|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 9:35:16 GMT
I looked at the recent poll in the FB group. As I have already expressed in another thread, this group is at the risk of going to shits for lack of focus. In this case I fear the lack of focus is the absolute confusion that seems to reign about what free speech is, how it differs from freedom of expression, and what responsibility comes with free speech as a creator.
I think that many of you are descending into knee-jerk nonsense when labelling anything and everything you don't feel should be restricted, or forbidden as an attack on free speech. That doesn't help your cause my friends. Like this you will achieve nothing, except look like a bunch of juvenile, discontent libertarians.
Look at one fairly recent case: As you most probably know, Logan Paul made a video in the suicide forest in Japan. Yes, that is his right from a free speech perspective. There's a few problems here though,
1. Logan has an audience that is at the most average age 14 (probably more like average age 12, or 13). By no ethical standards is it OK to make videos like that for that age group - if you do, you have to take great care to explain the circumstances, make sure you speak in a way that a young person still in development understands (not just relates to, but actually understands), and you have to take care to treat the subject keeping in mind that teen suicide is a real problem. Logan did nothing of those things and IMHO was rightfully reprimanded and punished. The same thing would have happened if someone had the harebrained idea of doing that video and broadcasting it on the Disney channel.
2. Call it Vlogging as much as you want, this is a piece of journalism. In society we have a generally agreed, albeit sometimes vague ethical standard for journalism. One of them is to not subject private individuals to unnecessary public exposure. Although Logan doesn't identify the corpse he shows in the video, there is great risk that the close and loved ones of this dead human being will see pieces of clothing, or other objects that identifies the person. This would cause them grief and harm that neither stands in relation to the public's 'right to know,' nor does Logan's right to free speech have more value than their right to privacy. Had Logan done this at a news network (not just mainstream media, but also places like Vice, or Breitbart to take two opposite extremes), he would have been fired immediately.
By labelling everything that YOU want to do, no matter what it is, as free speech, which you say trumps every other right, you are detaching yourselves of the responsibility that you have as creators. You can try that as much as you want, but you won't meet resistance only from YouTube, but society as a whole. That will fail this otherwise commendable effort as it descends into simplistic, reality-detached silliness.
Do you folks really understand this? Or maybe it's not an issue, maybe I'm off the rockers for thinking that a free world is not a world without ethics and responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 12, 2018 10:42:47 GMT
I don't think everyone makes a distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
You make an excellent point about Logan's video. I think youtube lacks some important features to fine tune its age gate. It needs to be more fine tuned than mature/not mature.
I believe the right to privacy issue usually comes down to when you are in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy unless it is a gross violation (havent seen any tests of that in court.
I think the real test of free speech is, would you defend someone elses right to say something you do not like and do not agree with. If yes, then you are recognising the value of haivng an opposition in freedom. If NO, then you are only allowing a platform to people that agree with you, is that really free speech?
I find your comment saying creators have responsibility very thought provoking. When we start on Youtube it is just about self expression. We don't have an audience to be responsible to so are we allowed to express ourselves freely wihtout ressponsibility of what others might think. How big do we need to get before we should consider ourselves in a position of responsibility. When I first started on Youtube I just thought about what I wanted to say to the world. If I had 1 million subs I would be considering my impact, what I am responsible for, even if I ultimately decide to put ou tsomething controversial I would at least consider it. Where do I go from one mindset to the other.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 11:46:21 GMT
Very well put and thought through, unfortunately you're not the majority here, an exchange on the FB group with the cooky majority has made me reconsider my involvement with the union...
