YouTube's CEO Explains Why It Leaves Up 'Controversial or Even Offensive' Videos (theverge.com) 134
YouTube must leave up some videos that are "controversial or even offensive" in order to remain an open platform, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said this week. From a report: In her quarterly letter to creators, Wojcicki addressed YouTube's perpetual struggle with troubling content and how to moderate it, saying that it's worthwhile for the platform to allow videos the company disagrees with. "A commitment to openness is not easy," Wojcicki wrote. She says that "hearing a broad range of perspectives ultimately makes us a stronger and more informed society." YouTube has long struggled with how to police and limit the spread of troubling videos, from containing conspiracy theories to stopping radicalization to limiting harassment and bullying. Most recently, YouTube was widely criticized for its handling of a situation in which a conservative YouTube commenter repeatedly made homophobic comments about a Vox host. YouTube ultimately decided that the homophobic language was acceptable because it was framed as commentary, and it took considerable backlash from the LGBTQ community both on the platform and within the company in response.
Yeah right (Score:2)
Re: Yeah right (Score:2)
This was my first thought.
Where exactly is this alleged content?
Re: Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
Well this is one example alluded to by the article:
I believe this was in reference to some Louder with Crowder episodes where he disputed the Vox host Manza's posts and did poke some fun at him.
I"m not a huge Crowder fan, but I did watch some of to see what all the fuss was about.
And it appears Steve Crowder is not so much a news agent, but tries to be a YT comic, and commenting on current topics.
He did poke some interesting holes in Manza's claims and did refer to Manza (@gaywonk) with mostly the exact same terms Manza refers to himself as with regard to being a hispanic gay guy.
Crowder largely used the exact same words Manza uses to refer to himself on the episodes I viewed.
Other than that, Crowder said his views and Vox content was stupid and tried to explain why.
Now, regardless of who's views on the subject you agree with, I didn't see anything Crowder did that warranted being banned or having his content removed.
YouTube seems to often also consider behavior of content creators outside of YT too for discipline, and with some of the stuff Manza touted on social media and other posts...well, if he didn't get penalized by YT then I don't see how they could penalize Crowder too.
On twitter Manza twitted to "Milkshake them all. Humiliate them at every turn. Make them dread public organizing. "
From what I see of him, he's just as obnoxious as Crowder and at least so far, Crowder hasn't promoted direct violence against anyone that doesn't agree with his belief system.
So, neither party are clear, but hey....I believe that in the US that is supposed to pride itself on free speech, the pretty much negates the "freedom from being offended".
So, I don't see what the big deal is and neither party should be censored.
Unless a party is promoting active violence against another party, let'em loose and have fun watching the circus.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
They seem to be apologizing that they aren't burning books fast enough.
Can you imagine the US Mail apologizing for the content of letters it delivers, or the phone company apologizing that your ex called you? Actual open platforms have nothing to apologize for.
But once YouTube started de-platforming the undesirables and deplorables, it can now only apologize that it isn't platforming all of them as fast as it can.
Re: (Score:1)
Not the same thing. (Score:1)
Absolutely not the same thing. A human can look at a video, see that it's trash, and choose to nuke it. Very simple.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the fact that Youtube has become more censorious isn't enough for you?
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the CEO letter rather than the verge article, what is actually claimed will become a lot clearer https://youtube-creators.googl... [googleblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And they're perfectly happy to demonetise everything under the sun, it's weird, it's like they don't want to make money, they're running around like headless chickens with guns randomly shooting down good videos.
Their new demonetisation reason is 'repetitiveness' and now perfectly good channels like this:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoGqq0fJsDBCU3PgVX3IGsA (science and history) are being hammered. Because telling people about history in more than 1 video is repetitive!!! FML.
Well hang on a minute.... (Score:2)
"A commitment to openness is not easy..."
Are they an open platform, or not? I seem to recall (and feel free to correct me) that a few weeks ago it was said they were not, which gave them justification for taking down stuff they disagreed with.
Which is it?
Re: Well hang on a minute.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Every platform has limits. You can't dump toxic shit anywhere you please.
Re: (Score:2)
And that limit is $$$.
Eyeballs == $$$
When the content stops making money and starts costing money, that's usually the trigger.
