Hacker News Reader

Because YouTube doesn’t care about the videos; it cares about the advertisers. You can’t be a proponent of free speech (extremist propaganda) while trying to please advertisers. Also, with today’s political climate, people seem like they want anything that disagrees with them to be labeled as hate speech.

The advertisers would find it suitable to chase a bubble e.g. greens, nationalists, globalist, feminist, religions etc.

I think a good strong case can be made to advertisers that their ad will only be served to people opting into a certain bubble. Or reverse of that i.e. show my Ads to all people except those who are in this bubble. Inclusion list and exclusion list.

That only works if all your "bubbles" are palatable bubbles.

What advertiser is going to want to advertise in front of ISIS/Neo-Nazi videos?

Why, the store that sells Nazi paraphernalia on Amazon, of course. People who sell NAZI books.

Jokes aside, why does it matter that Advertisers are not choosing certain 'unpalatable' bubbles to not be associated with those channels, that's perfectly fine.

You seem to be concerned about extremist videos making money, I don't care about that at all. I just want all videos to be available unless legal system demands its removal after due process. Present sanitized content by default, present all content if explicitly requested, where an action from user says they want to see offending content.

Advertisers should be allowed to chose the channels that they advertise on. Some may choose to advertise on default channel before the content is flagged. Let the buyer make the decision. Why is YouTube giving in to certain vocal Ad buyers to decide for entire Ad market?

1. Every video YouTube hosts on its platform costs YouTube money.

2. YouTube recoups the cost and makes a tidy profit from ad revenue.

3. Videos you can't put ads in front of can't be monetized.

4. Videos that can't be monetized still cost YouTube to process, host and serve.

5. As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.

6. Why would YouTube want that?

YouTube decided that it will demonetize videos. They preferred to do that for some complains by some Advertisers, rather than giving Advertisers tools to avoid/select certain channels or certain topics. Very similar concept to AdWords, BanWords! Put the Advertiser in control of where the Ad gets shown or specifically, where it doesn't get shown. Demonetization was an ideological decision by Google, it was a political decision.

>As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.

Even every non-monetized video is still eyes on the screen for Google. NetFlix claims to compete with books & libraries for time of the day from its viewers. Yeah, Google may not show Ad on that video but the next one in autoplay/recommended list is still going to ring the cash register. It is actually better for Google because they may very well show Ads but not pay the De-Monetized content creators, videos that they created actually act as leads to youtube. These political videos is where a reader is sent to youtube from non-youtube sites, which is much more valuable to google and they are getting away by not paying anything for that. Leading video is much more valuable to google than a video in auto-play list. Not pay for leads but get paid for Ads on subsequent videos, very nice business model win-win Google developed for itself.

The whole point of the censorship is to stop Youtube from being a tool used for terrorist recruitment. If the terrorists can just check the box "all content" then it's useless.

Terrorist induction videos would clearly fall into Not-legal category. I think NSA can easily stand up resources to scan new videos as they arrive and tag as legal or not-legal. Or, we can demand a judge's decision on taking away someone's freedom of speech as the constitution clearly indicates.

And, I have a hunch that three letter acronym gov organizations dealing with keeping us safe would rather know who is interested in terrorist induction videos, and track them, than just remove the videos and let opinions fester at an isolated individual level (lone wolf).

So you're saying that youtube should only ban illegal videos and allow any video that is legal? So youtube should allow porn, gore, etc?

Freedom of speech only says the government can't stop your speech. It doesn't say that private organizations have to provide you a platform. Youtube also has freedom of speech. They have the freedom to filter and compile videos that they like and only show those. It's also not youtube's responsibility to optimize their site for helping the NSA to track terrorists.

If I create a website that allows people to upload videos, it's perfectly fine for me to filter those videos and only show the ones I like. It's my website after all, I am allowed to control what is on it.

>So youtube should allow porn, gore, etc?

It had, for ages.

>Youtube also has freedom of speech. They have the freedom to filter and compile videos that they like and only show those.

Sure they do. I wish they were honest about their political ideology before they touted the platform for all to come and participate.

>It's my website after all, I am allowed to control what is on it.

Sure you are. I just wish you had advertised as such before content creators invested time and money into the platform, creating user base for you. That's a bait and switch, no different than Apache to AGPL license change on 27.8.3 version of your successful GitHub project.

A private entity and a public corporation and government are three different levels of individual discriminatory behavior. A private person or business can employ any discriminatory practice they see fit, as you yourself say. A government is held at highest standard of equality for all. A publicly traded corporation is somewhere in between the government and a private citizen.

Youtube allowed porn for ages? Here's an article from 2006 saying youtube at that time banned porn, and made no reference to it being allowed in the past.[1]

Youtube doesn't hide the fact that it bans certain content.[2] And this page isn't new, in fact it looks nearly identical to how it did in 2013.[3]

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2006/07/25/youtube-has-porn-clone/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/policy.html

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20130416013037/https://www.youtu...

> Why not create a setting that allows user to see YouTube as sanitized by their AI or all content?

Because it's about controlling narrative, controlling propaganda and giving the "media/news" space back to traditional media.

That's what people have been asking from sites like reddit and HN for years now. Give people the option view the raw threads ( uncensored ) and the moderated ( censored ). But neither are interested or have indicated they will. Instead, on reddit at least, there is more and more censorship.

> Advertisers can opt into certain bubble if they want, or opt out of certain content e.g. content deemed inappropriate by the AI?

Do you really think advertisers care? Do you really think corporate america cares? They don't have morals. China is brutal dictatorship and yet advertisers and corporations have no problem doing business with china.

It's simply a matter of control. Who gets to decide what you and I see. Do the masses get to decide for themselves and control what they see or do the small group of elites? Per usual, the elites won and they get to decide.