sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 5, 2018 20:31:11 GMT
I agree but also keep in mind none of the demands matter if the union does not grow large enough. It won't grow, and more than anything not with the right people if the discussion is about setting up sub4sub programs and weather Alex Jones is an innocent hero of the truth that's being victimised by the liberals through censorship, or a despicable lying hound responsible for ruining people's lives that's bing treated responsibly by YouTube. I'll put it in another way: if this becomes an attempt to convince YouTube to losen their rules on what's admissible, or an attempt to stop them from fighting fake news, or an attempt to make sexual content, or gun content available to underage viewers, then this has already failed. The Union cannot, must not become an anti-censorship movement. Not because I think censorship is OK, but because this is a grey zone where you can never be right. A. It's obvious that YoTube can decide what they allow on their platform B. Free speech is an inalienable right, but one that comes with responsibility C. Free speech doesn't apply to YouTube - see A D. We will be judged by our lowest mark - if defending fake news and questionable content, then that's who we are Solution: Remember what Jörg said...
Clarify the rules Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No. Don's debate why the rules should be - that's up to YouTube. Some interesting and thought provoking points. And it brings up a few questions. - A - You say it is obvious Youtube can decide what is on its own platform. This clearly is not obvious or we would not have moves to regulate them as a public utility, to use anti monopoly laws against them and lawsuits against them. Exactly what Google and Youtube are is the discussion going on in the world at the moment. That is why some people are pushing for Google to be broken up like the US phone companies with many of the same kinds of rules imposed on them. And this discussion about what Google / Youtube is and has the right to do is going to get bigger and pull the union in no matter if that is the desire or not. It is very likely that the what is on Youtube is imposed on Google by the US and other governments in the future. - B - Clearly free speech is a right. What it covers and how is what every one always argues about - C - See A you state it like it is a fact but its not. - D - The problem with "fake news" and "questionable content" is that whey are not well defined terms. Also you say we cant become an anti-censorship movement like we have a choice. It is so connected with defining and enforcement of Youtube rules and monetizing you can never remove it. And its not about loosening rules. What it is about is having clearly defined rules that are interpreted and enforced in a fair way as you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 5, 2018 22:26:50 GMT
You say it is obvious Youtube can decide what is on its own platform. This clearly is not obvious or we would not have moves to regulate them as a public utility, to use anti monopoly laws against them and lawsuits against them. As far as I know no one has made an attempt to regulate the YouTube platform, or seriously debated breaking it up. The Google search engine yes, but not YouTube. It gets confusing as they're both Google (or were before Alphabet), but you really have to separate them. Also ever since Facebook video exploded, Youtube is no longer a monopoly in any way (they have less than 50% of social TV views). Moreover, if you add Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and all that... YouTube is even further away from being a monopoly. It just feels like a monopoly to creators, because until recently it was the only way to make ad income. But, that's changing too now that Facebook is monetising and starting to offer partnerships. As for the whole fake news debate - theres no grey zone there. We've been doing mass media news for 100 years and there are long standing clear guidelines for how to deal with fact checking, sourcing, correcting mistakes, or misquotes, and so on. There are also clear ways of circumventing and ignoring those guidelines... yet it's clear as crystal what fake news is. But that's clearly off topic.
|
|
|
Post by gamegoblin on Mar 6, 2018 1:33:31 GMT
I would just like to say, from a more advertising / PR point of view. Language is important, and in an effort like this, strong language is critically important. But we need to be careful of our selection of words in the future when this becomes more viewable in the public eye. 'Demands' while succinct tends to denote a sense of plausible entitlement, or an "or else" stance. Which immediately puts our efforts in an aggressive stance... I.E. YTU v.s. YouTube.
On that, We should show that we really do support YT, to make them more pliable to our desires. It's just how they are running their current model that's ruffling our collective feathers.
I would like to see language more in league with saying "goals" rather than "demands", which still indicates we have an end goal to our wants, yet also denotes we are willing to bargain rather than simply step in and huff and puff until we get what we want.
