|
|
Post by mattsawesomestuff on Mar 4, 2018 20:42:55 GMT
I think the union needs to keep a close watch on this issue or it will quickly become it's end.
What we have here, are a group of people whom, in almost all of their opinions, would despise each other. We have people with extremist viewpoints specifically against each other, more so than they are against Youtube's practices.
It is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get people to work together towards the very few things they have in common (their stance against some of Youtube's brainless policies and behaviors).
This group is very different than most other places on the Internet, which are walled-garden echo chambers where you only surround yourself by people with the same opinion as you. People are not used to having to actually talk with people with different viewpoints, just yelling at each other.
The problem is that when extremist viewpoints and people arguing takes over, the vast 95% majority of the common-sense people in between will burn out and say "It's always just drama from extremist assholes arguing all the time, so I left", and the discourse will be run by the people who don't mind the drama and the yelling and the constant bickering.
By having no rules, you're saying "Only people who love drama and arguing will feel welcome here." It's just what happens.
The level of arguing will rise as high as you let it. Might as well have some limits right off the bat before it gets poisonous.
We're already seeing it, immediately. Almost the very first comments and threads like this one are taken over by it. The SJW are appalled that the alt-right is welcome here and the alt-right is appalled that the SJW types are welcome here.
You get one chance to get this right, as soon as "It's just extremists arguing with each other that has nothing to do with Youtube", the union is dead. The momentum is dead.
Political content needs to be pushed away and avoided here or there is really no hope of focusing on the few bits of common ground we all share.
This is not an alt-right platform. This is not an SJW platform. Focus on all the thing we can agree we don't like about Youtube.
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 4, 2018 21:36:00 GMT
I will have to think this through when I have time. But off hand I think this will probably happen.
1- The group does take off and does get some kind of power. The left and right fight over control since it does have power and one side wins. Even if they try and present a neutral front the leadership will be biased to one side. I can not really think of any group with real power against something as large as Google this has not happened to.
2. The group never takes off and there is no power to be had. Well then it does not really matter.
There is a reason real unions end up as political tools for their leadership no matter what the rank and file want.
Maybe there is a way to do it better. Maybe I am being to pessimistic but I will have to think more on that.
|
|
John Becket
New Member
Sifting through the code
Posts: 30
|
Post by John Becket on Mar 4, 2018 21:39:04 GMT
I think the union needs to keep a close watch on this issue or it will quickly become it's end. What we have here, are a group of people whom, in almost all of their opinions, would despise each other. We have people with extremist viewpoints specifically against each other, more so than they are against Youtube's practices. It is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get people to work together towards the very few things they have in common (their stance against some of Youtube's brainless policies and behaviors). This group is very different than most other places on the Internet, which are walled-garden echo chambers where you only surround yourself by people with the same opinion as you. People are not used to having to actually talk with people with different viewpoints, just yelling at each other. The problem is that when extremist viewpoints and people arguing takes over, the vast 95% majority of the common-sense people in between will burn out and say "It's always just drama from extremist assholes arguing all the time, so I left", and the discourse will be run by the people who don't mind the drama and the yelling and the constant bickering. By having no rules, you're saying "Only people who love drama and arguing will feel welcome here." It's just what happens. The level of arguing will rise as high as you let it. Might as well have some limits right off the bat before it gets poisonous. We're already seeing it, immediately. Almost the very first comments and threads like this one are taken over by it. The SJW are appalled that the alt-right is welcome here and the alt-right is appalled that the SJW types are welcome here. You get one chance to get this right, as soon as "It's just extremists arguing with each other that has nothing to do with Youtube", the union is dead. The momentum is dead. Political content needs to be pushed away and avoided here or there is really no hope of focusing on the few bits of common ground we all share. This is not an alt-right platform. This is not an SJW platform. Focus on all the thing we can agree we don't like about Youtube I would have to agree with a lot of this, however, I feel the problem can be quite adequately isolated to the mind-set of each and every individual. They (the apparent majority), have been clearly programmed to fight one and other, to