Hacker News Reader

Comment by maallooc | Hacker News Reader

Imagine being forced to remove this article, the server provider cuts off service, and your domain banned because these kind of articles have violated terms of services.

That's happening on YouTube now.

View on HN

I usually find that if you have to make an analogy for any reason other than explaining something technically complex, your position is probably faulty. E.g. in this case, I'd call this a false equivalence. Rather than making an analogy, you should explain directly why YouTube's policy is immoral or dangerous, rather than indirectly pointing at some other scenario, which will always differ in many relevant and irrelevant ways by the simple nature of it being a different scenario. It needlessly complicates the conversation.

Your video gets deleted, your channel gets a warning or a ban. Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO.

The masks are coming off!

> Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO.

Absolutely nothing? Unless you post misinformation, in which case, it will be left up but demonetized. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en

Where did you get the deletion and ban nonsense from?

That process of finding the relevant and irrelevant differences is how some people think. I can go farther astray by saying "This copy and paste is immoral and dangerous because DRY" than "This copy and paste seems lazy, but would I object to it if it were generated code?" The analogy gets me abstracting features of the original problem and helps me see what parts of my reaction were attached to my framing of the original scenario.

What doesn't work so well is analogizing to things that are more emotionally intense. It comes from wanting your words to match the intensity of your emotions when the real thing is really not that bad.

It's not an analogy. There's a very serious risk that Youtube's policy will be used to prohibit honest, good faith disagreement of the kind discussed in the original article. (Medium's similar policy already has been!)

Do you have a specific example you want us to consider?

>That's happening on YouTube now.

Good. They should continue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com