solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 6, 2018 2:16:50 GMT
As to the original purpose of this thread, I think coffekanon is asking whether our Union is fighting against censorship of YouTube content. I can definitely see this is something that a lot of members are concerned about, and why they are jumping on board. It's also slippery and hard to enforce, because no one ever admits to censorship - it's claimed as "violation of community policy." Asking YouTube to solidify their community guidelines with concrete language is a big step in that direction, and it's already an original, core demand goal of the Union. If it were to proceed beyond that, I feel the next step - and this would require major consensus across the Union - would have to be to make sure that the community guidelines must include a firm guarantee that no video or user may be removed on the basis of any spoken or written content in their videos, only because of graphic imagery. Wordsmith it how you like, it would have to pseudo-guarantee freedom of speech while allowing YouTube to remove beheading videos.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 2:30:14 GMT
I would agree with that sentiment very strongly, 'Violation of community policy' is just so vague and without them ever telling you what the 'violation' was, you cannot fight it or change it or whether there was a violation at all!
As for violence. That is not within the purview of YT, it's a crime and the FBI should be informed immediately. What should and should not be censored is too big a question for any one group. I say let the legislators handle it. I say let the first amendment be our guide.
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 6, 2018 2:38:46 GMT
It also relates directly to what fair access is and fairness in how Youtube interprets and enforces rules.
|
|
solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 6, 2018 2:47:01 GMT
YouTube is a private corporation, for better or worse. That means they have the right to control content on their platform as they please, First Amendment or not. For that reason, I don't think legislators can do anything about it, nor should they. I don't want to set any more precedent than what already exists for government taking away freedoms guaranteed to private entities. What we're doing is the way it should be done - get involved outside of a legal context and handle it as citizens.
That being said, I reiterate - I think the best way to do that is in the details of the Community Guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 2:56:43 GMT
A strong enough union can dictate what a private company can do. I mention the first amendment because it's had the test of time in the most liberal country on earth.
The founding fathers were inspired people... Essentially this union is a social weapon. It's our second amendment and it's going to prevent tyrants from walking over us.
|
|
solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 6, 2018 3:03:12 GMT
Because the Second Amendment is what protects the First Amendment, right? I'm sure we agree on a lot, but I'mma stop before I go off-topic. I already said my bit about censorship and community guidelines, so I'll give it a rest and call it a night - take care
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 6, 2018 5:13:16 GMT
YouTube is an international organization. They have to comply to the laws of many countries, not just the US. All those "amendments" are worth nothing on that scale, merely national law, irrelevant for international business. International companies must in fact adopt the most restrictive approach of any of the countries they are doing business in. In some, free speech isn't a reality. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to deny the holocaust, advise people how to make bombs, express hate against others and so on.
YouTube has to delete any such content within 24 hours or else face fines up to 50 million € FOR EACH CASE. Other, similar regulations apply for countries in the EU and elsewhere.
Just for that single reason YouTube MUST be free to set their own community guidelines. I just demand that those are very clear and robust.