Just my two cents on the topic.
|
|
solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 6, 2018 1:43:11 GMT
I would like to see language more in league with saying "goals" rather than "demands", which still indicates we have an end goal to our wants, yet also denotes we are willing to bargain rather than simply step in and huff and puff until we get what we want. Bingo. This right here. The whole point of this is to build a better YouTube, not tear it down. If they see that we're not hostile and this move is beneficial for them too, negotiations constructive conversation will happen much easier.
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 6, 2018 1:56:52 GMT
You say it is obvious Youtube can decide what is on its own platform. This clearly is not obvious or we would not have moves to regulate them as a public utility, to use anti monopoly laws against them and lawsuits against them. As far as I know no one has made an attempt to regulate the YouTube platform, or seriously debated breaking it up. The Google search engine yes, but not YouTube. It gets confusing as they're both Google (or were before Alphabet), but you really have to separate them. Also ever since Facebook video exploded, Youtube is no longer a monopoly in any way (they have less than 50% of social TV views). Moreover, if you add Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and all that... YouTube is even further away from being a monopoly. It just feels like a monopoly to creators, because until recently it was the only way to make ad income. But, that's changing too now that Facebook is monetising and starting to offer partnerships. As for the whole fake news debate - theres no grey zone there. We've been doing mass media news for 100 years and there are long standing clear guidelines for how to deal with fact checking, sourcing, correcting mistakes, or misquotes, and so on. There are also clear ways of circumventing and ignoring those guidelines... yet it's clear as crystal what fake news is. But that's clearly off topic. - Facebook is not a real alternative and might not ever be. And Netflix, Hulu etc are not even really related to the user created content we are talking about. Until there is a real alternative to Youtube it is a monopoly. - Could there be real alternatives to Youtube in the future. Maybe but Facebook is loosing younger users at an astounding rate so Facebook probably will not be it. Twitch is nice for some things but is not really an alternative to Youtube and has much harsher rules. Amazon has filed some names that suggest they might try and compete against Youtube but that is yet to happen. Besides Microsoft and Apple I do not think any one else will have the money to try and compete in the Youtube style video market. And I do not think Microsoft or Apple have the desire. So Youtube dominance in the creator generated content market is not going any place for a long time. It is the only real option. - As for regulation about what should and should not be on Youtube and other social media sites. There is a push for it both for what must be allowed and what must be blocked. Youtube/Google and Facebook etc are so important for political outreach now and control so much market share they are going to be regulated. At first it will be about what can not be shown. See the new social media law in Germany or recent moves in the US. But there are also moves to make sure these important platforms are open and fair. There will be a contest over Youtube etc just like there was and is over TV, Radio and even phone companies. - Fake news is important only in that we might be put in a position to judge when channels ask for help. Were they unfairly targeted or not. And to often what is judged fake is the result of bias on the left or right.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 6, 2018 2:20:38 GMT
Sulla, you’ve drifted off topic again. None of what you said has anything to do with this effort, however interesting and important it might be. You’re confirming the fears I extoessed in the OP. This will go to shits for lack of focus and becoming a ’Free Speech’ and libertarian vs liberal vs. reactionary debate club.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 2:41:22 GMT
Sulla, you’ve drifted off topic again. None of what you said has anything to do with this effort, however interesting and important it might be. You’re confirming the fears I extoessed in the OP. This will go to shits for lack of focus and becoming a ’Free Speech’ and libertarian vs liberal vs. reactionary debate club. I would have to disagree, this is inherently a free speech movement by extension as they are underhandedly targeting 'partners' for their beliefs. If you're intellectually honest about this being an egalitarian movement, you can't turn around and say that some people are 'more equal than others'.