Re: (Score:2)
And that limit is $$$.
Eyeballs == $$$
When the content stops making money and starts costing money, that's usually the trigger.
So YouTube isn't about altruism or free speech. Should I be surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
When the content stops making money and starts costing money, that's usually the trigger.
Maybe they should have gone after the asshats(vice/vox/nyt/etc) running the shakedown on wrongthink videos then.
Re: (Score:2)
If the limits are other than what's legally required, it's not an open platform.
Will you be thrown off YouTube for content you could legally host on your own server? Yes? Then let's please set aside any remaining pretense that YouTube is an open platform.
Re: (Score:2)
If the limits are other than what's legally required, it's not an open platform.
As long as the TOS applies equally to creators its still quite open. I don't blame them for not wanting hatemongers fracturing marginal groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yuri Bezmenov - KGB Defector on "Useful Idiots" - 1984 Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the TOS applies equally to creators its still quite open.
WTF? That's not at all what those words mean. The most draconian censorship can "apply equally to creators". It's fair, but it's the opposite of open.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is legally restricted from hosting holographic projections complete with tactile feedback, but nobody does. If you respond "fine, you also can't do impossible things" -- you can also have an open platform radio service that doesn't host videos.
There's always limits beyond what's legally required. That's not a useful definition.
Furthermore, a platform is not open if, in theory, "OpenTube" exists and allows all content, but a completely unaffiliated group assassinates everybody who, I dunno, takes a
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, are you being deliberately dense? An open platform does not censor based on content.
It takes a more nuanced perspective
People have been saying for decades that the reasons to take away my rights, or my property, were "nuanced". Fuck each and every one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to be standing behind a lot of the safe harbor acts that protect platforms.
YouTube is trying to avoid or at least pretend not to be a publisher. They would suddenly find their safety net which they built their business on disappear into the ether.
So they have taken the route of mostly demonetizing, hiding submissions, removing notifications and more or less requiring the user directly seek content which they deem wrong think.
I'm not surprised they are trying to tell everyone they are being open an
Re:Well hang on a minute.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. You get to do make decisions like that when you own stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This is spot on. They just pulled down tons of content and channels—then 1) have the audacity to spin it like this, and 2) journo and sites have the audacity to repub the headline, uncontextualized, like it is a true statement.
Simple Reason: Because people watch them (Score:2)
Excuses and solutions for criminal profit (Score:1)
Same reason why TVs and movie theaters are filled with utter garbage.
It took me a while to see your [JoeyRox's] causal connection there. Or rather it's more of a correlation thing (which is not causation). Yes, it is the monetization of the eyeballs, but the relationship to the content providers is quite different, which completely distorts the profits. If there is a unifying theme, it seems to be the bad taste of the viewers?
What bothers me about this story is the rationalization of criminal behavior with high-sounding principles like "openness" and "free speech". The real
Youtube is shooting itself in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
YouTube is killing itself with it insane hassling people posting music education videos. Some of the most popular sites doing song analysis and teaching using pieces of songs are getting demonetized or taken down. It started a few weeks ago and now people talking about music creation are disappearing. I'm retired so music is my main focus now and was on Youtube a lot but in last month I don't spend much time there at all.
To show how ridiculous its become one of the big content creators was doing a live stream and his assistant in the background had headphones on. At one point the bleed from the assistant's headphone could be heard in the background for a few seconds. That video got demonetized for a few seconds of headphone bleed. That's insane.
You learn most things by studying previous work be it music, art, writing, and even programming, but YouTube has decided no music education video if they include sample bit of songs.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Youtube is shooting itself in the foot (Score:4, Informative)
The pianist Rousseau got a copyright strike recently for playing a piece of Schubert transposed by Liszt. The company which supposedly owned this copyright claims that YouTube just triggered it automatically. The pianist tried to resubmit and a different copyright claim was made. This time by a company that was willing to allow the video to play, but still claiming all the royalties. To a piece written over 150 years ago.
SheetMusicBoss had their entire channel demonetized for "repetitious content" even though it contains mostly original recordings. Youtube was at least willing to admit a mistake and restore them, but they had a decent following at the start. Someone just starting out would be screwed. All of the educational music channels I follow including 12tone, SignalsMusicStudio, AdamNeely, RickBeato have had to work around the limitations by not featuring certain artists, using covers, and simply not saying certain names.