But if a video is WITHIN those rules, it should be treated the same way as all others.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 6:03:16 GMT
That sounds reasonable. In addition to a 'clear and robust' set of guidelines, any violations should also be detailed. I think this will curtail any flippant judgements. Should they occur, that is surely an important question for later.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 6, 2018 19:50:56 GMT
YouTube is a private corporation, for better or worse. That means they have the right to control content on their platform as they please, First Amendment or not. For that reason, I don't think legislators can do anything about it, nor should they. I don't want to set any more precedent than what already exists for government taking away freedoms guaranteed to private entities. What we're doing is the way it should be done - get involved outside of a legal context and handle it as citizens. That being said, I reiterate - I think the best way to do that is in the details of the Community Guidelines. But then again, if you concede that Youtube is a private corporation and that it means that they have the right to control content on their platform as they please... Then what is this union for? For better or worse, this Unions goals (at least implicitly) is about getting youtube to relinquish their rights to control content on their platform as they please. (at least doing it in part) Because the demonitization, citing "violation of community guidlines" etc. IS to "control the content on their platform as they please". They are controlling content on their platform as they please right now, and this practice is clearly what's hurting the youtubers. So the way I see it, you can't BOTH support "the right to control content as they please" AND support a Union initiative like this. It becomes Orwellian doublethink trying to do so. Something's gotta give.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 6, 2018 19:55:58 GMT
Because the Second Amendment is what protects the First Amendment, right? I'm sure we agree on a lot, but I'mma stop before I go off-topic. I already said my bit about censorship and community guidelines, so I'll give it a rest and call it a night - take care Since I started this thread, I wouldn't say you're going off-topic. This input of yours is very welcome in my view. If the moderators has a different opinion, then of course I can't do anything about it. I started this thread to get a healthy discussion going about the underlying values regarding the union. A union is a tool or a method, but if you're going to use it then it's helpful to be clear about the underlying values behind it. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time arguing for it. Also I saw your thread, but must have missed it initially. I'm okay with having them merged if possible, if moderators would like to.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 6, 2018 19:58:23 GMT
A strong enough union can dictate what a private company can do. I mention the first amendment because it's had the test of time in the most liberal country on earth. The founding fathers were inspired people... Essentially this union is a social weapon. It's our second amendment and it's going to prevent tyrants from walking over us. Very good point. Because at other websites and platforms, some companies have taken the precaution to include a paragraph in their community guidelines that outright forbids users from talking about or commenting on moderator decisions on their platform. If youtube decides to do that, then they'll kill this union at the stroke of a pen, because content creators won't even be allowed to discuss openly about strikes or demonitization they recieved.
|
|
solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 6, 2018 23:11:38 GMT
But then again, if you concede that Youtube is a private corporation and that it means that they have the right to control content on their platform as they please... Then what is this union for? ... So the way I see it, you can't BOTH support "the right to control content as they please" AND support a Union initiative like this. It becomes Orwellian doublethink trying to do so. Something's gotta give. Then allow me to clarify. They have the legal right to control their own content, and must to a degree in order to comply with the laws of certain nations in which they operate. There is also some content that is genuinely unacceptable. However, by "as they please," I don't mean that they should be able to arbitrarily remove/demonetize just because they feel like it. One of our goals is that YouTube binds itself by transparent, concrete Community Guidelines, and this through persuasion and negotiation, not because they are legally obligated.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 6, 2018 23:24:13 GMT
Youtube is admittedly in a difficult position. No reason they cannot be transparent though. No one should ever lose their livelyhood and not know why. Perhaps one of our goals could be to lobby lawmakers to treat YouTube (and other services) the same way it would treat the postal service, as carriers only. So they are not responsible for the contents of what they carry, the person who sent it is responsible. It would at least create an environment where YouTube does not have to react so badly to controversial content.
|
|
solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 6, 2018 23:26:28 GMT
..... Just for that single reason YouTube MUST be free to set their own community guidelines. I just demand that those are very clear and robust. But if a video is WITHIN those rules, it should be treated the same way as all others. Ultimately, yes, YouTube is free to set the guidelines. However, I do believe we should have some healthy conversation among ourselves, and later with YouTube, about what those guidelines could look like. We don't want to play a game of bring me the right rock, as that is frustrating for all parties involved. We also don't have to hard-line - part of successful negotiation is compromise- but if we're going through such great lengths to have a conversation about change, let's help it be the best change it can be. If we can get YouTube to voluntarily agree to certain guidelines that don't cause them legal trouble, I would like to pursue that.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 7, 2018 0:09:41 GMT
Youtube is admittedly in a difficult position. No reason they cannot be transparent though. No one should ever lose their livelyhood and not know why. Perhaps one of our goals could be to lobby lawmakers to treat YouTube (and other services) the same way it would treat the postal service, as carriers only. So they are not responsible for the contents of what they carry, the person who sent it is responsible. It would at least create an environment where YouTube does not have to react so badly to controversial content. That's the thing though. In the U.S there's been talks that social media sites might be forced to become more politically neutral, or the legislators will make them responsible for all content that's uploaded on their platforms. Which means that the platforms themselves get liable for prosecution for illegal content being uploaded by it's users. Meaning, right now they aren't responsible but are considered "messengers". Yet they take it upon themselves to police content anyway, for no reason. And they even do it according to standards and rules that they keep secret from content creators, so it's impossible to know when you're doing something wrong.
|
|