YouTube Sponsored Freedom of Expression Award Goes to YouTube CEO [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
Here despite all evidence to the contrary and its being a commercial endeavor, which entails conflict of interest, they grant this antithesis to freedom of expression an award for freedom of expression. Excuse me if I feel disturbed by their apparent lack of awareness or gross farce.
That's not much of an excuse, typically people wait for after something happens to deliver an award for it.
This award, on the contrary, is looking back with an abundance of evidence to the contrary and despite that evidence go on with a complete farce. Even Soviets would put on some pretense of legitimacy.
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-le...
I don't really have much against Obama (and not like he couldn't accept it), but that was a real "oh brother" moment for me.
Maybe it's just the pandemic or what not but it is very evident that HN has slowly devolved to reddit level discussion since COVID.
And, simply claiming "it's not that bad" does not prove that it is objectively much better.
I wouldn't really take this example as some rising trend. jokes are hard to be angry at. controversial topics (regardless of stance and care taken to be impartial, if any) are very easy.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
It's considerably more disheartening to think that there are people out there with this level of power with no fucking connection with reality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-disliked_YouTube_...
edit: a word
EDIT: Verified, it's not. But it must've been at some point.
This is something I've been thinking about. Does anyone avoid Go the way that they avoid other google products? Why or why not? I've been liking it a lot lately as a systems programming language but am not sure how to parse the google side of the equation, as I try to avoid most google offerings
Well, I do, and I’ve written about it here before¹, but I usually get only downvotes for saying it.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162582 and earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8733705
I completely understand your justified fear of putting so much stake into a company owned language. It is completely reasonable.
But, since Go is only indirectly benefitting Google (as most of their non-ads products do) then I do not feel that using it is contributing anymore to Google's bottom-line or control than visiting an arbitrary website that uses Google Analytics, or using an Android phone, etc. will do.
But, an important discussion for the Go community (and any company-owned language) to have would be one around the hypothetical of Google shutting off it's contributions to the language.
A discussion would not solve the problem. The most Google (for example) could say is “we would never do that”, and then what? What makes this reliable. Google would instead have to change its image so as to not seem arbitrary and capricious in its bannings. Which they can’t.
It's rather irritating that a more generous interpretation of my comment was not considered here. Perhaps assume that my comment is not some attack on you or defense of corporate languages but rather an intellectual pursuit of a more nuanced scenario than just "good/bad" judgements?
I am sorry for misunderstanding, but it was not obvious to me. Perhaps because I would assume that such a discussion would be useless; if Google stops supporting Go, the language is dead, period.
More out of principle than any kind of real reason. I don't want to play any part in google getting its tentacles into yet another part of my computer. I know it makes no real difference either way, but there's something about the idea of 'even the language the app's programmed in is owned by google' that just kinda makes me uncomfortable.
Hell yes!
Also: It was dead for me the moment a *giant search engine company* decided naming something with 2 letters is a good idea.
That is either proof of being completely negligent with regards to wasting people's time in terms of making their work more difficult; or it is proof of bragging how good your search engine is.
Neither is a favorable thing to do. And actually probably both apply, people do probably miss a lot of good search results on Go no matter how smart their search engine is.
And you can't force everyone in every nook and cranny of the Internet to spell it "golang".
And it seems like they did it without it being a joke which is absurd and scary too. They are so far in their own bubble and echo chamber they have no idea what the real world thinks or cares.
"Honors is epaulets. My pop pop taught me that." -RPF
But there is nothing stopping itself from being a joke and tone deaf!
Is there a way an award that is for industry that isnt the Nobel prize for something like this?
When FB screws up, Zuck's grim is everywhere in media, but when YouTube does the same orwellian stuff, it's just... YouTube, like there's no person behind it.
You can argue the necessity of those actions, but trying to call those actions examples of free expression is the kind of corporate double-speak that erodes trust.
What I see youtube doing is promoting content they like. The video is not itself deleted, its just not promoted (both to users and advertisers). Would you really call that suppression? You can argue its suppression in the sense that when you are so powerful any decision regarding disadvantaging someone is suppression. But I am not totally convinced by that argument, because curating a platform is their entire purpose at this point.
Then they made the algorithm changes. Instead of showing me videos I like, they suggest videos they like. Those videos often clash with my values or beliefs, but because they are mainstream, they get pushed anyway ad nauseum.
The change of state in the algorithm could be considered suppression. Another way of looking at it would be just the viewer counts of certain categories of videos has plummeted. Alt-right speakers and lecturers, flat-earthers, trump supporters, racial identitarians, and so on have seen a massive drop in viewers. Right or wrong, that algorithmic change that led to a drop in viewers is a form of suppression.
I want to emphasize that suppression isn't always wrong. A massive site like YouTube has to monitor for violent social contagion and contain that. But I don't think they should then use their suppression as an example of free expression, because it's not.
Edit: also to be absolutely clear here, the definition of "suppression" I'm using is the intentional attempt by YouTube to reduce the viewership and engagement in something.
when is it correct? Who makes that judgement?
People differ in their opinions. It's clear that some media should be suppressed, like violent calls to action by powerful people. It's clear that some media shouldn't be suppressed, like videos of puppies. In between lies a vast gray area where it's less clear.
> Who makes that judgement?
People do, particularly influential people who make judgements and have the capacity to illicit the change required. Currently it's set by corporations, but the bounds of that are heavily influenced by and can be superseded by governments. That's why after the 2016 elections, you had all the hearings of the owners and managers of big social media sites.
But not to assume malevolence ...
It's humorous how the aristocratic class is so much more Marie Antoinette these days.
Presented by signature sponsor: YouTube
From [0]
> Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.
> We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.
> Our values are based on four essential freedoms that define who we are.
Mission failed successfully!
The wrong kind of inclusivity, California, tech, Alphabet
Only the sad example this sets that suggests they have to be even more vigilant to shut down bad optics that the divisions they oversee will create or that their parent company might throw onto them, a distraction which is the opposite of privilege
Everyone should have thought twice here and they didn’t