I agree it sucks (Score:2)
From a financial standpoint I really do think it worked out well for them, just not for anyone trying to learn an instrument.
Re: (Score:2)
You think YouTube cares about being broadly useful as an end in i
"Homophobic Slur" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And to top it off, he didn't come off as being afraid of homosexuals. No "phobia" displayed at all.
It's context (Score:1)
When the word is used to belittle then yeah, it's a slur. Worse when it's used to dehumanize in the lead up to taking away civil rights and/or violence.
This is why black folk can use the n* word and white folk can't. The n* word being the most extreme example because it's been used to dehumanize so many for so long that it's almost impossible for a white person to decouple it from that us
Re: (Score:2)
And who in their right mind is going to be an arbiter as to when something is a slur and something isn't? What Vox did is basically define that "Everything we don't agree with" = "saying Queer is Slur".
White people CAN use the n* word, people do it daily, there are no legal restrictions on it. Black people in some circumstances shouldn't use the n* word either, if you're going into a board room and you happen to be black, I'm pretty sure saying "this n--ger is wrong" would still be considered rude, even if
Re: (Score:2)
This is why black folk can use the n* word and white folk can't.
That's a lie. Any cunt using that term in front of me gets shut the fuck down, whatever their skin colour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How they define things like "homophobic slur" is precisely why their own moderation shows bias. In this case he called a person who self-identifies as queer, queer. Is that really a slur? A lot of people consider the Q in LBGTQ to mean queer.
The term "homophobic slur" isn't a quote from their hate speech policy (link https://support.google.com/you... [google.com]) and if you read it you'll find that the usage of slurs isn't allowed depending on context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep repeating that they got into trouble for using the word queer while I provided you with a link that their policy regarding slurs depend on context. You can easily find a number of youtube videos using the word queer https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com] Why should I believe your claim that it was the word and not context that got them into trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they thought of his language as falling within the guidelines but the backlash caused them to lose profits so they decided to demonetize because of the public backlash. If anything, the video had MORE clicks and MORE ad views because of the controversy but they decided that cowtowing to a particular narrative is more important.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they thought of his language as falling within the guidelines but the backlash caused them to lose profits so they decided to demonetize because of the public backlash. If anything, the video had MORE clicks and MORE ad views because of the controversy but they decided that cowtowing to a particular narrative is more important.
When you make assertions like this about what others are thinking, how did you find out and can it be verified?
You say that they lost profit even though the video had more ad views, but then claim that "they decided that cowtowing to a particular narrative is more important."
Why should I believe it's not about the lost profit?
Re: (Score:2)
When you make assertions like this about what others are thinking, how did you find out and can it be verified?
That's exactly the problem with YT's vague rules and enforcement, far too many of their terms and conditions and the way in which they are enforced involves YT making subjective assumptions about what a person was thinking and what they *really* meant & how they felt when they said something. Add in vague, ill-defined, subjective, and broad terms & definitions and it's ripe for abuse as we've seen time and time again.
Then there's uneven enforcement, such as Antifa getting a pass on some social media
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you say that last part as if the Q doesn't stand for Queer. This is meant as an entirely honest question from someone who doesn't actually know - if not Queer, what DOES it stand for?
"Conspiracy theories" (Score:1)
Can somebody explain the current rhetorical, rather than definitional, objection to "conspiracy theories"?
If more than one person decides on an objective, particularly if it is a negative objective, it is a conspiracy. There are unquestionably thousands of fully real, fully objectionable, conspiracies happening in the world, right now.
What is the -implied- meaning of "conspiracy theory" here that indicates something supposedly to be rejected from consideration immediately, the specific claims or arguments
Re: "Conspiracy theories" (Score:2)
The implied meaning of "conspiracy theory" is that it's a bunch of nonsense dreamed up by a lunatic who has no interest in what's true and is willing to massage evidence to fit his desire for a conspiracy to exist.
This differs from legitimate investigations of actual conspiracies, in which people impartially collect evidence in order to figure out what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds just like every media news source...
