[mathogre]

Fuck YouTube. If they're going to control what news I get, I'll choose other than YouTube. I do not need them. I have read from both hard left and hard right, and am intelligent enough to make my own decisions about what makes sense. Let them play their games, whether silly or dangerous. I form my own opinions. Losers!

[px43]

This isn't about you, it's about the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction.

YouTube isn't a news network. It's a video platform catering to a global audience, many of whom are really really bad critical thinking. Same with Facebook. We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad.

I'm glad that you're an adult and can make your own grown up decisions, and actually get news from a wide range of sources, and curate it yourself. I obviously wish everyone had that skill, but they don't, and it's actually really really dangerous to take that privilege you've earned for granted.

[lenkite]

Basically the only news that should be allowed is news that satisfies the mainstream political narrative so that folks are kept fully sanitized. This is far more important than silly things like freedom of speech. Any critical questioning of the "facts" is "misinformation".

Who cares later if the "misinformation" later is found to be true ? The most important thing is to obey and follow the will of the collective - set by the whatever the media overlords and political masters judge as "correct thinking". Any attempt to deviate from the same is "radicalization" and must be suppressed by any and all means.

[mohanmcgeek]

> the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill,

Who are you or YouTube to make this judgement?

More often than not, the "I'm smarter than the average person" types are the ones making the worst decisions.

[cudgy]

> 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction.

Taking away their ability to hear different viewpoints especially those they believe to be true just drives these people to radicalize even further. I’m not even touching the matter of dismissing almost half of a country. Very shortsighted perspective.

[cf141q5325]

Have you thought about the implications of your opinion for democracy? Is it only acceptable as long as people are properly brainwashed?

[momenti]

> We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad.

Not true because law enforcement is still in place to take care of crime. Some amount of crime and confusion are also the price you pay to get the benefits of freedom.

[archerx]

Could this have been more arrogant or condescending?

[TrispusAttucks]

What about all the times that YouTube banned videos that turned out to be correct?

[mathogre]

Actually, you're right. You made very good points here. I always assume other people are rational. While many are, many are not, and I often forget the latter. Thank you.

[exodust]

> "We all know what happens when content isn't curated"

Curation is about selection, not exclusion. As in selecting art for an exhibition on the basis of its value or quality. Curating is not about excluding or banning content via clumsy and vague censorship.

> "and it's really, really bad."

When trigger-happy censorship is the norm, really really really really bad things can happen.

> "become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction".

Bullshit like what? They (The Hill) were discussing and analyzing news, not propagandizing vulnerable youtube viewers.

It's disappointing you imply we need mandatory shielding from information, including analysis of news and events, with penalties for those not falling in line. Putin would agree with you. He threatens and shuts down media outlets for mentioning the word "war".

Mindless youtube viewers are not the tipping point to society meltdown.

I've watched a few 'The Hill' clips on youtube before, and I noticed they disagree with each other and provide alternate views. It's not a propaganda machine, so shouldn't be treated like one.

You may want your news and analysis to be grounded in loyalty to a monolith narrative and distributed via sanctioned memes. Others want more than that, such as counter-points, alternate views, robust debate, transparency and discussion. We learn more that way.

In my country Australia, we have a national "Q&A" TV panel show on the public broadcaster, covering news and politics. The idea is discussion, yet on the recent episode a young Russian Australian man was booted out of the studio audience because he mentioned he supported Putin's action in Ukraine. Instead of challenging the man's views, he was booted out live on air.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPIxtJd2uU&t=304s

This isn't how civil discourse should operate.

[xigoi]

Then why do they censor stupid bullshit only when it's right-wing?

[BeFlatXIII]

The proper solution is either to educate that 40% of kick them off the internet (and hopefully out of voting booths, too)

[hankman86]

Agree - I don’t need some “ministry of truth”. Figured out for myself that these “alternative” news shows on YouTube (The Hill, Breaking Points etc.) are populist garbage. This isn’t journalism, but sensationalist cherry-picking of facts with an unhealthy dose of opinion sprinkled on top.

All that being said: i think that censorship does way more harm than whatever nonsense these channels put out.

[imnotlost]

It’s an advertising business. They sell advertising. Everything else is filler between the ads.

Network news runs on the same model.

Sometimes the filler (news or other content) is good but not always.

[bradlys]

While good for you to figure things out - I’m surrounded by people who don’t have the skills for that.

How do you solve that? Education? Too late - they’re adults.

[edmundsauto]

You form fewer of your opinions than you think. YouTube is taking responsibility for their platform, and I encourage you to show your displeasure to them.

I also encourage them to form their own opinions.

If you form your own opinions through a mediator, you will be deceived. If you form it via direct connection, you will be overwhelmed. Nothing is new or old, here. It is just difficult to have good opinions while also not letting your platform be abused.