Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 1:49 pm

freeman
Ricky, the issue is deciding what content goes into restricted mode or not and whether that was based on content-neutral manner but was rather was done based on political views

Bbauska simply assumed that Prager was being discriminated against. Period.
In order to prove that he would have to offer evidence that there was similar content that was being allowed through to those who chose the filter... He didn't.

I don't see an issue that you do with the filter. Most users of You Tube do not choose the filter. Those that do accept that they are subject to whatever standards Youtube chooses.

As long as there is an option to use Youtube in an unfiltered fashion, free speech has not been in any way constrained...

Your example:
The US Supreme Court held in Marsh v Alabama that a Jehovah's Witness had the right to distribute leaflets near a post office in a company owned town because basically the town and shopping district were open to the public just like any other town.

No one is forced to take a brochure when offered.
Similarily, if someone chooses the you Tube filter.... its the same as saying no thanks to the brochure.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 2:34 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Maybe. But as much as I disagree with those videos I think major platforms like Google, Facebook, YouTube should not regulate content based on political views. These are modern public forums where people should be able to freely expressly their views with only time, place, manner type restrictions.


I agree with you.

My point is they might find themselves subject to regulation as some kind of "utility" or subject to anti-monopoly legislation if they don't permit free expression of disparate political views.
Wouldn't that also challenge the decision to cancel Net Neutrality.


I don't think so. I don't think the issues are comparable.

YouTube is a private company with a lot of heft. One might say it is a monopoly.

Net neutrality, so-called, is a policy. The Internet survived without it for quite some time.

What would help, rather than government regulation of Internet providers like NN is competition. Instead of granting regional monopolies, it's time to open the marketplace up--like was done with telephones. Competition will solve any possible problem.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jan 2018, 3:47 pm

https://www.prageru.com/videos/facts-dont-care-about-your-feelings

What is wrong with this video that causes it to be restricted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLKH-AElSTg

I am reticent to even link this, but it a rude, sexist, swear word filled, nudity filled, n-word saying piece of so-called music. Needless to say, it is NSFW to the highest degree.

Why the difference of policy toward these two examples?

Obviously RickyP will ignore these questions as well, but I will post them anyway. For those scoring at home, here are the three questions so far that have no answer from our Canadian mute:

Do you think a business should treat people customers differently based upon the the business views?
What is wrong with this video that causes it to be restricted?
Why the difference of policy toward these two examples?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Jan 2018, 9:44 am

bbauska wrote:https://www.prageru.com/videos/facts-dont-care-about-your-feelings

What is wrong with this video that causes it to be restricted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLKH-AElSTg

I am reticent to even link this, but it a rude, sexist, swear word filled, nudity filled, n-word saying piece of so-called music. Needless to say, it is NSFW to the highest degree.

Why the difference of policy toward these two examples?

Obviously RickyP will ignore these questions as well, but I will post them anyway. For those scoring at home, here are the three questions so far that have no answer from our Canadian mute:

Do you think a business should treat people customers differently based upon the the business views?
What is wrong with this video that causes it to be restricted?
Why the difference of policy toward these two examples?


Thanks ... I watched both videos. Here's the true test. I want to send the first to my teenagers because it is a valid perspective (which I agree with to a large, but not complete, extent). Conversely, my strong preference is that my teenagers don't see the 2nd until they are much older and can contextualize it better.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Jan 2018, 1:38 pm

bbauska
What is wrong with this video that causes it to be restricted?

According to You Tube
We algorithmically limit content that's available if you choose to apply either Strict Restricted YouTube access or Moderate Restricted YouTube access to users in your organization. No algorithm is perfect. If you see inappropriate content, please flag it.


You should ask You Tube what their engine finds that makes it problematic. If Prager is suing I'm sure that the algorithm will become public.
It might just be the topic. Or the lack of context offered? Or the lack of balance?
I don't know. I thought it was well presented and thoughtful. In a class in high school, presented with both context and a equally thoughtful message from those who deem Israel to be aggressors in their occupation it would be useful. Perhaps the problem is that offers only one view point?

bbauska
D
o you think a business should treat people customers differently based upon the the business views?

I have asked you to clarify what you mean/. What views? Are you once again raising the gay marriage/bakery BS?

In this case, You tube is not treating anyone differently. They are using an algorithm to identify content that some (A very small percentage) of their customers want to be culled from the content on offer.
No one is forcing anyone to use the filters.
Its like parental locks on cable tv channels. Nothing more.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jan 2018, 1:50 pm

Or the lack of balance?


Bwahaha!

That is hysterical!

Do you do standup?

YouTube concerned about “balance?”

Yes, and so are Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow!

Side-splitting comedy!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Jan 2018, 1:10 pm

Fate
YouTube concerned about “balance?”


For curated content, especially for schools, apparently they are....

YouTube is launching a brand new tool to help teachers and students get their learn on. "YouTube for Schools" is a portal that helps curate education materials and videos on subjects such as history and math while filtering out potentially offensive or distracting content.