This is why there is a moral stand to be taken against censorship. All information will inevitably come from the informer's perspective. It must be incumbent upon the informed to decide the merits of the information presented.
Middlemen sanitizing available information with censorship amounts to little more than good old-fashioned book
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody explain the current rhetorical, rather than definitional, objection to "conspiracy theories"?
If more than one person decides on an objective, particularly if it is a negative objective, it is a conspiracy. There are unquestionably thousands of fully real, fully objectionable, conspiracies happening in the world, right now.
What is the -implied- meaning of "conspiracy theory" here that indicates something supposedly to be rejected from consideration immediately, the specific claims or arguments irrelevant? Is it intended to just advocate immediate acceptance of the status quo, whatever the topic?
This is a very good question and I would like to encourage you to stop posting anon.
One aspect of "conspiracy theories" is that they are inherently derived from narcissism as they claim to be enlightened by special knowledge that others cannot see. A narcissist will not listen to arguments so there is not much of a point in engaging directly.
They Have De-platformed Several People (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
youtube has censored for years. Nudity isn't allowed.
Alex Jones was kicked off YouTube (Score:2)
Given the number of views his videos got (and the number of ad impressions) I'm sure they miss him and would be happy to have h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
radio host Alex Jones was literally kicked off Youtube
Figuratively. You mean, "figuratively kicked off YouTube".
How he would've gotten on top of the server racks to be kicked off is beyond me. I thought they had great security. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine in that case any competent security officer would drag him down instead of trying to kick him off.
To get kicked off, he'd probably have to be sitting on a sysadmin.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't work on Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
They reduced him to an uninformed raving lunatic, so maybe they did work after all.
Re: (Score:1)
Something tells me that happened long before drinking soy.
Re: (Score:2)
> that result in men with guns showing up
How far does this go? Who are you personally responsible for your rhetoric?
Is BLM responsible for 5 cops getting killed by a BLM activist?
Is Elizebeth Warren and antifa responsible for the mass shooting in Dayton?
How much does the media take blame for promoting political violence with rhetoric like worse than Hitler?
Or does that only work for ideas you don't like?
Re: (Score:1)
Sating your honestly held political belief is very different to peddling conspiracy theories and lies for profit.
Re:They Have De-platformed Several People (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I am glad you are the one that gets to decide when someone else can be responsible for someone else's actions.
BLM have the honest sincere belief that all cops are bad cops and that all they want are dead cops. They are not responsible for a BLM activist killing 5 cops because it's "sating a honestly held political belief". Surely it's not because you are sympathetic to their cause to get a pass.
Antifa have the sincere belief that we live in a fascist dictatorship worse than Hiltler. They are not responsible for the violent escalations because it's "sating a honestly held political belief". Has nothing to do with your political sympathies to get a pass.
I mean, it's not like Elizabeth Warren is a known liar who uses a conspiracy theory for her own personal gain. Certainly not like the media has pushed conspiracy theory and lies for profit for years. Surely not the BLM based on misguided statistics and lies for political gains to galvanize a voting bloc. And Antifa? Golly geeze, they are borderline terrorists.
But Alex Jones he's different talking about pot belly pedophilic vampires and inter-dimensional demons. "Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur" is really a call to burn the heretics of god. Jones did what he always did but some reason Pizzagate was the straw that broke the camels back.
It's a conspiracy theory to think there is a large network of human traffickers and child abusers for very powerful people and Epstein definitely committed suicide.
Yes, you know better when rhetoric crosses the line from lies for profit and conspiracy theory. I don't need to defend Jones to think your malleable condemnation is more about your political sympathy than it is any kind of principled position.
Here's a thought. You are responsible for your own actions and no one else's. If I need to state the obvious, I do not think BLM is responsible for the shooter in Dallas, Antifa and Warren are not responsible for Dayton, and Jones is not responsible for a guy showing up a pizza shop with a gun.
Re: (Score:1)
Well I am glad you are the one that gets to decide when someone else can be responsible for someone else's actions.
He wrote one sentence, you're not literate enough to understand it but you reply with that giant wall of text?
He didn't say he gets to decide. At all. He merely defended that there is a difference between two things. See also: Law of identity [wikipedia.org].
