' is typically op-ed disguised as news.
|
| An alternative theory is that they (youtube) pushes 'news'
| since it pays well and is quite popular. 'News' tends to come
| from official channels over time with a kind of network effect.
| Those channels are all Pravda. The fact that it's propaganda is
| not necessarily a youtube choice but a major news organization
| choice.
| omgitsabird wrote:
| This seems rather vague. Can you give examples of propaganda?
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| The same woke, leftist marxist propaganda the as is
| everywhere at the moment?
| jostmey wrote:
| It is rather vague, but I have the same impression. So N=2
| sbarre wrote:
| Oh come on... spend 10 minutes on YouTube and you'll find
| tons of it.
|
| There have been countless articles and posts written about
| this problem over the last several years.
|
| I would challenge _you_ to go educate yourself on this rather
| than ask others to bring this widely available and widely
| accepted information to you.
| sprafa wrote:
| The current "ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer"
| debacle has been the biggest example of a moment where I'm
| not sure whether everyone is lying at this point. YouTube
| censored a few videos with actual experts and doctors who
| were discussing ivm.
|
| Yes we had issues with HCQ in the beginning, but ivm is being
| actually studied right now by Oxford Uni/NHS in their big
| covid trials in the UK... it's amazing what a hit job the
| media is doing on it.
| onei wrote:
| There's a difference between trials and it being suitable
| for public use though, right? It is undeniably a horse
| dewormer, and has had some use on humans, but not as a
| covid treatment.
|
| For me, it's about preventing people that aren't medical
| professionals from self-medicating with a potentially
| harmful substance. Plus there's been some less than stellar
| suggestions of covid treatments in the past ranging from
| dubious to lethal. If it turns out to be safe, then doctors
| will no doubt prescribe it as necessary.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Calling ivermectin horse dewormer is like calling
| penicillin cow antibiotics or fish tank saver.
|
| It's in significant use in humans.
| handrous wrote:
| I figured that term had taken off because people were
| acquiring it from farm stores or pet supply places, so
| they were _literally_ buying "horse dewormer", as it
| might be labeled on the packaging or signage. Same as
| they do for other off-prescription medications
| (antibiotics).
| OldTimeCoffee wrote:
| It's in significant use in humans as a dewormer, though.
| It's used in humans to treat river blindness which is
| caused by a worm. It's also used for the prevention of
| worms in dogs. It's fair to call it a dewormer, even if
| you disagree with including the 'horse' part.
|
| It's not an anti-viral in any sense of the word.
| jsight wrote:
| Ok, I'll be more specific. Using the word "horse" is like
| calling other medications that are used on people and
| dogs as "dog" medicine.
|
| The qualifier is not necessary. Truthfully, they should
| just call it ivermectin and describe what it actually is,
| how it has actually been used, and the current state of
| research showing that currently has little proof of
| effectiveness though there are trials ongoing.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Correct, and while it's use as an anti-viral has been
| noted pre-covid we don't understand what it's method of
| action is, or why it sometimes behaves as an anti-viral.
|
| I'm not recommending using drugs we don't understand or
| have a full picture of. I am recommending to stop calling
| it horse dewormer. At the very least call it an anti-
| parasitic in use in the 3rd and 2nd worlds.
| SnowProblem wrote:
| Two people in my circle were taking IVM pre-pandemic to
| treat rosacea and lyme disease. This is not an obscure
| drug in the 1st world. It also doesn't need to be an
| anti-viral to work on covid - it's already a general
| anti-inflammatory. Inflammation of the lungs is why
| people can't breath and often die, and that inflammation
| is due to the body's own immune response, not the virus
| itself. The virus is gone by that point. But our standard
| protocol at first symptoms does not include treating
| potential inflammation, so by the time people get to
| hospital it's often too late. It's not good.
| OldTimeCoffee wrote:
| You can drop the '3rd and 2nd worlds' part. It's used for
| the treatment of parasites in the 1st world as well.
|
| I'm not a infectious diseases expert, but to my knowledge
| the viruses that it's been found to be effective against
| are all mosquito borne; it's just as likely related to
| it's toxic action on mosquitos in general. Still, it's
| all baseless conjecture on everyone's part. If someone
| cares to throw money at it, it's something that can be
| investigated.
|
| At the end of the day just get the widely available
| vaccine and move on with life, like you would for other
| viruses that we've got vaccines for. I feel like we're
| all making this way harder than it has to be just so we
| can all continue to yell at each other.
| ufo wrote:
| I believe there have been studies showing that ivermectin
| is not useful against covid in these situations either.
| [deleted]
| sprafa wrote:
| I would hope so.
|
| My point about "horse dewormer" is that some articles in
| the media list it as _just_ that without mentioning at
| all that it is also human medication. Look at the recent
| articles about Joe Rogan, they couldn't stop themselves.
|
| Afaik the only difference between human and animal ivm
| are levels of impurity.
| sophacles wrote:
| That's because people are literally buying and eating
| horse dewormer. Its in a package that says "horse
| dewormer" on it. It's sold at livestock stores in the
| "horse medicine" section. The media is 100% correct to
| call what people are poisoning themselves with "horse
| dewormer".
|
| I bet you get mad at the news for reporting rain because
| water exists in other forms, and has other ways of moving
| about besides rain right?
| kragen wrote:
| It's really hard to poison yourself with ivermectin if
| you're a vertebrate. Apparently the total number of
| poisoning cases in the US, a country of 330 million
| people, is about 500, and the vast majority of those
| cases had minor or no effects; people were just worried.
| So if you buy horse dewormer in a livestock store and
| take it, you'll probably _still_ be fine.
|
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-
| a-pl...
| pwdisswordfish8 wrote:
| Did Joe Rogan literally buy and eat something from a
| package that says "horse dewormer" on it? You willingly
| ignored the salient parts of the comment you responded to
| (ironically providing more evidence of the very
| phenomenon that they're trying to discuss).
| numeromancer wrote:
| No, it was prescribed by his doctor.
|
| Which brings up another point: some pharmacies are
| refusing to fill it, even when prescribed by a doctor. If
| you want to place the blame for people getting "horse
| dewormer", such pharmacies deserve part of the blame.
| sophacles wrote:
| Too bad most of the people who want horse dewormer were
| the same people who wanted the "pharmacist conscience"
| laws that allow pharmacists to deny their veterinary
| prescriptions. Who would have thought that such a law
| would come back to bite them.
| blitzar wrote:
| > ivm is being actually studied right now by Oxford Uni/NHS
| in their big covid trials in the UK
|
| So you are saying because something is being investigated
| it must have strong positive properties?
|
| Well - have I got something for you ... You know when you
| take a poo and flush it down the toilet? Did you know all
| this time you could be eating it, and it would have
| tremendous health benefits?
|
| Dont believe me? They did a study on eating shit once, so
| it must be true, and I must be only just touching on the
| health benefits of Coprophagia.