YouTube for Schools was created thanks to demand from teachers and schools across the country. "YouTube for schools is a technical solution to allow schools that normally restrict access to YouTube to gain access to it," says Angela Lin, head of YouTube EDU. A blog post on YouTube further explains:
To help balance the content, YouTube worked with teachers and 600 organizations such as the Smithsonian and TED to select and curate the available content.

mashable.com/2011/12/12/youtube-for-schools

Of course this is just for "filtered" content.
The other problem You Tube has with offensive content is advertiser reluctance. They didn't deal with that by eliminating content so much as denying potentially offensive content access to advertiser support.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/595 ... ld-content
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
YouTube concerned about “balance?”


For curated content, especially for schools, apparently they are....

YouTube is launching a brand new tool to help teachers and students get their learn on. "YouTube for Schools" is a portal that helps curate education materials and videos on subjects such as history and math while filtering out potentially offensive or distracting content.

YouTube for Schools was created thanks to demand from teachers and schools across the country. "YouTube for schools is a technical solution to allow schools that normally restrict access to YouTube to gain access to it," says Angela Lin, head of YouTube EDU. A blog post on YouTube further explains:
To help balance the content, YouTube worked with teachers and 600 organizations such as the Smithsonian and TED to select and curate the available content.

mashable.com/2011/12/12/youtube-for-schools

Of course this is just for "filtered" content.
The other problem You Tube has with offensive content is advertiser reluctance. They didn't deal with that by eliminating content so much as denying potentially offensive content access to advertiser support.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/595 ... ld-content


With all due respect, give me a break!

So, leftists get to decide what is "balanced?"

That probably explains why softcore porn is okay, but any sort of conservative thought is taboo.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Jan 2018, 9:23 am

fate
So, leftists get to decide what is "balanced?



To help balance the content, YouTube worked with teachers and 600 organizations such as the Smithsonian and TED to select and curate the available content.


I'm pretty sure that when YouTube reached out to the Smithsonian, TED and the other 600 organizations they were concerned primarily with the academic credentials of these organizations and not their expressed political leanings
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Jan 2018, 2:37 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:My point is they might find themselves subject to regulation as some kind of "utility" or subject to anti-monopoly legislation if they don't permit free expression of disparate political views.
Wouldn't that also challenge the decision to cancel Net Neutrality.[/quote]

I don't think so. I don't think the issues are comparable.

YouTube is a private company with a lot of heft. One might say it is a monopoly.[/quote]Perhaps, of course other video streaming services exist.

My point is that if Youtube is a "utility", then surely so is what it is carried over, the internet and connectivity.

Net neutrality, so-called, is a policy. The Internet survived without it for quite some time.
Not quite. NN was how it worked at first because ISPs couldn't implement the processes to throttle in a differentiated way, but they can now. We didn't have speed limits on roads until cars came along.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Jan 2018, 4:10 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
So, leftists get to decide what is "balanced?



To help balance the content, YouTube worked with teachers and 600 organizations such as the Smithsonian and TED to select and curate the available content.


I'm pretty sure that when YouTube reached out to the Smithsonian, TED and the other 600 organizations they were concerned primarily with the academic credentials of these organizations and not their expressed political leanings

Right. It's amazing--leftists trust . . . leftists.

Weird.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Jan 2018, 4:12 pm

danivon wrote:We didn't have speed limits on roads until cars came along.


Interesting point.

Now, why doesn't the government forbid the manufacture of vehicles capable of going more than 75 mph?

In fact, why not make sure that all vehicles cannot exceed the posted speed limit? Wouldn't that be "highway neutrality?"

Why shouldn't the government incentivize/encourage competition?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Jan 2018, 8:07 am

Fate
YouTube is a private company with a lot of heft. One might say it is a monopoly


In no way is youtube a monopoly.
Vimeo, Metacafe, Hulu , Vevo, Yahoo Screen, Daily Motion, Veoh, Flickr and Break all have substantial traffic.Hulu in particular competes with first class, first run creative productions like Handmaids Tale. Plus there are dozens of smaller competitors.
Plus, there is no particular barrier to entry for any new company.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jan 2018, 8:29 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
YouTube is a private company with a lot of heft. One might say it is a monopoly


In no way is youtube a monopoly.
Vimeo, Metacafe, Hulu , Vevo, Yahoo Screen, Daily Motion, Veoh, Flickr and Break all have substantial traffic.Hulu in particular competes with first class, first run creative productions like Handmaids Tale. Plus there are dozens of smaller competitors.
Plus, there is no particular barrier to entry for any new company.


How is Hulu, a service you pay for, comparable to YouTube? Now, the latter has recently entered the fray to charge for some services, but the Prager University case is all about YouTube's free services.

None of the others holds a candle to YouTube in terms of volume.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2018, 10:38 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
Do you think a business should treat people customers differently based upon the the business views?

I have asked you to clarify what you mean/. What views? Are you once again raising the gay marriage/bakery BS?

In this case, You tube is not treating anyone differently. They are using an algorithm to identify content that some (A very small percentage) of their customers want to be culled from the content on offer.
No one is forcing anyone to use the filters.
Its like parental locks on cable tv channels. Nothing more.


Here is the answer to your question "What do I mean?"

Do you think a business (ANY BUSINESS) has the right to treat it's customers differently based upon the business owner's views?

I do think YouTube is treating customers differently. Do they place ALL videos in the restricted content filter? No, they do not. I posted a link to something that should be restricted, and it is open content.

Try to stay on topic about YouTube, and not conflate your other issues. Should YouTube be restricting some videos and not others based upon political ideology?