LAPD YouTube Channel Suspended for Posting Violent Content
ktla.com
ktla.com
Should violent content be allowed on the internet? I believe so. Should it be allowed on YouTube? I believe YouTube can decide: if they want to block violence, porn, and other 18+ content for everyone, that's fair and those people can post on the other sites. There's an argument that posting on YouTube instead of a less popular platform is necessary for LAPD to increase the audience and more likely identify the suspect; but I think there are better ways which get a higher-quality audience and don't involve exposing random people to a random assault.
The EU digital services act incentivized YouTube to ramp up age restrictions to avoid running afoul of the law which basically strangles the financial viability of much of this content since you need to be logged in and the less people who see it the less people will be shown the video. So it’s not just simply YouTube mulling things and going they don’t want this content on their platform, it’s YouTube thinking it’s easier to blanket block everything and ask questions later in response to regulation. It’s not just how things have always been on YouTube things are getting worse and will get worse as more and more organizations believe YouTube needs to be reformed by threatening them and YouTube continues utilizing the cheapest laziest forms of compliance.
We’re creating a world which isn’t in anybodies best interest just to be risk adverse against pissing off whatever special interest be it copyright holders, advertisers, or governments.
The posted article literally mentions the official website on which the content is also posted - and I guarantee most people are neither aware of, nor care about, either.
I just don't trust journalists when they claim that they have a video showing unjustified violence. I imagine that sentiment probably is held by people on both sides. E.g. a leftist would be suspicious of stories accusing protestors of violence while someone on the right would be suspicious about stories of police violence.
My concern is that if violent content is scrubbed from social media, then it will become too easy for thought leaders (journalists, politicians, celebrities, etc.) to simply tell people what happened without any way for them to confirm it.
They mean professional programmers, those who write code for a living and have at least one formal git repository.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-prioritizes-youtube-v...
I'm not apologizing for Google's monopolistic policies and there are many things I dislike about the company, but despite all its faults YouTube is still one of the gems and miracles of the modern internet. I'm genuinely happy for someone to explain to me why I'm wrong and how this could operate without being attached to a multibillion dollar conglomeration, or just any further data/research about the logistics and costs of operating something like YouTube.
This is a pure monopoly that should be broken up by the government for anti-trust reasons.
Pun intended? Perhaps Zoom has an opportunity to enter the video space.
I guess there goes any war reporting, cockfighting, etc., on Youtube.
Thanks, YouTube, for caretaking the commons. We wouldn't let the LAPD post that in a public park or at a municipal swimming pool or next to a playground and we'd rather not have it on YouTube.
I'm also a big fan of the fediverse. However, I'm skeptical in the quality and even practical accountability of "democratic" governments, who are themselves pressured to be "advertiser-friendly" in their own way.
A monopoly such as Youtube that controls the public square that involves important constitutional rights should be forced to make provision to protect those rights.
There are also important societal concerns. If youtube existed while the Nazis were exterminating Jews and others, and someone smuggled out videos of what was going on, would it be a good thing for youtube to censor those videos and not allow them to be shown? Youtube obviously has important responsibilities given its monopoly status and if they are not willing to live up to them they should be directed to live up to them.
Interestingly, there is much content lost, demonetized, and simply not made because they determine factual content to be "sad". There's an amateur reporter and retired commercial pilot in central California who determined he both wouldn't go viral and wouldn't make much money because journalism and facts aren't what YT rewards.
This manipulation and ads like it's a goddamn cable network make it a pointless waste of time.
As one of less than five major townsquares in our culture, that should be of at least mild concern.
Presumably they keep local copies of the recordings too, possibly with an intranet system to view them. I say presumably, I worry I should say hopefully. I'm now imagining a story like "50 police misconduct cases dropped after YouTube account suspended."
> This content is not available in your country/region.