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168083/
| sprafa wrote:
| I never said anything of the sort.
| blitzar wrote:
| You said the proof it is a 'hit job by the media' is
| because the medication is 'being actually studied right
| now by Oxford Uni'
| concordDance wrote:
| Which is a reasonable proof. Media shouldn't be shitting
| on stuff that might work.
| Reubachi wrote:
| Weird this needs to be reiterated in Covid 2021....What
| do you think "media" should be doing? Remember, media =/=
| op-ed journalists that you want to have the same opinion
| as you.
|
| "media" should not have to do anything by anyone's
| standards. it is a omnipresent, global, ever changing
| opinion glued transparently to percieved values and
| morays of the time.
|
| If you click on a link/article that says "X will not work
| and we do not like it", then that media outfit is doing
| exactly what it needs to do as a media outfit.
| fireflash38 wrote:
| It's not a proof at all!!!!
| uj8efdkjfdshf wrote:
| I mean, it's quite likely the ivermectin and
| hydroxychloroquine has some effect against the virus in the
| early stages of infection, but their use needs to be
| balanced against their side effects, of which there are
| many. It's like how bleach kills cancer cells, but you
| really shouldn't be treating cancer with it...
| sprafa wrote:
| I believe ivermectin is a far safer drug than HCQ.
| kieselguhr_kid wrote:
| I mean, it's great that you personally believe something,
| but to make ethical medical decisions we need lots of
| clinical data. If your belief is well founded, which it
| damn well might be, the data should bear that out.
| kragen wrote:
| We have lots of clinical data, their belief is well
| founded, and the data does bear that out. It's as if you
| commented without even skimming the Wikipedia article
| about ivermectin.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Contraindication
| s
| jvdheuvel wrote:
| Here you can find some clinical data:
| https://c19ivermectin.com/
|
| Here on a whole list of other early treatments:
| https://c19early.com/
|
| Check also https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCa
| reAlliance:c/F... and https://flccc.net/
| hajile wrote:
| The data on the safety of Ivermectin is very well
| established. It's well-known to be very safe with pretty
| minimal side effects and extremely low serious side
| effect rates despite the billions of doses handed out
| over the past decades.
|
| The real question is about its anti-viral properties. We
| know they exist, but don't know why or to what extent.
| Further, we don't know if they extend to COVID and we
| don't now if the effective dosage is high enough to
| increase the rates of side effects (especially bad ones).
|
| The result is extremists on both sides saying wild
| garbage. Either it's the salvation of mankind hidden from
| you by the grand conspiracy or it's toxic horse dewormer
| that will certainly kill anyone who even approaches it.
|
| This is a real problem. If I were researching Ivermectin
| and COVID, I'd be scared that loonies from one side or
| the other might attempt to hurt me or ruin my life over
| their delusions.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Being studied, _not_ accepted in use in humans for COVID.
| Blame the idiots injecting themselves with the actual horse
| versions, and the doctors /vets illigally prescribing it.
| IVM is as useful as eating dirt in relation to COVID, until
| proven otherwise with studies that aren't fabricated data
| or otherwise p-hacked to death - it's disinformation, and
| rightfully removed.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Remember when posting the lab leak hypothesis on Facebook
| would get you banned and now it's, as best as we can
| figure, the most plausible theory?
|
| There is no human run group fit to decide what is or is
| not "disinformation".
| commandlinefan wrote:
| In fact, most of the "people are dying because they're
| injecting themselves with horse dewormer" story can be
| traced back to a rolling stone article that quoted a
| doctor who said so. The only problem was, they actually
| quoted the doctor's name as well as an actual hospital he
| supposedly worked at - and the hospital issued a
| statement that that doctor neither worked there nor had
| they treated _any_ Ivermectin overdoses
| (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/rolling-stone-
| s-ive...). In other words, "people overdosing on horse
| dewormer" is _actual_ misinformation... which isn 't
| being censored.
| smallbizdev420 wrote:
| Relying on one source for information is wrong, the
| hearsay article which reported what the doc in Oklahoma
| said without verifying the claims about ivermectin
| overdoses was wrong.
|
| What is not wrong is this:
|
| According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS),
| which collects information from the nation's 55 poison
| control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported
| exposure cases from July to August -- from 133 to 459.
|
| Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-
| updates/2021/0...
|
| On the one hand, it's nice to know this number is low, on
| the other hand the numbers are likely under-reporting.
| Low toxicity doses and symptoms are likely unrecorded.
| Self medication with prescription drugs is a bad idea.
| etchalon wrote:
| No. The Rolling Stone debacle literally just happened.
|
| The idea "most of the story" is traced backed to one bad
| article, from two days ago, when it's been a story for
| over a month is ridiculous nut-picking.
| refenestrator wrote:
| It became 'plausible' based on fashion -- the evidence
| didn't change at all. Which is even crazier.
| slightwinder wrote:
| To be fair, the bans usually were about china fabricating
| the virus on purpose and releasing it with intention,
| accompanied by racism against Asians. This is pretty
| different from the accidental leak of a research-object,
| which is now the accepted theory.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The media did themselves and the public a disservice by
| gluing the two theories together and blending them.
| Several friends - college educated, intelligent
| professionals - were confused enough to approach and ask
| me about the lab leak/release theories.
|
| The intentional lab release theory is the stuff of
| nonsense conspiracy theories. The accidental leak theory
| has always had some support but is now more widely
| accepted (but will likely never have hard proof).
|
| For a time, both were bannable offenses on Facebook,
| Youtube and others. Likely because the media glued them
| together and assigned them both as "disinformation".
| [deleted]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| On YouTube and Facebook, "the media" is just "stuff
| people are saying in videos they post."
|
| So this point reduces to "both were bannable offenses
| because people were posting videos that glued them
| together," which... Yes, that's why.
| slightwinder wrote:
| It wasn't really the media doing that. It was more a
| combination between nut heads, meme heads with their
| umbrella-connection and the first panic. The media just
| amplified it and rode the wave, as usual. And after the
| message was out, it was hard to turn it around. And I
| guess the platforms were just unable to distinguish
| between them, as also had more interest to wait till the
| nutty wave died down.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > It wasn't really the media doing that.
|
| [1] - https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/06
| /covid-la...
|
| [2] -
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-
| theo...
|
| [3] - https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/
| slightwinder wrote:
| Not sure what you mean. These articles are all from 6+
| months after the first panic. At that point, the theories
| were already long merged and spreading wild. They were
| already present from the first days in January 2020, when
| China's situation became epidemic. And this didn't really
| change till spring 2021 when everyone cooled down a bit
| and sanity returned a bit.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| > To be fair, the bans usually were about china
| fabricating the virus on purpose and releasing it with
| intention, accompanied by racism against Asians. This is
| pretty different from the accidental leak of a research-
| object, which is now the accepted theory.
|
| No, both versions were lumped into the same bucket.
| devwastaken wrote:
| "most plausible theory" according to whom? It's not a
| theory, it's a hypothesis with little tangible but
| evidence due to the nature of chinas control. It could
| have happened, it may not have. The problem with lab leak
| discussion on YouTube/Facebook is it was heavily
| associated with politics, and incredible unsubstantiated
| claims. "Experts" from nowhere, hired degrees talking
| about a lab they know nothing about, anonymous and
| convenient unheard of "researchers" supposedly "exposing
| the lab leak". The disinformation was incredible. Even if
| lab leak did happen - very few had the actual proof or
| good arguments to back it.
| concordDance wrote:
| > IVM is as useful as eating dirt in relation to COVID,
| until proven otherwise with studies
|
| Um. No. IVM is useful or not useful regardless of whether
| studies have been done.
|
| Studies are useful for _finding out_ whether it is
| useful, but they do not affect the result.
|
| If people take it now and then it turns out it's a
| miracle cure that halts ageing the people taking it now
| will have benefited. If instead it actually causes
| incurable cancer in five years the people taking it now
| are in the shitter. These things are true or false
| regardless of whether we know them and regardless of
| whether we got that knowledge from formal studies.
| mseepgood wrote:
| > IVM is useful or not useful regardless of whether
| studies have been done
|
| Just like dirt.
| kragen wrote:
| Injecting? When I took ivermectin (for parasites, not
| covid, of course) I took it orally. Why on Earth would
| you inject it?
| heh9001 wrote:
| Anything you see on the front page of youtube, i.e. you
| didn't specifically search for it, is most likely being
| promoted by some ad agency or think tank somewhere down the
| line. Meaning it's propaganda to some extent. The exceptions
| to this rule are, of course, independent creators that the
| algorithm latches onto, but the algorithm only promotes
| videos that people are gonna click on and generate revenue
| for Youtube. That is, in a way, controlled propaganda too.
