there's that line again: 'good content'. that's surely in the eye of the beholder in a world of free speech. it implies some element of control needed over the 'bad' content.
A lot of the content on youtube has great content, but it's not got the most views. You've got to make a personal effort to engage with a certain kind of 'good' content that is good for you, that informs you, or rewards you outside of it, in the real world.
Agreed, what is good or bad depends on objectivity, not subjectivity. It depends on who makes the rules, on who the judges are. If we are our own judges of each other's content, comments, etc, then we all determine, define, what is good content and what is bad content like you said, in the eye of the beholder, with all doing what is right in his or her own eyes as mentioned in the Bible before the time of the Judges.
there are criteria you could write down to help define what is good or bad content, but this would only go in a certain direction. It's better for bad content. Good content could be informational, but not popular or engaging. Not so easy.
Interesting.