Post by sulla on Mar 5, 2018 21:25:09 GMT
I thought I would try and lay out our free speech / content judging problem and see what people think. And I agree it would be easier and simpler to be able to ignore free speech and judging of content but I do not believe we have that choice. So lets have a friendly discussion about it.
1. First I propose we can not just ignore free speech as it is inter connected with the issues already. If Youtube owned 20% of the video sharing market and we had several other alternatives it would be much less of an issue. But there are no real alternatives to Youtube. This is why those on the left, right and center and pushing governments to look at Google / Youtube. Googles market share is also are strongest tool against them.
2. While this should not be about pushing what is acceptable that statement runs into problems. First it is not clearly defined and enforced what exactly is acceptable. Second to what degree does Google get to decide? If they wanted to remove all criticism of Google is that OK? If they want to have a rule removing all videos showing how to make weapons is that OK? If they wanted to remove all anti Trump, Hillary or Merkel videos would that be OK. Clearly there are limits to what we believe Youtube should have the right to put in its rules and how they enforce them. We should not pretend like they can put anything in their rules because its their company and we would go along with it. Also see point one about there being no real alternatives to Youtube.
Or for a real life example was it fair for Youtube to demonetize and cut PewDiePie the way it did? Was/is he really racist or was it just hit pieces against him? If PewDiePie's content does fit in the rules for monetization but are not being monetized should we help him if were to ask? At this point we have to make a judgement on his content before we do anything on his behalf.
3. We are going to be forced to judge content at some point no matter if we want to or not. I know this sounds terrible but it is just a fact. We will have to judge if Youtube is being fair when applying rules to content for example and if the rules are even correct. Like if they give Joerg strikes for some new content. We would have to judge that content before coming to the aid of Joerg. (Yes I am sure it would probably be fine its just an example.) But not every bit of content will be easy to judge.
If you look at the goals that Joerg says he agrees with. They will be related to free speech if we like it or not. (Hope you were replying to the original post and I got this right Joerg. I do not want to put words in your mouth.) youtubersunion.freeforums.net/thread/165/before-all-goes
Stop demonetization as a whole If a video is in line with your rules, allow ads on an even scale. ---- See above about rules.
Equal treatment for all partners Stop preferring some creators over others. No more “YouTube Preferred”. ----- Does this include Youtube using its rules with a political bias?
Clarify the rules Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No. ---- We will still be judging these rules and how they are enforced. And that will always make judging content part of what is happening even if we do not like it.
1. First I propose we can not just ignore free speech as it is inter connected with the issues already. If Youtube owned 20% of the video sharing market and we had several other alternatives it would be much less of an issue. But there are no real alternatives to Youtube. This is why those on the left, right and center and pushing governments to look at Google / Youtube. Googles market share is also are strongest tool against them.
2. While this should not be about pushing what is acceptable that statement runs into problems. First it is not clearly defined and enforced what exactly is acceptable. Second to what degree does Google get to decide? If they wanted to remove all criticism of Google is that OK? If they want to have a rule removing all videos showing how to make weapons is that OK? If they wanted to remove all anti Trump, Hillary or Merkel videos would that be OK. Clearly there are limits to what we believe Youtube should have the right to put in its rules and how they enforce them. We should not pretend like they can put anything in their rules because its their company and we would go along with it. Also see point one about there being no real alternatives to Youtube.
Or for a real life example was it fair for Youtube to demonetize and cut PewDiePie the way it did? Was/is he really racist or was it just hit pieces against him? If PewDiePie's content does fit in the rules for monetization but are not being monetized should we help him if were to ask? At this point we have to make a judgement on his content before we do anything on his behalf.
3. We are going to be forced to judge content at some point no matter if we want to or not. I know this sounds terrible but it is just a fact. We will have to judge if Youtube is being fair when applying rules to content for example and if the rules are even correct. Like if they give Joerg strikes for some new content. We would have to judge that content before coming to the aid of Joerg. (Yes I am sure it would probably be fine its just an example.) But not every bit of content will be easy to judge.
If you look at the goals that Joerg says he agrees with. They will be related to free speech if we like it or not. (Hope you were replying to the original post and I got this right Joerg. I do not want to put words in your mouth.) youtubersunion.freeforums.net/thread/165/before-all-goes
Stop demonetization as a whole If a video is in line with your rules, allow ads on an even scale. ---- See above about rules.
Equal treatment for all partners Stop preferring some creators over others. No more “YouTube Preferred”. ----- Does this include Youtube using its rules with a political bias?
Clarify the rules Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No. ---- We will still be judging these rules and how they are enforced. And that will always make judging content part of what is happening even if we do not like it.