| kragen wrote:
| I see "African grey parrot singing along to I can see
| clearly now", "Cucumbers are cat's enemy - Funny Pet
| Reaction | Purr Purr", "Cockatoo Farts and Runs Away",
| "House Relax: Ed Sheeran, Martin Garrix, Kygo, Dua Lipa,
| Avicii, The...", "Venezuela 1-3 Argentina | Eliminatorias a
| Qatar 2022 -...", etc.
|
| This is because yesterday I looked at videos of Alex the
| African grey parrot.
|
| As far as I can tell, there are no ad agencies or think
| tanks involved here, except I guess that Atlantic Records
| made Ed Sheeran more popular than he was already by
| promoting him. I think this is pretty much purely "videos
| that people are gonna click on".
|
| The propaganda is in what's missing.
| godshatter wrote:
| I see the "House Relax" one when I go to YouTube in a
| private window without signing in. It seems to be one of
| the "stock" links that YouTube shows complete newbies
| that have never been there before (as far as it knows),
| so I'm guessing it's pretty strongly advertised
| presumably at the behest of the ad agencies.
|
| I do, always, see three or four covid-19 videos when I go
| to the main YT page. Whatever you think about their
| message, they look like propaganda to me.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm sympathetic but not a video creator, but I wonder why don't
| people band together and sue, or alternatively pressure their
| state attorneys-general to bring a civil enforcement action? Yes,
| yes, arbitration clauses, but there's a doctrine in law called
| 'unconscionable contract' and a demonstrable pattern of
| unilateral kafkaesque behavior by YT is a good start for any
| attorney.
|
| As I have pointed out over and over _market solutions don 't
| work_ when there are huge power/capital differentials involved.
| Hoping some plucky little underdog product/service will lead to
| an exodus isn't going to happen.
|
| Back in the day, Google ate Yahoo's lunch (along with Altavista,
| Lycos and everyone else) because Google had a genuine search
| engine (in the form of a graph database) whereas the incumbents
| were operating directories, and the classification/curation
| couldn't keep up with the volume of information being crawled.
| For those who were not around at the time, it's hard to
| communicate how different the products were. Incumbents let you
| search but also offered a huge number of categories, like a
| library catalog. Google looked like a joke website the first time
| you visited due to the lack of _any_ categorical or navigational
| options, just this over-confident search field...except that it
| worked. It was like sorcery.
|
| The reason I mention this is because in economics there's a
| concept of _elasticity of demand_ , of how attached you are to a
| thing you already use or consume. Generally, you want to stick
| with what works. This is especially true where network effects
| come into play. Competitors that offer X + some incremental
| improvement usually fail; their best outcome is that X buys them
| and incorporates the incremental improvement (which is sometimes
| the competitors' ultimate goal). To lure people away from a
| successful product the additional benefit to the buyer has to be
| more like 100% than 10% or 20%, and that rarely happens. If you
| look at Youtube's contenders, they fall into specialized
| categories such as art stuff like Vimeo (extra access control,
| higher video quality/ delivery options), Twitch (emphasis on
| livestreaming and social, especially for gamers), Rumble (for
| Freeze Peach aficionados), Pornhub and the whole adult
| entertainment ecosystem, or high-end commercial content
| streaming.
|
| So if you dream of beating YouTube in the market, you need to
| either occupy a niche they don't want to be in (most of which
| have already been occupied) or offer something that's radically
| different _for the consumer_. Being distributed / FOSS/
| blockchain/ whatever isn't it because only nerds care about that
| stuff. Nerds don't rule the marketplace, even when they build the
| marketplace: 95% of people _do not care_ how something works or
| that it serves a higher purpose. It needs to offer a wholly
| different _user experience_ , and really, it's kinda hard to see
| how you're gonna radically rethink TV.
|
| You have a better chance to do something amazing in virtual
| reality or internet navigation in general, and provide a native
| offering in which Youtube is diminished to the minor status of a
| channel owner, ie your UI/brand is The Thing and YouTube is just
| a minor service provider icon _below the content_.
|
| So the alternative is to address the situation legally. Monopoly
| complaints won't work, because the nice capitalists at the
| University of Chicago have institutionalized the idea that
| monopolies are fine as long as the public is happy, and the huge
| # of consumers using YouTube vastly outweighs the small # of
| creators who are pissed off with it, so good luck with your
| public interest argument. However, there might be some mileage in
| attacking the contract terms or alleging that YouTube has
| implicitly defamed creators by suspending them without
| explanation. Or you could go in a different direction and argue
| that YouTube is a sort of public utility, though then you need to
| decide whether you really want online video to be regulated by
| FCC.
|
| Litigation would be expensive and stressful and would need to be
| a collective rather than individual undertaking, and a selective
| one at that - folks like Linux Experiment are sympathetic
| plaintiffs, folks like Logan Paul are not (you may think this
| shouldn't matter, but tough luck, it does). Chances are that such
| a case would almost certainly fail, but the object would be to
| make discovery and the trial excruciatingly embarrassing for
| youtube, which would mean _refusing to settle_ and (probably)
| looking for specific performance like YT submitting to
| supervision of some kind in the form of a consent decree, rather
| than mere compensation. If you just ask them for money you 'll
| (maybe) eventually get some but nothing will change, because
| asking for money is essentially the same as saying whoever has
| the most money gets to be king of the market and Alphabet has
| plenty of coins to toss in the direction of the peasants.
|
| The potential upside here is not winning in court (a vanishingly
| unlikely possibility) or getting a big check to shut up and go
| away (nice and what your lawyers want, but basically selling out
| your principles), but either a change in the law from Congress
| (ha ha good luck) or a shift in the public's thinking about how
| contracts should work, the distribution of obligations, and how
| much market power is acceptable.
| hapless wrote:
| It appears to have been banned when the author offered an illegal
| sweepstakes.
|
| Contests and sweepstakes are carefully regulated in America, with
| slightly different regimes in all 50 states. You should not run
| one unless you have gotten legal help with it!
| sschueller wrote:
| If this is true there are several very large youtubers that are
| running illegal sweepstakes. Jake and Logan Paul for example.
| raydev wrote:
| How do you know those sweepstakes are illegal? Have you
| verified that the Paul brothers either have bad legal teams
| or no legal teams?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If you suspect this, report them to the FTC.
| EastToWest wrote:
| Source? The creator's twitter doesn't mention that at all.
| juniperplant wrote:
| There was a giveaway of a Tuxedo laptop[1]. Whoever wanted to
| participate had to comment on the video announcing the
| giveaway, which apparently goes against YouTube's TOS (as far
| as I can tell comments count affects YouTube's algorithm).
|
| [1] https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment:e/win-the-tuxedo-
| aura...
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| If that's it, it's a ridiculous premise. I won some music
| equipment from Sweetwater by liking and commenting on a
| video (though not sure they would be able to verify the
| like).
|
| I expect things like this to continue to grow as we rely
| more and more on algorithms in all walks of life without
| thinking through true recourse options.
| dangus wrote:
| If true, the channel owner was trying to game the system
| to make their channel look like it was more popular than
| it really was.
|
| An analogy would be like a TV host telling the audience
| to watch the show on five televisions so that they would
| get a higher Nielsen ratings and then get more money from
| advertisers. No TV network or advertiser would be happy
| about that.
|
| In other words, if this is what was really happening,
| this channel was essentially trying to scam YouTube into
| thinking they were more popular than they really are for
| their own monetary gain.
|
| To me it seems like this channel deserved what they got,
| if the allegations are true.
|
| I even doubt that the channel was automatically removed
| by an algorithm. Maybe it was flagged by one for human
| review. Just because a company doesn't contact you
| doesn't mean a human wasn't involved in your particular
| case. Furthermore, just because Sweetwater got away with
| it one time doesn't mean it's not against the TOS.
|
| I'm just speculating, and I don't have skin in the game.
| Spivak wrote:
| I don't think you deserve the downvotes, this is click-
| fraud and I'm not at all surprised that it got axed. I'm
| sure it with enough media outrage and a private mea culpa
| from the creator it will be reinstated but on first blush
| I think this was the right call.
