My solution to this is Pornhub changing its name simply to “The Hub” and welcoming everyone fucked over by Youtube.
Youtube has gotten too big and too powerful, now it needs to be taken down a notch. Extremely unlikely I know, but it needs to happen.
That needs to change. One could make the argument that social media, as well as websites like Youtube, could be considered “digital public space” like a town square. We need a digital bill of rights.
As for the whole “It’s a private business” argument, call it the cost of doing business. To some extent, businesses where one can just walk in, are legally considered “in public”. Example, you can be video’d or photographed in a Walmart, because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. (at least, to my knowledge this is true. I haven’t researched any legal precedent but it makes sense to me considering peopleofwalmart.com exists.)
Whereas you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room.
Because demonitising channels that depend on monetisation is completely different than outright banning them? I can’t honestly see the difference unless you think people have a righ to free speech on youtube, to be honest.
No, that was in fact a sincere edit. I think calling people gun-nuts instead of gun enthousiasts crosses a line I shouldn’t cross.
I disagree. Just because the channel in question is a pro-gun channel this is suddenly a huge issue that involves free speech, gun rights, etc. Seems to be an awfully huge trigger to some people.
What you’re talking about there is imposing governmental regulation on a private enterprise, and there should be a very high standard of proven public benefit to do that.
It’s one thing if you’re dealing with revenge porn, child abuse, or bomb threats. The public benefit there vastly outweighs the right of a business to police its own users. It’s another entirely to tell Google it needs to allow everything not explicitly illegal, that it can’t impose its own terms of service. That’s unlikely to pass muster.
Not sure where you’re going with the recording in public thing. A closer analogy would be telling Walmart they can’t record customers inside their private property in public spaces. That wouldn’t go well either.
I mean, come on, the title of the thread starts with “The Harvest has Begun!”.
It’s begun? Really? It’s been going on for ages.
Then you have the “Maybe it’s time we start seriously considering diversifying where you get our content from (there is never going to be a YT replacement imo) as there are plenty if options out there.”
Seriously seems like youtube doing what it’s been doing for ages, but now specifically to a pro-gun channel, is suddenly a huge issue. Triggering the response that maybe it’s time to boycott youtube, if you will.
Yeah, I don’t see your point at all.
By the way, I’m not anti-gun. Not as pro-gun as some, but still.
I don’t think you’re responding to me but,
I would argue that sites like youtube, twitter, and facebook have a significant amount of power to “inform” or “misinform” people, and influence their decisions and thinking, and as a result, a significant amount of power over the populace.
This power, should require regulation. At least to ensure there is no partisan bias in their decisions. While one could say “this was not done to TV networks who have a similar power”, I would point out that that kind of media only represents the views of the people creating said media, which does not include the general public; whereas these websites are almost 100% content created by the general public, or are capable of being such. literally anyone can make a video, post, or tweet. Not everyone can put their own segment on Fox or CNN. The difference is big enough that they should absolutely be considered different forms of media and thus governed by different forms of regulation.
As such, they should absolutely be considered public space when it comes to freedom of speech. There are already legally enforced limitations on public speech, and those should apply as well.
Free speech is indeed limited, but there’s a very high threshold, things like threats, defamation, perjury, blackmail, etc. They tend to be things that genuinely have the capacity to hurt people.
Censoring US citizens over partisan bias is a ridiculous proposition. Everybody has partisan bias, I know I certainly do! I mean, I’m 100% right. But you probably feel the same way about yourself.
Who does that censorship, is it a SJW censoring your thoughts on Sandy Hook being a Soros-funded setup or a Trumpkin censoring your screed on how Bernie totally would have won? Whoever isn’t in power would be out of luck in that scenario. And if that’s your side right now, well, things change. Think longer-term.
That’s why the government can’t censor lies, or conspiracy theories, or hate speech, except where they actually harm or threaten to harm people. That’s the threshold they need to pass.
If you have permission to speak in a place, a permit if you will, you have that right to speak so long as you do not violate the limitations on free speech. I would argue that this should apply to being able to upload a video to youtube.
Why? Again, because power. These companies, via censorship, can wield an enormous amount of power, and as such that power must be checked. This isn’t about public or private ownership, it’s about power. They wield an enormous amount of power that can and will be abused, and as such must be regulatedd
The 2016 election should be evidence enough. Whichever side you may or may not have been vying for.
VideoHub would be awesome!
This isn’t really new for YT and I’ve been reconsidering how I view and pay for the content I consume for quite a while. I’ve also voiced concern about policies like this even when it was targeted at people/ groups that don’t align with my ideology, censorship should never be met with applause.
Also I like my click-bait title, deal with it.
The biggest thing to keep in mind here is that that grey area where “Your freedom of speech ends where it infringes on mine,” is becoming harder and harder to delineate.
Most speech does not bother me. What bothers me is when a vocal minority high jacks the mechanism and drowns out everyone one else. Espceially when the intent is malicous in nature.
Otherwise, you should see the Dave Chappelle skit where he wonders what it would be like if the Internet was a real place. I totally agree that the internet and public web forvms are public spaces at this point.
Seen it, hilarious.
And that’s my issue. A vocal minority at Google is hijacking their power to drown out the voices they don’t like.
There is an axiom that says “never attribute to malice, that which can be attributed to stupidity” or some such. I would argue that there is a limit to that.
“When authority or power is concerned, always attribute to malice that which might be attributed to stupidity, as you cannot afford otherwise”
Are there any decentralized tube sites that aren’t for porn? Too drunk to read whole thread but just curious for myself and if it was mentioned by anyone else
BitChute is the only one I know of and from someone who knows more about it than I, it has some very questionable content…
Sounds bleh. I wish I had any development powers…
I’ve been in the market for a new cloud-based RSS manager since NewsFox stopped being supported (or at least one where I can set the location of its directory to a synced folder).
The massive global censorship against divergent points of view tells me one thing
We need a censorship Megathread 
The main problem I see is that YouTube is overly knee-jerk on most of it’s decisions regardless of content. Same goes for it’s copywrite enforcement. They become tools to take down content you don’t like.
That being said: there isn’t any major competition to Youtube. Bitchute and pornhub do not have official apps on any of the major stores for mobile or TV. Switching to those effectively kills you ability to get new veiwers.
Because we have a monoculture in video content it is easily prone to snap (emotional) based decisions. Remember negative reviews have been taken down under copyright. Opinion/political videos have been taken down due to vote brigading. Being taken down because of “spamming” has happen to more than just this channel. And, this is all over the spectrum of thought and interest.
Having all you eggs in one unstable content provider basket is not good for anyone.
The only way forward, really, is for more choices in video/funding platforms.
As of right now there have been some issues with Pateron so hopefully there will be more avenues there as well.