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 12, 2018 12:31:48 GMT
Very well put and thought through, unfortunately you're not the majority here, an exchange on the FB group with the cooky majority has made me reconsider my involvement with the union... I think I have an idea what you are refering to. I've seen a few comments that concern me. For the most part though even when people disagree it has remained respectful and productive. We have to look at people's reactions carefully. A lot of people are coming here to express their anger and frustration, some of those people are getting a little carried away. Just have to cut people a little slack and remember they came here because they were angry, that sets a difficult toner right from the start. For the most part I've seen people settle down into something productive. If you do believe in the idea then please don't get scared off by a few angry voices. We need every voice I don't think there is a cooky majority, just a few angry voices. Stick around I'm sure you will find things look brighter as time goes on, our numbers grow and clearer goals emerge
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 14:52:48 GMT
Do you folks really understand this? Or maybe it's not an issue, maybe I'm off the rockers for thinking that a free world is not a world without ethics and responsibility? Yes you are a bit off the rockers if you believe that mere speech or moving pictures of video actually hurt people and need to be restricted. In the social media sphere, people have all the power they need to choose for themselves what they want to see and not to see since they can choose who to subscribe to, and even who to block. Social media platforms should not interfere in anyway whatsoever with what is being shown as long as the material itself isn't illegal (like child pornography and such). This movement will not benefit from caving into the push for more censorship by the regressive left, since the very problems that youtubers are facing has it's root cause within the increased demands of censorship from the regressive left. As to the Logan Paul incident, it was in poor taste, but I don't think youtube should be held responsible or enforce a reprimand to Logan because of it. I think the people who saw Logan Pauls video and reacted to it provided all the reprimand needed and I think he realized (even though he seems dumb as a doorknob) that the reactions from fans and outside viewers alike proved that he'd made a severe mistake.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 14:55:23 GMT
You make an excellent point about Logan's video. I think youtube lacks some important features to fine tune its age gate. It needs to be more fine tuned than mature/not mature. So youtube should have to enforce age restrictions a lot more harsher than your average porn sites on the internet? If people are so worried about what minors might be watching online, then why not ask where their parents are in all of this? Last time I checked it is the parents responsibility from making sure that their kids aren't watching something they're not supposed to. We can't bubblewrap the whole world for the sake of the children.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 12, 2018 15:15:39 GMT
You make an excellent point about Logan's video. I think youtube lacks some important features to fine tune its age gate. It needs to be more fine tuned than mature/not mature. So youtube should have to enforce age restrictions a lot more harsher than your average porn sites on the internet? If people are so worried about what minors might be watching online, then why not ask where their parents are in all of this? Last time I checked it is the parents responsibility from making sure that their kids aren't watching something they're not supposed to. We can't bubblewrap the whole world for the sake of the children. Agreed, but youtube could provide better tools for a user to filter content they dont want to see
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 16:33:03 GMT
Well...I don't know. The problem is that this whole discussion immediately gets bogged down in the increasingly partisan debate about who owns the "truth" and who is a victim... Clearly indicated by this fellow Christoff Barresjö: "Conservatives and right-wing content creators and supporters are bound to be the primary demographic of this union, because they are the ones who have been hit the hardest by youtube, google and their openly left-wing agenda. If you had hoped that the union is going to be composed primarily of people who support politically motivated censorship and deplatforming, then you have been terribly naive about the whole situation." I'm not even sure what to say except feeling sad that it's come to this - If you're left wing "the conservative media is trying to overpower us with lies." If you're right-wing "the main stream media is out to censor us." Neither of which are true of course. If you disagree with someone, this is the type of answer you get: "Spartacus Olsson is clearly a hipster Swede judging by his page. They're all excessively left-leaning, which is why he's trying to infect this movement with the regular, censorshipmongering SJW-rhetoric. I'm Swedish too, but a nationalist who value absolute free speech for everyone so he and I couldn't be more different." Ergo: A) I'm left wing (apparently, I didn't know, but OK, whatever) B) apparently I'm also a Social Justice Warrior, so nothing I say matters C) Censorship is a sub agenda of the overall social justice agenda (link to "the agenda" anyone? I'm interested now...) D) Christoffer Barresjö is a nationalist (good to know I guess... whatever) E) Nationalism is pejorative to being pro-free speech. Beyond the inane idiocy of these 'statements' it's a level of discourse that is so disparaging that being part of a group where that's the level makes you look just as foolish. Sadly it's not just this post, the majority of posts run in that direction. What I'm trying to say with this somewhat rambling post/rant is that; the group has been hijacked by partisan discussions and the level that is being discussed at makes it look like you agree with this partisan way of dealing with things just by being part of the group. I don't agree with any of the two extreme views, left, or right and I have a reputation to take care of, so I'm out. I think it was a huge mistake to open up the door to the "free speech" discussion without connecting this to YouTube enforcement of monetisation policy in a concrete way. Claiming 'free speech' early on in a discussion is often a slippery slope to a "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so" discussion. More importantly, no serious discussion with Google/YouTube is ever going to be possible if this is the background message - they will laugh themselves senseless and just ignore the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 16:48:48 GMT
So youtube should have to enforce age restrictions a lot more harsher than your average porn sites on the internet? No - when you create content for children, you need to act responsibly and not insert stuff into that is not suitable for children. Would you put a minibar with vodka in it in a school bus? No! Would you put a minibar with vodka in it on a bus chartered for adult football fans? Yes! (even if the latter might be unwise from a safety viewpoint, it is ethically acceptable while the former is just stupid!) The point here being that if Logan Paul makes 1,000 videos that are clearly aimed at children, you can expect that children will watch video number 1,001 - and no parent in the world, no YouTube in the world can read Logan's mind, or guess that video 1,001 suddenly contains corpses and jokes about suicide. Obviously Logan could stop doing children's videos and move to another target group... but that's not so easy. If he wants to continue doing children's videos he better god damned well stick to making children's content. To be clear: I'm not advocating censorship, I'm advocating to not even open the door to the discussion. This was supposed to be about monetisation, more transparency for how YouTube decides what to monetise, and fairer, better working rules in that area. Now we're caught in discussion about censorship, age restrictions, fake facts, and if the liberals, or the conservatives have broken the internet... Jesus F Christ on a stick!