| raydev wrote:
| Sweetwater is not "getting away with it." They have
| verified legal clearance, and the owner of linux
| experience does not.
|
| Your concerns about "scamming" aren't relevant. Many of
| YouTube's most popular channels do this sort of contest,
| and there is no hard ban on this type of thing.
| [deleted]
| dom111 wrote:
| It's implied here:
| https://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP/status/1435107199785832449
|
| but no more detail than that I can see...
| [deleted]
| mabbo wrote:
| Let's presume you're right and this is why the channel was
| legitimately deleted.
|
| Was there a warning? Was there some communication with the
| owner saying "Hey, what you're doing violates or Ts&Cs"? It
| seems like if there was, the owner would be tweeting that he
| _disagrees_ with the deletion rather that completely not
| understanding why it happened.
|
| Putting more humans in the loop would be more expensive, but it
| would help end these puzzling situations where creators don't
| know _why_ they 've been told to stop creating.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| Algorithms don't warn. Nor do they communicate. They just
| delete.
| remram wrote:
| Algorithms do whatever humans program them to do, which can
| be delete, warn, email, slack, or call phones.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Algorithms do whatever humans program them to do, which
| can be delete, warn, email, slack, or call phones.
|
| I think it's worth noting that algorithms like these are
| deployed specifically to take employees out of the loop,
| and adding a communications step would almost certainly
| pull them back in.
| Choco31415 wrote:
| However, there is still less manual work being down if
| videos are flagged via an algorithm versus checked one-
| by-one by a person. Though, results may vary.
| grishka wrote:
| So maybe make all algorithm-generated decisions be vetted
| by a human.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| The labor costs of that would destroy Google and
| Facebook. What a beautiful thing it would be to see,
| though.
| grishka wrote:
| Google and Facebook have more money than they know what
| to do with.
| Tarq0n wrote:
| Coming soon to a drone near you!
| colordrops wrote:
| Yes but the servers that software that use these algorithms
| are perfectly capable of including business logic for
| warning and communicating.
| rscoots wrote:
| That's still begs the question though, why not simply hide or
| abridge that video. Or add a disclaimer?
|
| How can deleting the entire channel without warning possibly be
| the ethical move here?
| spurgu wrote:
| It's not. The consensus (here at least) seems quite clear.
| rscoots wrote:
| Well not clear enough I guess since my comment just got
| downvoted 4 times lol.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Perhaps they're fallacy fans who dislike your use of
| 'begs the question' (an archaic term that does _not_ mean
| 'raises the question', which you mean here).
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| The error message claims that an account has not existed or has
| been deleted long ago, not "you violated our ToS and are
| permabanned no appeals kthxbye". Assuming this recovery attempt
| was started within whatever Google considers that short time,
| it implies _something_ else is happening.
|
| One possible guess would be the account getting hacked, somehow
| moved to a different address, then deleted. (I have no idea how
| primary e-mail addresses work for Google/Gmail accounts, except
| that what used to be a standalone YouTube account got merged
| into a Google account which once I created a gmail address for
| it suddenly had a different primary e-mail address, so there
| are ways for stuff like this to change and "brand accounts"
| complicate it further on YouTube).
| e40 wrote:
| This is what happened to Jim Browning (YT channel about
| scammers... very entertaining). He was tricked into it.
|
| https://youtu.be/YIWV5fSaUB8
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| That doesn't make much sense though, given that many of the
| tech YouTubers (LinusTechTips, JayzTwoCents, to name a few)
| have done hardware giveaways fairly regularly. "We're giving
| away RTX 3080s and 3090s to verifiable gamers" is the recent
| trend. LTT is in Vancouver, but JayzTwoCents is in Southern
| California somewhere, and therefore, the United States.
| KeepFlying wrote:
| Except those channels probably have the means to run it
| legally and with the right caveats, legalese, tax
| documentation, etc.
|
| Sweepstakes and giveaways aren't banned, they just have some
| overhead and legal requirements around them.
| wheybags wrote:
| LTT weren't giving them away though. First come first served,
| and you only got the _opportunity to buy_ them at MSRP,
| instead of scalper markups. They werent given away for free.
| christophilus wrote:
| Wow. It's hard for me to imagine how he crossed any line worthy
| of deletion. He's one of the best Linux voices on YouTube, and
| seems like an incredibly nice guy.
|
| His content can be seen on Odysee[0].
|
| Chris Titus Tech has a video covering this[1].
|
| Honestly, I try to watch everything on Odysee these days, anyway,
| just to try to continue de-Googling my life.
|
| [0] https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment:e
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHeZXkZT_jk
| jvdheuvel wrote:
| Chris Titus Tech has also an Odysee channel,
| https://odysee.com/@christitustech:5
| asah wrote:
| no - see above comment re illegal sweepstakes
| egberts1 wrote:
| I just sauntered over to Apple App store to take a look-see at
| Odysee app and its privacy "level".
|
| No thanks.
| nabakin wrote:
| Channel has been reinstated!
|
| https://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP/status/1435311971973406726
|
| I want to know what happened for Google to make such a serious
| mistake.
| fouc wrote:
| That twitter link didn't work for me.
|
| Can confirm it's back:
| https://www.youtube.com/c/TheLinuxExperiment
|
| Seems glitchy though, I can't sort by "most popular", it
| suddenly says "this channel has no videos". Hopefully that's
| just an old cached result that will clear up at some point.
| nabakin wrote:
| Looks like he couldn't login so he deleted the tweet. Here's
| the new twitter thread:
| https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1435317727158177796
| skinkestek wrote:
| > I want to know what happened for Google to make such a
| serious mistake.
|
| Remember, this is Google. They do everything automatically
| including messing up big time.
|
| Needing a human in the loop to mess up big time wouldn't scale,
| at least not web scale.
| hamburgerwah wrote:
| Another "google's customer support is only available via online
| mob outrage" situation. Just pathetic, who isn't embarrassed to
| work for Google at this point?
| rvz wrote:
| Once again, using the private platform argument here: YouTube
| (owned by Google) reserves the right to terminate and de-platform
| anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's
| guidelines and terms of service.
|
| You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum
| about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to
| anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube.
|
| YouTube will never change and it will only get worse.
| [deleted]
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Not sure why this guy is getting downvoted.
|
| I wish he were wrong, because he's saying sucks, but he's just
| telling the hard truth the way it is.
|
| YouTube won't change, yet we continue using it as if it didn't
| have the track record it does.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'm out of the loop- what rules were broken?
| maccolgan wrote:
| Private platforms can indeed do whatever they want, but I think
| there's a discussion to be had about whether what they are
| doing is right or wrong...