|
|
|
Post by ramshaka on Mar 6, 2018 4:38:24 GMT
I would have to disagree, this is inherently a free speech movement by extension as they are underhandedly targeting 'partners' for their beliefs. If you're intellectually honest about this being an egalitarian movement, you can't turn around and say that some people are 'more equal than others'. "inherently", "by extension"... I'm sorry fella', but you've kinda just out argued yourself there. If I'm to understand what Spartacus, and Joerg are saying, I believe they mean to stay with in the scope of "fair treatment", without getting into the 'extention' of telling Youtube how to do their job, or what content they must allow, or disallow. Also, I can't imagine what you imagine is egalitarian about fair treatment, either. That's a philosophical debate for another day (try reading some Vonnegut, or maybe watching Harrison Bergeron, for a glimpse of my opinion on egalitarianism), but there's nothing egalitarian about folks who earn more views getting more ad revenue, or just harder/better workers, getting more compensation. Bearing in mind, that under their employ, Youtube has the right to favor any timbre of content they prefer too, irrespective of what's more lucrative sans rules (which is usually porn). The only fight that's capable of getting desirable results is just that they be clear about what it is they actually want. Once they actually do that, if it can be said that they're being unfairly draconian towards some point of view, in clear guidelines/rules, you can take that fight up, at that point. Thing is, what rakes in the dough, as it's been for the last several years, are the gigantic gaming channels, none of which are really controversial for the most part (some exceptions), when they're not trying to be. Push Youtube too far, and their just as likely to say they'll have NO political content, or commentary, as they are to allow for all of it to float around unchecked. It'd a lot less of a headache for them, I mean, it's probably what I'd do. Even without banning political commentary all together, they could just as easily fracture the site to sister sites just to cater to their already established channels, which is what they'd likely do, were it to come to pushing them on the whole idea of having a monopoly. That'd allow them to serve the main function they are used to serving, which is simply being a search hub for videos, only then they'd have a way to do that across all their sister sites. Shit, the more I'm carrying on here, the more that sounds like what they really ought to do... I'm gonna shut up now!
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 5:36:02 GMT
I stand by my statement and its dictionary definitions. If you'll refer to the first words of this thread, it demands that all videos be monetized and not to be demonetized. I didn't see an asterisk there, I didn't see any exceptions. I sure as shit didn't see any clause where it says if I have a problem with being censored I should go read some fucking Vonnegut to get the post-modernist definition of 'what's fair' from a communist.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 6, 2018 12:02:52 GMT
I would have to disagree, this is inherently a free speech movement by extension as they are underhandedly targeting 'partners' for their beliefs. If you're intellectually honest about this being an egalitarian movement, you can't turn around and say that some people are 'more equal than others'. You know what - that's the essence of it: maybe this is a free speech movement, but then the original call to action by Jörg is meaningless... a discussion about monetisation on a proprietary platform has to take place based on the owners basic commercial conditions. So making this about your right to say, or show whatever your want, or the Alt-Right being permitted to spread fake malicious news, or the right to publish pornography at your own behest on YouTube defeats the purpose. Advertisers do not wish to advertise in front of racist content, or content condoning violence, or pornography - right there you already have commercial limits on 'free speech'. Where exactly advertisers set the limit is up to them (or do you want to start a battle with the entire world of advertisers to convince them they are wrong? If so; good luck!) The question here is not IF there is a limit on commercially viable content, but WHAT the limit is according to YouTube (which is presently unclear and clearly confused). Another issue is that whatever the rules are, they're applied incorrectly as seen by the demonetisations by bots and remonetisation by manual review. As for closing channels: if you want to take away the right from YouTube to do that, you might as well save your breath. Again it's not about stopping them from banning people, but giving us a chance to a transparent due process.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 16:29:30 GMT
The way I see it, the union is a very valuable thing and its goals are absolutely worth pursuing as you described them; that's the reason I'm here. Before you deliver the coup de grâce to that strawman, I must point out that at no time did I say anything about porn or violence or crimes or anything else that could be deemed as unbecoming of public consumption. As Joerg pointed out in a recent post, various countries have their own requirements too, such as bomb-making and holocaust denial in Germany. As users, we must abide by these community guidelines to the letter. All I want is that the rules are 'clear and robust', any violations are detailed by a human and that these rules are meted out with an even hand.