self-group, self-categorise, then self-defend their "group". When in reality, this process is entirely self propelled, the idea that one human needs or is required to argue with another human, over differences in opinions, literally only benefits those whom would benefit from large amounts of divided, easily manipulated, easily controllable people (sheeple). If your goal is to see further divisions between people, then find your self a side, and join a self-harming battle over whom can shout and laugh the loudest. If your goal is however, to see unity, unions and uniting of people... then at the very least, put aside your own wish to argue with your own imagined enemies, and treat one and other as humans. It's simple, ignore the thoughts in other peoples minds, they are entitled to their own opinions as you and I are. Would you argue with your neighbour over who is right or wrong, to the point that you both hate each other? If everyone did that, would we all not live in a pretty terrible place? Why would the internet be any different, just because you cannot see the person first hand, with your own eyes, and speak with your own mouth, should one not accord them common decency? I understand that not every other is willing (or capable) of doing such things, and to those people, as soon as I noticed this lacking, I simply ignore to the best of my ability. If one sees something that one doesn't like, and one gets angry, then this is a self-inflicted mental issue, that I can only suggest is worked out in ones own mind. If one fails to address and remedy this self-inflicted mental-handicap, then one can (and will) be used and manipulated by it, much like a bull taunted by a red flag. Moral of the story - this left / right, black / white, male / female, young / old, this group, that group, etc, etc, mentality, is being applied and used to your detriment, don't be a simpleton or a pawn, don't be so easily manipulated, and for goodness sake, for the sake of all of Humanity, take back control of your mind and think for your self. Your self, under this kind of influence, is a mere shadow of your self, without it. Do your self a favour! |
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 4, 2018 21:40:05 GMT
I just think there will be some fighting in the off topic part, either originating there or moved by the moderators. I will not allow such rumbles in the general discussions. In the end the only thing that counts is the steps we take in order to set things right again at YouTube. Maybe some members will be pissed and boycott those measures. So what. As I said this is voluntary. You don't wanna join, that's fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanbreheny on Mar 5, 2018 0:14:06 GMT
I think the communist issue is far more of a problem - the "alt-right" do not have control over youtube nor are they wanting to undermine democracies by flooding countries with new voters. This left/right political battle has waged on youtube for a long time now and the right won - this is why they were censored... you'll note that "queer kids stuff" is still operational - a channel which i find beyond the bounds of moral decency.. not that i would like to see it censored just to point out the double standards
|
|
solarseraph
Junior Member
A house divided against itself cannot stand
Posts: 51
|
Post by solarseraph on Mar 5, 2018 5:57:23 GMT
Maybe I'm missing the point of this thread, but as long as people are willing to cooperate for this common cause, I don't really care what their political views are. If they get views and generate traffic for YouTube, they deserve a proportional amount of revenue - that's one of Joerg's original demands. Speaking specifically of the Alt-right, they're a group that perceive their freedom of speech to be trampled on by YouTube's current policies. And if you haven't noticed, they're rather passionate about it, and willing to take action. If their goal aligns with ours and they want to constructively participate, I say welcome aboard. If they troll, disrupt operations, or damage the Union's reputation, they get the boot. Just the same as every other member. Speaking of acceptable behavior, please contribute to the Ethics and Org Structure Thread if you're concerned about this. Most pertinent therein is the question: Who gets to decide when a member has crossed the line and gets the booted out? We need to reasonably police our own ranks if we want this effort to succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 5, 2018 7:26:47 GMT
I am against too many rules and as long as the tone is polite and respectful, I will not censor anything. But the general discussion part of this board is reserved for discussions about how to achieve our main task (set things right at YouTube again). No political discussions here. That is for the off topic part.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 5, 2018 7:40:31 GMT
I can only underscore what Jörg is saying with this addition:
Just the fact of discussing who who'll be allowed to do what on YouTube risks destroying the whole idea:
This is about getting YouTube to change their monetising policy and acting fairly according to their own rules and making these rules transparent. It is NOT about changing their basic rules of admissible content.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 13:25:44 GMT
"Censorship"
Having videos or our channels demonetized (for any reason) is not censorship. Advertiser's don't have to support our content.