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the private platform argument
|
| No part of what you said is an argument.
|
| Do private platforms have unlimited latitude? If not, what are
| the underlying philosophies underlying current limitations, and
| can those be seen to imply that other limitations should be
| made? Should private platforms have unlimited latitude?
|
| Those are discussions that could be had. "Private things are
| allowed to do whatever they want" is not only a thought-
| terminating cliche that avoids all ethical or tactical
| judgement, but a simple falsehood.
| rvz wrote:
| > Do private platforms have unlimited latitude?
|
| Who is arguing that? No need to create a straw-man argument.
|
| > "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want"
|
| Who are you quoting here?
|
| So YouTube (owned by Google) doesn't reserve the right to
| terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in
| violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service?
|
| I already said the offended users can appeal, didn't I? I'm
| just saying that not only this can happen to anyone, but
| YouTube (Google Inc.) will not change and we'll see more of
| this regardless if it is automated or not.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm not saying that you're arguing anything.
|
| > Who are you quoting here?
|
| Nobody. But if the fact that Google reserves the right to
| ban people for reasons described in its ToS is an argument
| for something, I'd like to know what else it could be an
| argument for. Who cares what Google reserves?
|
| edit: I'm being sloppy. "Google reserved the right to
| delete for this reason," and "private things that reserve
| rights get them", and "Google is private" equals "Google
| gains this right." This would be an argument you could
| make. However, you haven't made this argument.
|
| Are you making an argument about _choosing_ youtube? I
| might be mistaking a pragmatic observation for a political
| /legal discussion.
| gmemstr wrote:
| That's not the issue here. The issue here is letting automated
| systems having final say on such destructive actions as
| terminating an account entirely, with no concrete way to
| appeal. From what I am aware of, few channels wrongfully
| suspended get reinstated through support but rather through
| public outcry on the likes of Twitter.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I don't think that's in disagreement with the parent.
| Whatever means YouTube uses to determine who to drop and who
| to keep is irrelevant because the point is that if you host
| content on someone else's servers you are giving them
| control.
| segfaultbuserr wrote:
| I don't think so. The original comment says that YouTube
| has:
|
| > _the right to terminate and de-platform anyone 's account
| who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms
| of service._
|
| The problem here is letting automated systems, with a
| history of producing false-positives for content that
| didn't violate the Guidelines or ToS, having final say on
| account termination, with no concrete way to appeal - To me
| this is a fair criticism.
|
| If the original comment says "the right to arbitrarily
| terminate and de-platform anyone's account", then I'll say
| that you have a point.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| There is apparently a large contingent of people on this site
| holding the belief that if your private platform is large then
| the government should step in to force you to host things you
| don't want to host.
|
| It's kinda funny, because it's effectively saying that they
| want to nationalize tech companies for being successful.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| The government should step in to enforce data standards and
| data-transfer functionalities so that large tech companies do
| not have oversized monopoly like influence due to natural
| network effects.
| happybirds07 wrote:
| Under GDPR you have the right to data portability, i.e. you
| can demand your data in a commonly used digital format to
| take it to another provider.
| ersii wrote:
| Which usually, at least in Sweden means you'll get your
| data dump in a PDF. Not a joke, unfortunally.
| happybirds07 wrote:
| It should be "structured, commonly-used and machine
| readable", and I'm not sure PDF qualifies for that. I'd
| file a complaint with IMY.
|
| In any case, I've never received anything other than
| json, xml and csv. Jag ar inte svenska, though.
| sinyug wrote:
| > There is apparently a large contingent of people on this
| site holding the belief that if your private platform is
| large then the government should step in to force you to host
| things you don't want to host.
|
| I am part of that group. I am willing to accept a free-for-
| all till a company reaches a certain size as far as its user-
| or-customer base is concerned: something between the
| population of New Zealand and that of Australia. Beyond that
| it should be answerable to the people.
|
| I also think supranational corporations should either be
| banned or very tightly regulated.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| No that's not true, there is a vast difference between
| regulation on business practices like this and
| nationalization.
| Gollapalli wrote:
| If you think about it, publicly traded companies are
| precisely that: nationalized. They exist as partly as
| government fiat, and partly of managerial control, but not as
| property. They are, by necessity, of somewhat unknowable, and
| almost always unaccountable ownership, ownership so diffuse
| it may be regarded as a generally representative subset of
| and equivalent to the general public. As such, can any public
| company be regarded as private? Or treated as private? Their
| ownership is public, and no individual, or small, knowable,
| and generally convenable group of people can say: these are
| our servers. On the contrary, a group of people equivalent to
| the general public, a subset of them in fact public or
| pseudo-public institutions (pension funds, university
| endowments), are the owners. As such, public institutions
| should very much be treated as public entities. After all, it
| is the general public which owns them.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Publicly traded companies have a main goal of making
| profits for shareholders.
|
| This seldom aligns with the public's interest. For many
| (most?) companies, only the rich have any voting power,
| whereas the majority of the population just has to follow
| along.
|
| Publicly traded companies are like a democracy where you
| get more votes the more money you have. The implication
| here is that your voice/needs are only important if you're
| rich, and are unimportant if you're average or poor (which
| kind of explains why the US is the way it is).
| Gollapalli wrote:
| Yeah, that's what we're all taught.
|
| But, the actual incentive structure of "who controls the
| corporation?" is not shareholders, whose ownership is a)
| so diffuse as to be unknowable, sans documentation from a
| stock exchange b) very often held by proxies, with voting
| rights exercised by those proxies as well [1], c) nearly
| impossible to coordinate, even when the majority of
| shares in in private hands, and d) frequently bought back
| and owned by management itself. Looking at this
| structure, one can say that the actual control of the
| corporation is held a) by the people that manage it, b)
| by the people that capitalize it (not the same thing as
| stockholdership) and c) by the people that regulate it.
| c) is very clearly the government. You could make a very
| good case that b) is indirectly the government as well,
| since it comes from banking institutions who receive
| money to lend from the federal government, or rather, the
| ability to create debt.
|
| My point is that, given the diffusion and non-
| coordination of ownership of a publicly traded company,
| combined with the effect of regulation, (and if you know
| anything about regulatory capture), the coordination of
| regulation with the large interests being regulated,
| public corporations may be treated, quite reasonably as
| public.
|
| [1] Something to the tune of a fifth of all shares of
| Fortune 500 companies are held by Blackrock, Fidelity and
| Vanguard, as a part of how they issue index funds. These
| financial institutions are the ones who execute the
| voting rights on those shares, not the people who bought
| the index funds. See:
| https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/11/the-new-power-
| bro...
| krageon wrote:
| > nationalize tech companies for being successful
|
| It's not saying that at all (nationalising companies is a
| very specific action that doesn't have anything to do with
| what you described).
|
| That said, I don't agree with your premise which appears to
| be that this is bad. Converting something that is basically a
| utility already (i.e. everyone uses it and everyone expects
| to be able to. It's almost unthinkable to have daily life
| without it) to a nationalised company would be a good thing.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| For the record, I'm actually quite in favor of not leaving
| necessary infrastructure in the hands of private companies.
| Although I don't think social media sites are necessary
| infrastructure personally.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Do you think that the phone company should be allowed to ban
| women from using their lines?
| gruez wrote:
| Women, maybe not, because they're not Bad People. However,
| the "contingent" that GP was talking about are totally fine
| with banning Bad People.
| addicted wrote:
| You are right.
|
| The US has basically been a communist country since the 70s
| when it passed the ADA requiring businesses not only to serve
| the disabled but spend money to make sure disabled people can
| access their services.
|
| There's basically no difference between the US and the USSR
| ever since.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| That's actually a good point, except that the ADA only
| concerns itself with accessibility to content, not the
| content itself. What we're talking about is forcing
| businesses to hang up signs for NAMBLA on their bulletin
| board if they let anyone hang stuff up at all.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Why start there? What about when they illegally seized the
| property of slaveholders?
| cbradford wrote:
| For over 100 years we have had laws and rules that prescribe
| that when a firm or industry reaches monopoly statue they
| must act as a common carrier and not discriminate. Been that
| way since telephones and railroads. People should understand
| history, this is not a new challenge and the solutions are
| already on the books.
|
| https://blog.scorchedweb.com/technology/supreme-court-on-
| con...
| gruez wrote:
| >For over 100 years we have had laws and rules that
| prescribe that when a firm or industry reaches monopoly
| statue they must act as a common carrier and not
| discriminate.
|
| Was that because they got big, or was it because they were
| granted a government monopoly?
| kaibee wrote:
| > Was that because they got big, or was it because they
| were granted a government monopoly?
|
| The first one. Natural monopolies exist. This libertarian
| talking point of "there wouldn't be monopolies without
| government intervention" is lunacy.
| gruez wrote:
| >The first one.
|
| Can you provide the legislative history that supports
| this? According to wikipedia airlines, cell phone
| companies, cruise ships, and shipping companies operate
| as common carriers, even though none of them are
| controlled by monopolies.
