It may be to YouTube's own detriment, ultimately. It doesn't seem like a good way to run the site.
But I don't see it as a freedom of speech issue. If I have a website, I can control it and decide what shows up and what doesn't. YouTube shouldn't be stripped of this just because it's big.
I wonder if they actually sense the paradigm will shift soon enough (to decentralized platforms). Tailoring it to "advertising friendly" presumably makes more money from advertisers, but likely makes the platform worse. So it's short-term gain for long-term tradeoff. Which usually isn't so good but it's great when the curtain is closing.
Yes, anyone can have a website dangling in the wind.
Youtube is an aggregator of content, and has a bigger responsibility to seek fairness with that responsibility.
So there are different standards based on when the website is deemed to be "an aggregator of content"?
Do web forums in your view have no right to moderate?
Subjectively YouTube probably should have better policies, sure. But in principle they should be able to make whatever policies they please for their website, and people can share content elsewhere if they pick bad ones. And a different ubiquitous platform would emerge.
At the end of the day YouTube creating their exact set of policies is a form of speech and expression. So I don't think you can strip them of this in the name of free speech.
For the record I agree that YouTube's policies are generally bad and encourage a sort of watered down lack of expression. I just technically do not see it as a free speech violation.
You make a valid point @full-measure. Does Youtube or anyone else have the legitimate "right" to censor or moderate their own platform's content as they desire?
Seems like a double standard to say they don't but individuals do.
However, we must recognize the power massive collectives like youtube, spacebook and twitty have in directing individual's thinking and by induction the way society thinks. Those that control the narrative steer society as long as people refuse to think for themselves, which is most people these days.
The main problem is most people don't think for themselves and defer their personal responsibility to others. The problem is order followers. It is an understandable problem given the huge volumes of info and decisions people are faced with daily. Division of labor is a useful tool, as are hierarchies in some situations but not all.
The more individuals avoid taking responsibility for their own actions and accept without question what someone else says is true or wants them to do the closer we are to totalitarianism and the excuse, "I was just doing my job, following orders - I'm not to blame".
Free speech violation? Did I ever mention violations somewhere, if so, I apologize.
I never intended anyone to think I said youtube was violating free speech laws.
Title: FREE SPEECH -- You've heard the term, but I doubt anyone knows how rare it is anymore.
Clearly he's saying SOMETHING along the lines of YouTube's actions being contrary to "free speech", whether or not I followed his point perfectly.
It depends what examples you're referring to and what you mean by "ok".
But they're not free speech issues.
Just as a matter of how Steemit works and what we're signing up for when we use this as our platform to say something, people have the option to use flags.
It's just one version of free speech happening, whether or not the flags are desirable or polite or we should oppose them etc.
Let me know if you have any more brainbusters.