YouTube, the world’s largest video platform, appears to have changed its moderation policies to allow more content that violates its own rules to remain online.
So I can say the words “uBlock Origin” without getting banned? Right?
I made some comments on YouTube over the last week about LAPD and Israel, and all of them have been deleted without notice. Not even a warning of “hey you aren’t allowed to talk about that” or “you violated a mysterious rule sometime”
I think people speaking on these subjects should genuinely come together to host their content on a Peertube instance and broadcast it to their Youtube audience, because this is a pretty strong use case. To be able to speak freely about these matters and inform people is pretty serious.
You don’t get notified if the channel owner deletes your comment.
Considering the channel owner is heavily left leaning, I don’t think it was them but they may be getting extra cautious about what speech they allow, given the current regime.
To make it better, right? Right?
Of course. For the shareholders.
They want money
There are no ethics involved.
I don’t see the issue. This is how it was in the early days and things were infinitely better. I’m convinced that the overly paternalistic moderation that overtook online platforms what was gave power to the alt right in the first place.
All online spaces could do with less moderation.
You’re either very young, or very dumb. It is known that every low-moderation platform quickly devolves into nazism and/or child porn.
That’s no moderation, which isn’t the same as low moderation. Meaning there’s a few red lines that will get you banned.
If people wanna say faggot, they shouldn’t be banned for life from a site. If they want to talk about how Biden is a transdimensional vampire that eats virgins, let them do so fuck it.
A simple vote and downvote system solves many of the issues with over moderation because it’s how it works in the real world. You can say any dumb shit you want at any moment and people will react positively or negatively. It’s simple and elegant and doesn’t push people into forming their own sites and communities where their dumb ass ideas won’t get challenged at all which leads to them reaching the mainstream as it is happening now.
Why don’t you run an experiment? Start a Lemmy instance with those ideals!
Most of lemmy is like that already.
It’s not. Go on, really run that experiment, then you’ll know for sure.
“Your claim is only valid if you first run this elaborate, long-term experiment that I came up with.”
The world isn’t binary. When someone says less moderation, they don’t mean no moderation. Framing it as all-or-nothing just misrepresents their view to make it easier for you to argue against. CSAM is illegal, so it’s always going to be against the rules - that’s not up to Google and is therefore a moot point.
As for other content you ideologically oppose, that’s your issue. As long as it’s not advocating violence or breaking the law, I don’t see why they’d be obligated to remove it. You’re free to think they should - but it’s their platform, not yours. If they want to allow that kind of content, they’re allowed to. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying your claim is nonsense and if you want a proof, you can run an experiment. Do it or don’t do it, your choice. Just don’t expect people who have an experience in running an instance to agree with you.
I agree. There just seem to be a fairly widespread pro-censorship sentiment among Lemmy users, usually driven by the desire to block speech that could be harmful to marginalized groups - but in practice, it often extends to broadly silencing all ideas they disagree with. The strawman here tends to be that anyone who wants more free speech just wants to shout slurs and spread (in their view) objectively harmful ideas.