|
| > Natural monopolies exist. This libertarian talking
| point of "there wouldn't be monopolies without government
| intervention" is lunacy.
|
| I'm not a libertarian, but I can still see the difference
| between "it would be really expensive to lay another set
| of phone lines" and "the state forbids you from laying
| another set of phone lines".
| kaibee wrote:
| > Can you provide the legislative history that supports
| this?
|
| No, I'm not a lawyer/historian.
|
| > According to wikipedia airlines, cell phone companies,
| cruise ships, and shipping companies operate as common
| carriers, even though none of them are controlled by
| monopolies.
|
| Airlines, cruise ships, and shipping companies, do not
| own the 'land' (in the georgist sense) that they
| traverse, so they're just completely irrelevant to the
| discussion.
|
| As for cell phone companies, you may remember that a
| certain company known as AT&T was famously broken up into
| dozens of smaller companies (that have since re-
| congealed). Also those companies are legally required to
| interoperate with each other, ie: your T-Mobile phone
| will "roam" on AT&T's network.
|
| > I'm not a libertarian, but I can still see the
| difference between "it would be really expensive to lay
| another set of phone lines" and "the state forbids you
| from laying another set of phone lines".
|
| As far as I'm aware, the state, does not forbid anyone
| from laying another set of phone lines or railroad lines
| or roads, for the same reason that it doesn't forbid
| anyone from violating conservation of energy.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > Was that because they got big, or was it because they
| were granted a government monopoly?
|
| Got big.
|
| But why would it matter? Govs suck at accountability, I
| wouldn't expect that to factor in now.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Personally I think anything that's a natural monopoly
| should probably be the purview of the government anyway,
| since that's as close to an entity acting solely in the
| public good as we can get.
|
| However, I also don't count any current social media entity
| as a monopoly.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Is nationalisation evil in itself? The private sector just
| doesn't have sufficient incentive to serve the public over
| their own interest. We've seen this time and time again.
| commieplant wrote:
| The private sector has its share of issues, but be very
| careful assuming ownership by the state always serves the
| public interest.
| axelroze wrote:
| > Is nationalisation evil in itself?
|
| Oh very much it is. Come to the lovely Eastern Europe and
| see for yourself how good national owned companies are.
| Full of useless bureaucrats put there to ensure voters so
| the ruling party can continue ruling. Also in huge debts
| which are paid by more taxes so the working people pay for
| the lazy.
|
| Unless the human race somehow chains itself to
| selflessness, nationalization + democracy is a sure way to
| destroy any organization. Now privately owned is not much
| better but in theory can be replaced with a competitor. Not
| so much for a national organization.
|
| Source: Living and suffering daily in Eastern Europe.
| trasz wrote:
| On the other hand, outside the Eastern Europe many of the
| state-owned corporations work pretty well, and usually
| the service goes down the drain after selling them off -
| see UK railways.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| UK railways are a classic example of privatisation going
| wrong. They even quietly re-nationalised then recently.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| I'm from Eastern Europe too (actually Central Europe - if
| you know what I mean, you'll know exactly which country),
| but I've been living in the UK for many years so I have a
| different perspective.
|
| Privatisation of the British railways was a disaster, and
| the creeping privatisation of the National Health Service
| is a disaster in the making as well. As far as I'm
| concerned, when we're talking about well-understood,
| national-scale services, private sector almost always
| starves the service out of greed or is outright
| incompetent.
| _null_ wrote:
| >YouTube will never change and it will only get worse.
|
| Private entities can be swayed by their customer's demands. Not
| saying that YT _will_ be swayed, just that this sort of creator
| outrage has a place in the market system, and "throwing a
| tantrum" over their bad behavior doesn't always have to be met
| with "private entities can do whatever they want!"
| mrkstu wrote:
| That actually sounds like a good test for monopoly status- do
| you have to worry about what your customers want/desire or
| are you so entrenched that you don't care?
| grey_earthling wrote:
| I hope cases like this lead more people to understand that
| proprietors of private services do have so much control (even
| if they often wield it soberly), and persuade them to consider
| decentralised or protocol-based open alternatives.
|
| As ever, Tony Benn's five questions are instructive: "what
| power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do
| you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we
| get rid of you?"
|
| =>
| https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1998-11-16/debates/db3...
| underseacables wrote:
| The fault is on YouTube's reliance on automated systems, making
| permanent decisions, without human intervention. However, in my
| humble opinion, people are naturally lazy. The humans who might
| be charged with reviewing automated decisions are no different.
| Especially if there is a cultural or language divide.
| asah wrote:
| no - see above comment re illegal sweepstakes
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Preventing illegal sweepstakes, even if accidentally illegal
| ones, seems like a good rule for YT to enforce. That being
| said, banning accounts without a process to solve the issue
| until there's enough public furor for a moderator to notice
| is a bad system. If someone repeatedly breaks the rules, fine
| permaban them. But having a fake appeal process is pretty
| annoying, and makes me not want to do business with Google in
| general.
| cube00 wrote:
| :s/YouTube/Google
| reasonabl_human wrote:
| Usually I have to type :%s, and a trailing /g, you can omit
| those?
| r3dey3 wrote:
| without % it only does the change on the current line; and
| /g means change all occurrences instead of first (per line)
| tmaly wrote:
| I was doing this YouTube survey last night. This was one of the
| points I raised in the survey. That a channel with 10 years of
| videos can be deleted without notice.
| zenron wrote:
| The Linux Experiment is one of the best Linux channels on Youtube
| for beginners as well as just a feel good vide technology channel
| for everyone.
|
| Its a must have channel next to Destination Linux Network suite
| of channels.
|
| Hope it gets reversed.
| sneak wrote:
| Donating free content to censorship platforms is a way to
| continue having this sort of nonsense happen forever.
| petepete wrote:
| I love his channel. Definitely one of the better Linux-focussed
| channels around and far less cringe than Baby WoGuE.
| fastssd wrote:
| Chris Titus has covered this topic excellently:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHeZXkZT_jk
| gambler wrote:
| Any large communication platform has a choice: either accept some
| form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant
| constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other.
| YouTube made its choice. Now, random videos and channels get
| demonetized, content gets deleted for no reason and people
| covering basic news speak in code to avoid the wrath of the idiot
| AI. In the background Google publishes batshit crazy research
| papers that call automated propaganda "AI fairness" and relies on
| a horde of underpaid serfs bordering mental breakdown to make
| final decisions on content moderation. Welcome to the predicable
| future of your bad decisions.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| In this case, looks like someone hacked authorization to the
| channel and deleted it. This is probably not "channel taken
| down for violating policy," but instead "channel deleted by
| 'owner.'"
|
| The wording in the email from Google suggests they don't yet
| have enough info to trust the inquisiting email comes from the
| channel owner (source: my own experience proving email account
| A and email account B were the same person).
| caeril wrote:
| > either accept some form of content neutrality or become a
| petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public
| backlash after the other
|
| No, there is a middle ground that Google, with its army of
| engineers, could implement in a weekend:
|
| 1. You stop trying to assume you know what advertisers want
| their ads to be displayed on.
|
| 2. You implement a basic, fixed (but can be expanded) ACL-type
| system based on categories such as "hacking content",
| "politically sketchy content", "sexual content", etc.
|
| 3. YOU LET THE GOD DAMN ADVERTISERS DECIDE FOR THEIR OWN GOD
| DAMNED SELVES WHAT KIND OF CONTENT THEY'RE OK WITH ADVERTISING
| ON.
|
| 4. You end up spending LESS on content moderator salaries, and
| end up with FEWER unhappy advertisers because THEY can align
| their principles with the content. Hak5/Sparkfun would be fine
| advertising on Linux Experiments. I'm sure MyPillow would be
| happy to advertise on a Q Conspiracy channel. The demand for
| this feature is unquestionably there.
|
| 5. You stop playing God and pretending that the concept of
| global "community standards" means _anything at all_ in a world
| with 7 billion people and hundreds of thousands of disparate
| interests-based communities, each with their own disparate
| community standards.