Presumptively who decides is a Constitutional matter that has nothing at all to do with what the specific contours of the Rights involved are. The answer will be different in the US, or in France. But that has nothing to do with if there is a difference between stating
Re: (Score:1)
So basically you want to shut down all speech because someone might misinterpret it, and we can't be sure which utterances will lead to violence.
Fortunately you have already lost the war on free speech, because most adults are not that stupid. They have a memory longer than your rhetoric, they can see Jones for what he is, what his behaviour has been over many years.
Keep apologising for him though, it's really helping your cause, honest.
Re: (Score:2)
> basically you want to shut down all speech because someone might misinterpret it
Nope. I said no one is responsible for the actions of another. Re-read last paragraph.
>we can't be sure which utterances will lead to violence.
We know for sure that your basis for "which utterances will lead to violence" coincide to your political sympathy.
>Fortunately you have already lost the war on free speech... helping your cause, honest.
I'd say I was shocked but go figure a Brit has given up the idea of free spe
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you never have actually listened to anything he has said. Sounds like you are only repeating the worst things you heard other people say with a personal spice of hyperbolic over the top virtue signal.
Please, enlighten us on the gay frogs and how you open a jar of pickles. Or are you one of those inter-dimensional demon pedophile vampires that wants to eat dead babies?
You are actually worse than your retarded caricature of him. Even he doesn't call for the "painful" "gruesome" "kicked off existen
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I don't agree with the GP suggesting that Alex Jones should be tortured to death, although I will say I consider that clear hyperbole. And that it's kind of implied that Alex Jones doesn't want inter-dimensional demon pedophile vampires to exist? I'd kind of say it would be bad if he did want them to exist.
But your bar here is comparing that statement to some things Alex Jones has done that are not pure evil, just kind of insane. You have to compare to the Sandy Hook harassment which is the thing t
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny, because that sort of rhetoric can be turned right back against you.
For example, someone could take your words of wishing Alex Jones a horrible death as justification for calling you a fucking psychopath and justifying wishes of death against you, or they could label this as inciting violence.
But people like you put blinders on, and you think that there are separate rules for different people.
Alex Jones is a clown and an asshat. Doesn't mean that if someone wants to listen to him that they can
Hey, that's in MY playbook! (Score:2)
We could always use him as a bad example!
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot; bad examples are everybody's playbook.
I was forced to memorize (Score:4, Insightful)
the details of more than 112 'genders'...so I now have absolutely no ability to process or recognize 'humor' or 'comedy' & I become very strident & full of rage when anyone says anything even remotely provocative or confrontational. We can't have diversity of thought, not anymore, it's settled science. The Borg has us. If you don't think like me I'll put on a black mask and hit your wrong-thinking head with a brick. Tolerance & love, always tolerance & love.
Re:I was forced to memorize (Score:5, Insightful)
tis not enough to merely tolerate someone's delusions, now they demand you play along.
peak clown world indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
the details of more than 112 'genders'
Nobody was ever forced to read John Varley. It is a personal choice, and should be respected.
Re: I was forced to memorize (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who didn't care don't like being told what to think either, and now you forced them to be grouped with the ones who are against you?
I see this so much it's scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, tolerance and love, the same tolerance and love that people like you showed to women, gays, etc, for centuries. How does it feel to be on the other side of the cattle-prod ?
So the goal wasn't equality and coexistence. It was about dominance all along.
Which scapegoat shall we blame rising misogyny, racism and gay intolerance on?
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I being punished for the actions of people hundreds of years ago who may not even be my ancestors?
Man, best joke of the year! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So, when did promoting, celebrating or demonstrating usage of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution (you know, the document that spells out the governance of the USA) become an extremist topic?
It must have, with the loss of and demonetization of gun channels there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree, NO responsible gun owner should ever even so much as point a gun (loaded or unloaded) at another human being, unless they are in fear of their lives and it is for the purpose of self defense (or defense of their family/friends, etc).
Re: Man, best joke of the year! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there are a large number of gun friendly companies that love to advertise on YT for these videos...hell, I used to see a lot of them (not just firearms manufacturers, but places that sold knives, cleaning and repair supplies, holsters, etc).
I'm guessing YT must have kicked those sponsors to the curb too?