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 17:33:56 GMT
This movement will not benefit from caving into the push for more censorship by the regressive left, since the very problems that youtubers are facing has it's root cause within the increased demands of censorship from the regressive left. Have I missed something here? In what way is there a movement from the "regressive left" to increase censorship? You're arguing from a completely partisan viewpoint and you can just change the left to right and the argument is the same and just as BS. The cooky left is screaming 'fake news' towards the right and the conservative media (which they oddly equate with Breitbart - Wall Street Journal are delighted, I'm sure) The cooky right is screaming 'fake news' towards the left and liberal media (which they oddly call the main stream media - Wall Street Journal are delighted, I'm sure) Look at yourselves - look closely in the mirror - you're creating these imaginary divisions, but fake news is a real problem - if you can just make up any shit you want, call it the verified truth, and broadcast it as you want, society stops working. If you're free to label anyone as 'fake news' just because you disagree, words stop meaning anything and society stops working. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, it's just very hard to accept when it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. And to be clear - the YouTube monetisation problems are NOT partisan issues. The channels I work on have completely fact based, non-biased, educational and history content, highly responsible and right in the neutral center, where documentarians belong - no politics!, We're still getting demonetised, which is in fact a form of censorship. But if there is an agenda against left, or right - why are we being hit here on the middle? Even YouTube agrees and remonetizes us after we ask. The system is broken, but it's not a conspiracy, it's incompetence. So take off the tinfoil hats, stop blaming imaginary opponents, roll up your sleeves and work on the problem instead of these fringe pseudo-intellectual arguments.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 12, 2018 19:19:26 GMT
I think defining people as left or right isn't productive. We are all here for the service reason. Left and right have both been effected by the same issue. People will of course bring their politics up but I'm not paying a huge amount of attention to anyone agreessivly pushing their politics, beyond politely explaining this isn't a left or right issue
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 20:49:17 GMT
So youtube should have to enforce age restrictions a lot more harsher than your average porn sites on the internet? No - when you create content for children, you need to act responsibly and not insert stuff into that is not suitable for children. What proof do you have that Logan Paul intended his channel to be for children? Did he come out and say anywhere that "my channel is a childrens channel"? Is it listed somewhere as a "childrens channel"? I mean, when I was a kid (at the age between 6 and 10 years old) I watched the crap out of movies like Predator, The Terminator, the Alien trilogy, Robocop etc. All of which had "age restrictions" for people above the age of 15 (and even 18 in some countries). They had sexual content, they had excessive violence and everything. CLEARLY not intended for children. Yet me and all of my friends in school were total fanboys of these films and watched them over and over. Are you saying then that the studios who made these films should've refrained from the violent and sexual imagery in them on the off chance that kids might pick them up, watch them and enjoy them? This debate is decades old and started in the film industry. We don't expect hollywood to refrain from including violent scenes in films just because "children might see it". So why should youtube or individual youtubers who produce nothing but entertainment (the same thing that hollywood chugs out every year) be forced to be held to different standards and responsibilities? Or should our parents have been the ones who stopped us from seeing them?