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| Your plan fails, lets say they implement what you do. Let say
| that company X advertises but only on the safe subjets. Then
| my immediate attack will be:
|
| "Company X advertises on a website showing jailbait sexual
| content" or "Company X advertising on a site promoting Q
| Conspiracy".
|
| You are going to fight an uphill battle explaining to people
| the naunces of the system, which is a losing battle.
| Jensson wrote:
| Your comment doesn't make sense, Youtube still show those
| videos in the current system it just doesn't run ads on
| them. So if it was an issue then it would have already
| happened, the fact that it doesn't mean that it isn't an
| issue.
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| Again your dealing with absolutes here.
|
| Yes there are still jailbait videos on YouTube, but
| Google is already heavily moderating and deleting videos.
| The more "extreme" ones are already being deleted and
| moderated, what is left is probably more of the tamer
| ones. The amount of jailbait videos or hate videos or
| whatever you see now is probably 1/10 or less of what
| would be there if it was a free for all.
|
| What is being proposed is no moderation of content. The
| advertisers can choose what to show ads on, but that's
| it. In that case there would be a flood of these
| contents. Then its easier to attack them.
| otterley wrote:
| How do you know this could be done in a weekend, let alone a
| year, in a way that will make YouTube's stakeholders happier
| than they are today? You seem to know an awful lot about
| this.
|
| "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem
| --neat, plausible, and wrong." --H. L. Mencken
| MisterTea wrote:
| _2. You implement a basic, fixed (but can be expanded) ACL-
| type system based on categories such as "hacking content",
| "politically sketchy content", "sexual content", etc._
|
| Who or what ensures that the Q conspiracy channel is properly
| categorized as "politically sketchy content" and not "hacking
| content"?
|
| The reality is no amount of computer code will fix a human
| problem.
| ridaj wrote:
| > You stop playing God and pretending that the concept of
| global "community standards" means anything at all in a world
| with 7 billion people and hundreds of thousands of disparate
| interests-based communities, each with their own disparate
| community standards.
|
| I think you're confusing the Internet with YouTube. The
| Internet has no global content standard, but this is not the
| world that YouTube lives in. It lives in the world of ad-
| supported services which has been repeatedly very clear about
| its minimum expectations regarding community standards. See:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=adpocalypse
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 2. You implement a basic, fixed (but can be expanded) ACL-
| type system based on categories such as "hacking content",
| "politically sketchy content", "sexual content", etc.
|
| The problem: for some of these, the definitions, the legality
| status and the liabilities (especially around "politically
| sketchy" stuff) may differ wildly between jurisdictions. And
| you will _always_ have trolls mis-labeling their content on
| purpose, or content that is to be classified as "gambling"
| in the US but not in Germany... the list of issues is
| endless.
|
| > 3. YOU LET THE GOD DAMN ADVERTISERS DECIDE FOR THEIR OWN
| GOD DAMNED SELVES WHAT KIND OF CONTENT THEY'RE OK WITH
| ADVERTISING ON.
|
| And then they will _still_ have headlines "Youtube allowing
| Nazis, antivaxxers, incels and other threats to the general
| public". Not to mention the legal issues (e.g. Nazi content
| is banned in Germany/Austria, LGBT content in Russia, a whole
| boatload of stuff illegal in India with jail threats for
| local staff)...
|
| > 5. You stop playing God and pretending that the concept of
| global "community standards" means anything at all in a world
| with 7 billion people and hundreds of thousands of disparate
| interests-based communities, each with their own disparate
| community standards.
|
| You will always need some sort of "global minimum standards"
| that ideally is at least somewhat of a common ground in
| Western-allied nations. And that means: no Nazis/white
| supremacists, no Qanon, no antivaxxers, no incels, no adult
| content/gore, no drugs (tobacco/alcohol/illegalized drugs),
| no gambling, no glorification of violence.
| concordDance wrote:
| Why Western allied nations in particular? I'm also not sure
| that list is as universal as you think. For instance, the
| no drugs thing would likely not apply to the Netherlands.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Why Western allied nations in particular?
|
| Simple: Western nations are a somewhat coherent cultural
| sphere.
|
| Adding in India (with its current war against Twitter and
| anything that dares criticize Modi), the Arabian and
| other dominant-Muslim countries (women's rights, LGBT,
| democracy) or Russia/China (which are essentially
| dictatorships) into consideration would add way too much
| illiberality to be acceptable.
| Macha wrote:
| > YOU LET THE GOD DAMN ADVERTISERS DECIDE FOR THEIR OWN GOD
| DAMNED SELVES WHAT KIND OF CONTENT THEY'RE OK WITH
| ADVERTISING
|
| Have you talked with advertisers? They're really twitchy
| about this stuff, they even have vendors for brand safety
| they'll want to include in their ads or have you integrate
| with if you're a platform like YouTube to rule out ads on
| anything that could show their brand in a bad light.
|
| I don't use YouTube, but I thought this was what the
| demonetisation was - the creators were getting a trickle of
| revenue, but most of it was gone, sounds to me like the
| impacts of it being considered not "brand safe" and most
| advertises enable such controls reflexively.
| hashkb wrote:
| Don't forget the police playing copyrighted music while they
| abuse you to stop you from filming them. When the police are
| ahead of the tech, you know the People are f'd.
| noasaservice wrote:
| And at least when they're playing a popular song with easy to
| obtain MP3s, you can use gnuradio to cancel that out of the
| audiotrack.
|
| Yeah, they're being shitty piggies, but we have tech we can
| use too.
| asah wrote:
| no - see above comment re illegal sweepstakes
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| If we must live in a cyberpunk dystopia, I wish we could at
| least get sci-fi style "holographic" displays as a consolation
| prize.
| titzer wrote:
| It's Kafka-esque, really. Google has always thought it is
| smarter than everyone else and that has led, inexorably, to it
| establishing itself as the final arbiter of truth. Except
| Google is a dysfunctional, distracted, neurotic, schizophrenic
| entity, like all organizations, with an ever-changing set of
| in-fighting fiefdoms and warring executives.
|
| Worse, growthism forced its "Organize the world's information"
| mission into "Swallow and monetize the world's information"
| with an added helping of "know exactly what every person wants,
| even if they don't know they want it yet."
| acomar wrote:
| > growthism
|
| any day now, the moral, upstanding, self-restrained
| capitalists will buck the profit motive and save us from the
| unsavory sorts who rule our world today.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| I feel we pretty badly need to revisit laws surrounding social
| media platforms in the US. I'm not sure what the silver bullet
| is here, but the way platforms have almost limitless latitude
| to filter and shape discourse on their platform and also
| virtually zero liability for that same discourse seems like an
| obvious problem.
|
| Unfortunately the average senator is over 60 and the companies
| that own these platforms have deep pockets.
|
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
| salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| The choice of "content neutrality" is pretty much keyword also
| for:
|
| 1. constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other
|
| 2. advertising dropping you due to controversial content
|
| 3. government coming after you for controversial content
|
| If I were a business, I'd go content moderation all the way.
| Less blow black and more steady income.
| tedivm wrote:
| Most of these platforms start off trying to be content
| neutral and end up adding more moderation as a result of how
| badly it ends up hurting them. There's only so many times
| advertisers are willing to have their brand shown next to
| child pornography (ie, reddit's former /r/jailbait) or hate
| speech.
|
| If complete neutrality was an answer these companies would be
| doing that, since it's the cheapest option.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > There's only so many times advertisers are willing to
| have their brand shown next to child pornography (ie,
| reddit's former /r/jailbait) or hate speech.
|
| I'm not sure advertisers care about this as much as people
| claim. YouTube's censorship really ramped up in 2017 after
| Trump was elected, and was fairly limited before then. I
| don't think they had trouble with advertisers before then
| all those years. I could be wrong - have any sources that
| could help?
| mkmk wrote:
| Many times advertisers honestly just don't know. You're
| spending a lot of money across a lot of different
| channels, and then all of a sudden somebody says, "uh-oh,
| we're getting dragged on Twitter for advertising on
| $bad_page." You definitely don't like child porn or covid
| disinformation or anything like that, and the tweets make
| you look like an idiot, so you email the owner of
| $bad_page (some sort of advertising network, or maybe a
| site like Reddit) and say "if my ads are ever on this
| page again, I will pull my budget from your entire
| network."
