While I didn't personally agree with them, I do acknowledge there was a legitimate argument to be made for removing hateful content and even harmful conspiratorial content from social platforms. However, this seems to be a significant step beyond the moderation / censorship we've seen in the past.
So where do you draw the line? Disagree with the goverment? Yeah I disagree with them on many things. But what about when they start pushing people to break the rules?
But then again do I want a corperation dictation what can be said? Nope. I like the idea that shitty ideas/speech should be countered with more speech then to nuke the speech in the first place. So even though I heavly disagree with what they were putting out to the public, I think they shouldn't of just got nuked of YT for having shity (imo) ideas.
Last week a lot of people were disagreeing and openly discussing breaking the government rules about sending kids back to school which was tolerated by tech platforms. I strongly suspect it's only because this example of disobedience isn't seen as favourably by US tech leaders that they are targeting it.
Selective censorship seems to be the norm on YouTube though. It's perfectly acceptable to push left-wing conspiracies or support violence and looting if it's for a cause like BLM, while right-wing conspiracies or support of violence is quickly removed (perhaps rightly so).
I share your lockdown-related mental health struggles though. I've suffered with depression most my life and one of the few things that helps me is being out in nature, especially if I'm with friends and family. As someone with almost crippling anxiety it's been quite nice not having to go into the office, but in general I've also found it very difficult this year. I was in quite a rough spot a few years back and the only thing keeping me going back then was the support of my friends. Although even then things could have gone either way. I guess I'm grateful this has come at a time I'm more mentally prepared to cope with it all, but I know it's not been as easy for everyone.
My point is they wasn't so much discussing breaking the laws we don't agree with but more out right telling people to disregrad the law.
Its differnt (at least in my eyes) to have a discussion about should cannabis be legal (in my mind it should be) than saying "you shouldn't bother with the law and just spark up where you like because the goverments reasoning is wrong" which they were kinda doing by invisting people on and saying "don't bother wearing masks". I know thats a stretch, and not 1 to 1 with my arguement. But I think having a discussion about why you think a law shouldn't stand and telling your listeners to just ignore the law are two differnt things.
As much as I fell that weed shouldn't be illegal in the UK its a differnt thing to me to suggest that your should spark up while picking your kids up from outside a school if that makes any sense.
Ideally it shouldn't matter if you spark up a joint outside of a school just like its perfect fine to spark up a cigarette outside a school (just like when I order a mcdonnalds via just eat (they have lower delivery charges) they moan about refusing to deliever to outside of schools, but its still legal). But TalkRadio wasn't so much saying question what the goverment are saying, but outright saying "just ignore what the goverment are saying" (I would love to link to a clip of it as it popped up in my YT feed, but its obv been nuked).
But yeah I don't think it should of been nuked (so I could of shown why I disagree with them, in order to do so now, I'm gonna have to dig into their own archives to find that clip).
BUT on the other hand, if something is really messing with your rights as just an ave joe, surely your should have the right to object to it how ever you feel is right to do so.
Which is why i'm so on the fence against it.
As someone who really dislikes how they (TalkRadio) expressed their objection to the rules. I feel it should of been countered with objections from the other side of the arguement instead of being nuked from orbit. So as much as it pains me to say (because I disagree with them) they should be put back on YouTube.
What this is making me "hate" more is Google (along with the other tech gaints) thinking they have the right to control what even the idoits think.
Why? because one day they will disagree with me, even if its about tab sizes, and I don't want to be nuked from orbit because I'm not a fan about tabs and spaces fuck up python code :-P
> ... I've suffered with depression most my life and one of the few things that helps me is being out in nature...
for me its been my IRL friends. Most of them are non techies, which helps me center myself. It reminds me that not everyone spends all day infront of code and I hope allows me to create easyier to use code for them. And I miss them just talking their normal days, and the things they like so its not all just "geek". (which is a reason I dislike the lock downs :-p)
anyways I'll stop rambling now. I just needed to get that out of my system :-)
EDIT: sorry for the ramble.... But Why should my morals be "law"? even if I don't argee with them. doesn't me their point isn't valid. (even if it drives me fucking nuts....)
The way ad placement works suggests publisher. Is the scale of that publishing transformative?
So if YouTube is a publisher, it'd be a new thing to force them to publish everything anyone asked them to publish.
As always, this comes down to the fact that Google owns the platform they are broadcasting on. No one is preventing them from using other platforms. If the UK doesn't like it, they need to pass a law preventing Google from operating YT in the country unless they follow said law. GDPR is a great example of this.