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 21:03:19 GMT
This movement will not benefit from caving into the push for more censorship by the regressive left, since the very problems that youtubers are facing has it's root cause within the increased demands of censorship from the regressive left. In what way is there a movement from the "regressive left" to increase censorship? Oh come on. Now you're just being dishonest. Left wing organisations like the ADL, the SPLC, Antifa, BLM, various feminist groups etc. are all trying to deplatform people and censor them. Quite often because they have conservative or right leaning views. They actively try to label everything as "hate speech" (even when it's something so harmless as advocating for the freedom of speech, it's "hatespeech"). If they're not mass flagging their content on youtube (with the hopes that youtube bots will take videos down, put them in suspended state and/or demonitize them), they're sending them threats over social media, engage in doxxing by contacting the conservatives employers spreading false allegations that they're propagating "racism", "sexism", "homophobia", "transphobia", "islamophobia" etc. and demand that their employers fire them for it. Check with anyone with conservative views. Lauren Southern, Britanny Pettibone, Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson, Roaming Millenial, Undoomed, Black Pigeon Speaks, Blaire White, Sargon of Akkad. Heck you can even check with Thunderf00t (and he's not even rightwing and even openly anti-Trump), he's uploaded several videos of doxxing attempts made against him and youtube demonitizing his videos for nebulous reasons (if they've even stated any reasons at all). Even Metatron has had his videos and channel attacked by leftists and all he does is upload videos about historical weapons, historical martial arts and armour. They go after anyone as soon as they say anything that might be construed as "problematic" according to left-wing ideals. Are you seriously going to sit here and say that it isn't happening at all? It's even gone so far that state authorities are doing it against people. Just look at this video here uploaded by Tommy Robinson, where Britanny Pettibone and Martin Sellner were arrested and detained when they tried to enter the U.K and has now been banned from ever returning. Their "crime" was that one of them was going to hold a speech about the freedom of speech in speakers corner in London, and the other for stating that she was going to have an interview with Tommy Robinson. Just within days Lauren Southern has also been banned from entering the U.K As to your question regarding why your supposedly non-political channels also get hit with demonitization, it's a byproduct of youtube scrambling to discourage and shut down conservative or right wing commentators as well as the subject they tend to be interested in (which is why channels featuring weapons, firearms and swords also get demonitized). Since youtube lack the staff to adress every single video in person, they've created faulty, badly programmed AI's or bots that's supposed to automate the process of shutting down rightwing content. But the bots don't care about context, they just shut down anything that might have a certain set of words in the title or the description of a video. It's only until recently that youtube actually hired people (those 10.000 moderators that the press has been talking about), but their efforts have also demonstrably been exposed as suffering from political bias as well. And we have all proof that this is a result of the extremely left leaning corporate culture at Google (something that recently fired James Damore formerly employed by Google before his termination can attest to). Here's a video by Undoomed (also hit by regressive left wingers) where he goes over the lawsuit that Damore later filed against Google on the false grounds of termination that Google fired him with. James Damores testimony about the corporate culture at google includes things like staff booing at people on stage during large staff meetings because the people on stage happened to be white men. youtu.be/hFDUD7VbsLMHow much more proof do you need? youtu.be/dPzzr0LpeuU
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 21:14:16 GMT
Well, bigmonmulgrew then we agree that this isn't an issue of left/right politics. I still believe that the whole discussion about censorship and free speech has broken the union though. The question asked is the same as asking if we agree that the right to breath should be at the core of the union's activities. Asking the question is asinine and opens up a discussion that is not about free speech, but about what our group here thinks free speech is about... and many, many of us clearly have no clue. To be clear: they imagine that their right are being infringed on, which there is no evidence that YouTube is doing, as you shall soon see.The problem is that, 'free speech' is a trigger word that can easily be hijacked and most people don't understand what free speech means - and that's understandable as it's a damned complicated issue. The biggest misconception is that freedom of expression, or free speech is absolute, it is not. Most people think that this is the simple definition of freedom of expression, or speech as defined in So far the cooky fringes are right... we should be able to do and say whatever we want and YouTube just have to fucking accept it, otherwise they are oppressing us and taking away our rights. Buuut we need only to read a bit further in the same text to understand that it isn't that simple. Wikipedia lists the following examples of restrictions: When you read that and think a little further, the whole basis for the argument form our friends on the left and right ends beyond the horizon of reason, is moot - Youtube is applying the principle of free speech as defined by the United Nations. If you feel that the UN is wrong, you can try to fight against that... good luck with that. What we can do is to discuss how that principle is applied and enforced by YouTube to find a more equitable partnership. But we've left the reservation already... so I fear it's too late. The moment he poll went up without considering what freedom of expression actually means it was over.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 21:19:27 GMT
|
|