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| It seems to me that content neutral (neutrality?
| neutralness?) and copyright violations are there in order
| to build eyeballs and brand. You use them for growth.
|
| Once the size is there, you curate. Profit becomes the
| issue and the tendency is to simply become cable TV with
| thousands of channels.
|
| I wonder how you could architect video access for content
| that gets peoples' knickers in a twist but is still legal.
| There's loads of single points of failures still. TV settop
| box access, smart TV/Roku access, the difficulties and
| expense in storing and serving up video, etc.
| [deleted]
| concordDance wrote:
| I greatly dislike the conflation of things like jailbait
| (which is mostly provocative clothed images taken
| voluntarily by teens) and classic child pornography where a
| 6 year old is brutally raped.
|
| One is harmless the other involves lifelong trauma.
| ziml77 wrote:
| It's not necessarily harmless. JB includes nasty
| creepshots. And even if the subject took the photo
| themselves, it's unlikely they wanted a bunch of weirdos
| on the internet to lust over it. And if they somehow did
| want that lust, it's even more unlikely that they fully
| understood the consequences.
|
| All of that can end up being very harmful to one's mental
| health. And that's not even accounting for the people who
| try to physically go after those children after seeing
| them and convincing themselves that they "love" the
| child.
| tedivm wrote:
| That subreddit was exploiting children for sexual
| gratification. It wasn't just teens, and it wasn't people
| posting purposefully provocative images. It was children
| living their normal lives and having their pictures
| exploited for the sexual gratification of perverts.
|
| Calling this harmless is absolutely disgusting.
| croes wrote:
| Maybe governments should forbid and fine YouTube and if they ask
| why just answer that they violated laws and that no appeal is
| possible.
| Proven wrote:
| Why should we care?
|
| The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF.
|
| Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated
| and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your
| homework first.
| megous wrote:
| Your post here was terminated. Now tell us why. And prove you
| did not violate ToS.
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| It's impossible to prove that you have not violated the terms
| of service, as a sibling comment points out.
|
| It should be on YouTube to provide evidence that they have.
| mcjiggerlog wrote:
| That's exactly the problem - they do not tell you why you were
| terminated.
| sodality2 wrote:
| How can Nick prove a negative? How about Youtube shows what
| violated the terms? Why can't they back up their claim with
| evidence, instead of Nick being forced to provide proof to
| disprove a claim without any?
| happybirds07 wrote:
| Which would be very hard to do when the account is deleted,
| too
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did
| NOT violate their, I don't care
|
| Guilty until proven innocent!
| ggrrhh_ta wrote:
| Most people do not give a second thought to employees having a
| minimum set of rights and obligations even if they work for a
| private company.
|
| I think it is not difficult to consider any contributor in a
| (virtual) Commons to be subject not only to obligations but also
| to a set of rights.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| This is anecdotal, but in my experience democrat Americans
| actually believe everything that the party tells them. They quote
| the exact same lines, I hear the exact same phrase from different
| people, and when I ask further questions there is silence. e.g.
| "rich people stash their money" with absolutely nothing to back
| that up.
|
| Surprisingly, republicans can be more open to conflicting ideas
| and for debate, even though their propaganda is significantly
| worse. Probably that is an effect of knowing vs not knowing it's
| propaganda, it seems to me that democrats in general are true
| believers in the party lines.
| lolinder wrote:
| I live in a red state and my experience is the opposite. I
| suspect it might be that when your view is the majority in your
| area, you're more inclined to shut out opposing ideas as
| "fringe". It's the "I don't know anyone who voted ___" effect.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| I definitely know more democrats than republicans (my area
| votes 80% democrat). But they are highly educated people
| (think U Chicago, Georgia Tech etc.) still believing every
| opinion their favorite news outlet sells them. I find that
| disturbing. Not the fact that they believe most of the party
| lines, but believing and defending ALL of them, like the
| party can do no wrong.
| vcxy wrote:
| My experience is also the opposite fwiw. To be fair, I
| don't think I know any democrats who actually like the
| party. They're more "not republican" than democrat. Maybe
| the democrats you've talked to are the true believers. The
| only example I can come up with that matches your
| experience is my dad, so maybe it's generational?
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I think this phenomenon is the result of a confirmation bias.
| Half of all people are below average intelligence, so if you
| live in a majority democrat region most of the stupid people
| are going to be democrats the same for majority republican
| regions. Add to that the social friction with going against
| the herd, the friction must be worthwhile to the person so it
| is more likely a lot of thought went into someone's
| conclusions if they're willing to make their life more
| difficult for it, ideological minorities like that are
| (probably not remotely near astronomically) more likely to be
| a more thoughtful. Both of these pressures skew the majority
| political leaning in any region below average intelligence
| and have the opposite effect on the minority.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| This might be the most reasonable explanation. In the end,
| the republicans I talked to were very reluctant to hint
| they vote republican, so in general they would approach
| issues much more carefully. It still doesn't fully explain
| the democrat behavior.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. Not what
| this site is for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28444380.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| That was not my intention at all, I was rather discussing the
| state of propaganda, which is an interesting field in itself.
|
| I can see how it can be easily mis-interpreted as partisan
| politics. I'll abstain from getting too close to politics,
| little politics is what's keeping this site quality up.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| As someone who straddles the lines in the sand, I actually
| agree that conservatives I interact with seem to be the more
| open-minded cohort these days, but it's pretty marginal. The
| big difference is the amount of self-back-patting that liberals
| do about how "open-minded" they are and their agreement with
| standard narrative condemning conservatives as closed-minded or
| uneducated. Though, even that is mirrored by the other side to
| an extent.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| That is the most ironic thing. In the same breath I hear
| complaints about "half the population is brainwashed by you
| know who" and then a narrative taken line for line from the
| other side. And the funny thing is...I agree with a lot of
| the Democrat opinions, I just feel very uneasy about such a
| big cohort thinking exactly the same, with no nuance - it
| reminds me of state controlled media in a communist country.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| This is just a long-winded way of saying $my_team good,
| $your_team bad. In my experience anyone who identifies
| primarily with a political _party_ rather than a political
| _philosophy_ is far more likely to be guilty of this.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| As it often happens, again I discover a cool resource from the
| news about its termination.
|
| Is there by any chance a mirror of its content anywhere to
| download?
|
| If I were a YouTuber I would maintain an archive of my old videos
| available on ThePirateBay.
| aembleton wrote:
| You can watch the channel at
| https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment:e
| izacus wrote:
| The problem is that ThePirateBay will not pay you per view.
| YouTubers stay on YT because it pays out a slice of ad revenue
| and not because it's just a convenient distribution site.
| Making those videos costs an insane amount of time and money -
| which means that most YTers can't afford to do it for free.
|
| Any kind of YT competition needs to figure out on how to keep
| the revenue streams intact.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| That's why I wrote "an archive of my OLD videos". They
| probably don't generate much revenue already.
|
| Also, ThePirateBay does not compete with YouTube even in the
| cases of the same content being available on both the
| platforms. Most of the people want to watch the videos on-
| line, go to YouTube naturally and won't bother using
| torrents. Sophisticated people who want an off-line copy just
| use youtube-dl anyway. The actual YouTube audience will only
| go to ThePirateBay when they really can't access the videos
| on YouTube.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-07 23:01 UTC)