Getting strikes or having our channels shut down for content that violates YouTube's terms of service is not censorship.
Getting strikes or having our channels shut down for content that does not violate YouTube's terms of service might be censorship, or it might be a mistake that YouTube needs to fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 13:33:11 GMT
The alt-right are the primary victims of youtube censorship. Naturally they will want to fight back against it.
You people not in the alt-right never showed any concern when alt-right youtubers got deplatformed, censored and/or demonitized. Because "it's okay when it happens to nazis" right?
In this movement, I'd trust a member of the alt-right far more than I trust any centrist or left-wing snakes who usually are quite happy to see people get censored if they are public about impopular political opinions.
So far I have yet to see any members of the alt-right call for any deplatforming or censoring of any of their opponents.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 13:39:26 GMT
"Censorship" Having videos or our channels demonetized (for any reason) is not censorship. Advertiser's don't have to support our content. Getting strikes or having our channels shut down for content that violates YouTube's terms of service is not censorship. Getting strikes or having our channels shut down for content that does not violate YouTube's terms of service might be censorship, or it might be a mistake that YouTube needs to fix. Yes it is censorship. Advertisers should not get to choose how or when their ads show up on youtube. Content creators are STILL the ones who create an audience for youtube in the first place. Without content creators, there is no youtube. (at least not one worth a nickle) If an ad show up in a video, no one assumes that the company behind the ad "endorse" any message or ideal presented in that particular content. Everyone knows that it's largely based on algorithms, such as which videos are trending and how many views a particular video gathers up (more views = bigger chance the ad shows). Advertisers should be forced to support ALL content on youtube, because they are the ones who wish to have their ads on youtube and using the fame and audience that content creators have gathered in the first place. The content creators made the legwork. Therefore, advertisers have no right to pick and choose or micromanage in a way that favors some content creators over others. And if they don't like it... Well then they can go back and advertise in the dying media that nobody cares about anymore (television and newspapers) and see how well that turns out.  |
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 14:09:17 GMT
This mentality, an entitlement to commercial sponsorship, is one that commercial sponsors have very clearly said they will not participate in. It's not a stance a successful union will take on. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 14:16:54 GMT
This mentality, an entitlement to commercial sponsorship, is one that commercial sponsors have very clearly said they will not participate in. It's not a stance a successful union will take on. There are plenty of commercial sponsors who do not care about the content or the "values" in it, as long as they get maximum exposure. Commercial sponsors who interfere are letting personal, subjective political opinions cloud their business sense, and they will soon become irrelevant and bankrupt if they demand "ideological purity" out of every platform that they try to put up ads on. Trying to placate their demands and desires will not lead to financial success for any company. Only financial ruin. Because they lost sight of the main goal: corporations are not supposed to use their resources to spread political ideals (or fight other political ideals), their core goal are, and should always be: profit. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 5, 2018 15:21:36 GMT
It is not Youtube's place to censor content with political views they do not like. It would be reasonable for them to provide tools for advertisers to restrict their adverts to creators they approve of so that an advertiser could choose to support somone or remove their own support from a creator whos values directly opposes their company values. However Youtubes job is middle man, it is not their place to decide what is right and wrong. One of Googles objectives when founded was "Don't be evil", well a monopolistic organisation enforcing their own moral code on a global media outlet is pretty evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 5, 2018 15:36:50 GMT
Well, I think the advertisers may be given a choice if that is what YouTube wants. It is their job to get us advertisers. I don't want to mingle with THEIR task.
Question is how is the money distributed. I say it should be distributed over the minutes watched, no matter if that watchtime led to clicks on an ad.
Means, even if no ads are shown on a video because of YouTube's preference for some content, if that video attracted many views and plenty of watchtime, the creator should get his peace of the cake.
|
|