And thing is...they issue take down notices to de-monetized channels and don't tell them really what the problem is.
And they've banned gun videos that show
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, nice site.
Apparently the music cartels are earning between £22 and £352 a year from my channel. Cunts.
a better solution (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Make sure that "open platforms" are truly open to anyone regardless of the actual content.
2. Censor anything that's actually illegal.
3. Put tags on every video and make it so the viewer has to opt-in for each type (right wing political, adult themes, graphic violence, Hello Kitty, etc).
The last is the most important. If you're seeing videos that you despise, then you must have opted-in.
I sure as hell don't want a corporation or an AI deciding what I can and cannot watch.
Re: (Score:2)
"actually illegal" NSFND (Score:1)
And it includes pro-LGBT content? probably Illegal in russia.
And it includes reading of Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses? probably Illegal in Iran
Reports on the rape of children in concentration camps? Illegal in australia.
Reports of documents classified secret released by wikileaks? Illegal in the US
Reports about the negative impacts of the colonization of africa by chin
Re: (Score:2)
>"3. Put tags on every video and make it so the viewer has to opt-in for each type[...] If you're seeing videos that you despise, then you must have opted-in."
Interesting... but...
Then the questions become "who tags the videos?", "what criteria is used for these tags?", "how do we know the tags mean what we think they mean?", and "what happens when they are tagged 'incorrectly' for the exact reason to steer people away and punish content creators they don't like, etc?"
And how does any of this address or
Re: (Score:2)
The tags could be put on by the creator or perhaps the YouTube AI could put them on. If there's a problem with an obviously wrong tag, you petition for a change.
The tags would be an issue like you said. Although I think it could be done effectively with a couple dozen tags.
My point is that there will always be arguments about what is acceptable or not, but putting that control into the hands of the user, not a faceless corporation is better.
"I believe something like the "Adult themes" categorization is wh
Re: (Score:2)
You can google this. Free speech has legal limits. If you want to know how bad censorship to "protect the people" can be just check out China.
Crowder (Score:5, Insightful)
He was one of the very few targeted creators with enough resources to challenge YouTube, apparently to such great effect that YouTube has to defend its inability to censor him.
Rights no excercised are lost (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not against the law to say "N!gger" or "Kike" — but if no one ever does, it might become illegal. And there goes the First Amendment.
We're more than half-way there already, I'm afraid. Various people are wondering [psychologytoday.com], whether "hate speech" even is (or should be) protected by the Amendment, while others — elected officials [cbslocal.com] among them — are outright mixing "hate speech" and "hate crimes" together as one and the same thing.
Even our beloved /. rejects posts with the N-word in them — hence the obfuscation above — though the K-word seems Ok for now...
First Amenmdment will follow the Second (Score:2)
There have been no amendments to the 2nd either, which by your logic would mean, it is "doing fine". Yet, somehow, you can't even carry a knife in most places across the country, much less an "assault" anything...
Oh, and the government of Modesto did deny [www.good.is] the permit-application of the "Straight Pride" organizers...
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what "fine" means. The right, that the Amendment guarantees has diminished. Even in the freer places of the country, one needs a license, which turns this right into a mere privilege.
Pennsylvania is famously liberal with firearms, but still has laws against blades [knifeup.com] — and is thus no different, in principle, from NYC, where obtaining a permission to carry a pistol is flat-out impossible for a regular citizen.
It most
I see no contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
The blog post doesn’t include any changes to YouTube’s policies. Instead, Wojcicki outlined a new way that YouTube is framing its existing set of goals to keep the platform a positive, healthy space. She calls them the four “R”s: removing prohibited content quickly, raising up authoritative voices, reducing the spread of problematic content, and rewarding trusted creators. Together, those are supposed to help YouTube earn trust from creators and advertisers who have grown concerned by its actions (and, at times, inaction).
"Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that."
"We all got screwed over in 2016. Again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?" -- Jen Gennai, head of Responsible Innovation at Google Global Affairs
"Because they didn't show anyone's naked breasts" (Score:1)
Borderline nazis and anti-social science deniers and trolls are okay. Women's bodies? Not so much.
And the "What They Really Mean" machine says (Score:2)
"Because they make us money."