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 6, 2018 20:34:50 GMT
Sulla, you’ve drifted off topic again. None of what you said has anything to do with this effort, however interesting and important it might be. You’re confirming the fears I extoessed in the OP. This will go to shits for lack of focus and becoming a ’Free Speech’ and libertarian vs liberal vs. reactionary debate club. Unless every thing is already decided then discussing what the Union will and will not be involved in and how it will be involved etc is not off topic. Really most of what I am saying is not even suggesting we SHOULD do anything only that we will be forced to do some things. Something as simple as wanting clear rules that are applied fairly to all will pull us into other things.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 6, 2018 21:49:46 GMT
Something as simple as wanting clear rules that are applied fairly to all will pull us into other things. Yeah but you see the moment you start discussing with YouTube about what the rules should be then you've expanded the discussion into an area where they will just shut down. Trust me, they will never, ever, ever open that up for discussion. On the other hand I know for a fact that they are very willing to discuss the how, I'm having that conversation with them quite frequently. YouTube isn't happy about the monetisation situation either. When you start an effort like this that is directed towards someone, and if you truly want to achieve something, then you have to consider where they stand as well.
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 7, 2018 2:18:31 GMT
Something as simple as wanting clear rules that are applied fairly to all will pull us into other things. Yeah but you see the moment you start discussing with YouTube about what the rules should be then you've expanded the discussion into an area where they will just shut down. Trust me, they will never, ever, ever open that up for discussion. On the other hand I know for a fact that they are very willing to discuss the how, I'm having that conversation with them quite frequently. YouTube isn't happy about the monetisation situation either. When you start an effort like this that is directed towards someone, and if you truly want to achieve something, then you have to consider where they stand as well. I think your trying to make a false distinction. From what I can tell the problem being discussed have nothing or little to do with the rules but how they are enforced in an arbitrary way. I know for my myself I would only suggest one thing..... Enforce the content rules in a fair and unbiased way. How they enforce the rules is at the root of many of these problems creators are having with Youtube. And I agree they are stuck between advertisers, creators and those in the media etc trying to cause trouble for them.
|
|
|
Post by ramshaka on Mar 7, 2018 7:27:54 GMT
I stand by my statement and its dictionary definitions. If you'll refer to the first words of this thread, it demands that all videos be monetized and not to be demonetized. I didn't see an asterisk there, I didn't see any exceptions. I sure as shit didn't see any clause where it says if I have a problem with being censored I should go read some fucking Vonnegut to get the post-modernist definition of 'what's fair' from a communist. I'm assuming you've got zero idea of what I was referencing, or talking about, with respect to egalitarianism, or Vonnegut. As I said, I don't want to get into the philosophical debate, but since it's got to be explained, I guess I'll have to, just a bit. Since it's apparent you're not interested in reading anything outside your little bubble. Vonnegut's short story (Harrison Bergeron) is a sort of parody of the dangers of egalitarianism. Where the characters are all forced to be "equal" in every way, so nobody feels inadequacy, or failure. The end result is that the entire society is collectively reduce to the lowest common denominator. Point blank, it's practically a direct dissertation on the dangers of some communistic ideals, like equality of results, as opposed to equality of opportunity. All of which kind of makes your comment look silly, and hyper-aggressive. Especially considering the fact I've seen you directly arguing against "equality of results" in other threads. So, I'm just not really sure how well, or far, you've actually thought that through. Because frankly, what you're arguing for, more resembles a communistic model, than what I'm mentioning. Which is simply that while we have the right to demand fair treatment, and equal opportunity, we don't necessarily have the right to force Youtube to air, or monetize anything they don't want to, and grant everyone equal results. That could conceivably change, but that's a legal battle, to change law, at the SCOTUS level, at this point, and I don't think that's within the current scope of what's realistically achievable. Anyway, I hope that makes my previous post a bit more clear to you, and we can be a bit more civil.
|
|