It’s amazing what you can find on YouTube. If you need to fix something, somebody has already done it, filmed it and posted a video on how to do it yourself. I’ve even contributed a couple “how to” videos myself when I solved an interesting problem.
If you want to find out how to mount an electric motor on your kayak, or the best way to put line on your string trimmer, or how to make an impossible dove tail with two pieces of wood — YouTube is the ticket.
You can learn all kinds of things, like that the earth is flat, that ancient aliens built the pyramids, that the shroud of Turin is genuine, and that it’s a fake …. It’s amazing. You can learn anything you want — with some very telling exceptions.
For example, if you’re a PhD biologist who believes Ivermectin might be a good tool in the battle against COVID — as many doctors around the world do — well …. That’s too much for the teenage genius censors at YouTube, who know so much better than some dummy like Dr. Bret Weinstein. (If you haven’t heard, YouTube has suspended Weinstein.)
This is simply intolerable. We have a bunch of woke kids deciding what information you can and cannot have access to. Flat Earth? Sure. Ivermectin. No way.
YouTube should be subject to the free speech conventions that we’ve painstakingly developed over many, many years.
Yes, I know the old “but it’s a private company” excuse. Applying that sort of argument in this case is misguided. YouTube is essentially a public utility, and it ought to be treated as one.
Of course the same applies to Facebook and Twitter, which are not great, but, like YouTube, have risen to the level of public utility / common carrier.
Regulation would be in order if YouTube were the “primary” means of social media…rendering it nearly impossible to communicate or compete without it. Given there are multiple social media platforms, regulation seems like overkill. So, the YouTube teen genius censors may inconvenience Dr. Weinstein et. al. but they can’t thwart their ability to communicate.
As well, the old “private company” argument is still valid, legally viable and supported by the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be dismissed merely because some find YouTube’s business practices personally undesirable.
Lookup “social media companies as common carriers.” A company doesn’t have to have a monopoly or be the primary means to some service in order to be regulated as a common carrier. Buses, railroads, telecommunications, etc., have been regulated as common carriers.
On what basis would YouTube regulation be “required”? That’s the issue at hand.
Because of their ideological bias. Just as we wouldn’t want a phone company that only allowed heterosexuals to make phone calls. Social media has become a “common carrier” of information, and we can’t allow a company with a clear agenda to control that.
We are living in a weird world where quackery or the opposition to it is “ideological.”
First, no ideological bias has been verified to date. In fact, some unfounded allegations have been debunked. Second, as long as their practices aren’t illegal, YouTube would is well within their rights, as a private company, to feature content as they deem appropriate. For those who don’t like their practices, they are free to use a different platform or create their own and compete. Isn’t that the American way?
“First, no ideological bias has been verified to date. ”
Nonsense.
It looks pretty balanced to me. Raging rightwingers get to have their say no less than raging leftwingers.
Can you provide fact-based evidence that validates ideological bias?
A lot of the “there is no leftward bias” stuff I’m seeing is based on things like “they’re capitalists,” “they agree with Republican tax proposals,” etc., which is not the kind of left-wing bias I’m talking about. I’m specifically talking about bias in favor of woke BS — e.g., adopting extreme positions from trans activists.
It’s one thing for patrons to disagree with, complain about and even protest against the content on YouTube…that’s American. Yet, it’s quite another for the government to regulate a private business without empirical evidence that there is ideological bias that is unconstitutional and/or harmful…that would be un-American.
And what do you do when (1) you know the company tilts strongly to the left, (2) you have data that its parent company skews data to the left, (3) their policies and procedures for banning people are kept secret, and (4) anecdotally it’s abundantly clear they are targeting conservatives? You can’t get “empirical evidence” when they hide the evidence.
Just as with other bias claims, the first step should be to compel them to give up the evidence.
QUOTE: And what do you do when (1) you know the company tilts strongly to the left.
I’d first question if this is factual or just sour grapes. But isn’t the same question appropriate for organizations that tilts strongly to the right? Or, that doesn’t matter?
QUOTE: (2) you have data that its parent company skews data to the left.
As I said with the notable Sydney Powell’s claims of evidence of widespread voter fraud…let’s see it and let it be examined by the proper authorities. As well, I suspect if the data is that compelling the marketplace will drive appropriate change.
QUOTE: (3) their policies and procedures for banning people are kept secret
I suggest users read the “fine print” of their social media platform. Most have policy sections that address this. YouTube users should check out their “strikes” and “appeals” procedures. https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/
QUOTE: (4) anecdotally it’s abundantly clear they are targeting conservatives?
Anecdotes are a rather weak justification for employing the big stick of government regulation. In and of themselves, they can be fraught with bias. Yet, if the “anecdotes” are that convincing, maybe the offended party should use them in the appeals process. If that’s not successful, boycott, protest and sue the company. Again, if the data is that compelling, per typical conservative rhetoric, in a free market, users would likely punish the company, inclusive of going to a competitor or creating a competitor.
QUOTE: You can’t get “empirical evidence” when they hide the evidence.
That would be quite a conundrum…somewhat like trying to validate claims of abuse by police…given they don’t like to keep or make public information that would make them accountable. It’s interesting that conservatives are willing to believe claims of bias about social media organizations (without empirical evidence) but don’t hold that same position when it comes to claims of bias by police. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
I had no idea that teenagers were chiefly responsible for identifying in YouTube. That said, I am sure that there are lot of people in that age group who competent in that domain. America has always had problems with salesmen of snake oil running amuck. If young people can play a significant role in preventing such crap, more power to them!
I had no idea that teenagers were chiefly responsible for identifying quackery in YouTube.