Slashdot Mirror


Why I'm a Defender of YouTube (vortex.com)

Lauren Weinstein writes: In a time of fascist politicians spouting simplistic slogans about race, religion, terrorism, and censorship, along with whatever other pandering platitudes they believe will win them votes, prestige, power, and control — it's worth remembering how much good the Internet brings us, and how much poorer we'd all be in so many ways for the shackling of Internet services like YouTube, in the name of such self-serving proclamations and damaging false solutions.

10 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Who cares? by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, who are you? YouTube is the successful product of a wealthy and powerful company. It doesn't need defending.

  2. But there IS a problem by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Youtube's biggest problem isn't really the struggle that the article presents, it's that it's a monolithic entity that can be censored or manipulated by the nation-state, even if that state is limited to blocking. It's also subject to the whims of the corporation that owns it, as was demonstrated very poignantly by the integration of a social networking site and the adjustment of the way that usernames and the comments system function.

    Granted, Youtube is not the sole video site on the Internet for personal content, and sometimes the huge amount of content that is acceptable to a nation-state makes it hard for them to justify blocking the whole site just to get a little bit of unacceptable content, but when one site emerges as the de facto default it becomes more likely that users don't even consider other sites or other options. Usually a competitive system is a healthy system, and this lack of competition threatens the health as it leaves the concept threatened to unilateral manipulation despite the interests of the users.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Newspeak for 'people I don't agree with'.

    1. Re:Fascist by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Newspeak

      This "article" is not even news . . . it's a rant in a blog.

      A new low point for Slashdot.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Huh? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who are you?
    What on earth are you talking about?
    Why do you write a sentence instead of a summary?
    Why the hell is that sentence so long and so difficult to read?

    Even if I was interested in what you had to say, I don't know why or what you're on about. But any inkling I may have had to click that link has disappeared due to fear that I will have to spend 10 minutes attempting to understand what each poorly constructed sentence actually means.

  5. Did I miss something? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only time in memory that I can think of a fascist action against youtube or a youtube poster, was after the Benghazi embassy was attacked, and some guy was arrested and imprisoned for posting a video critical of Islam. I'm sure that's not the kind of Fascism that TIMMMAAAY! or Ms. Weinstein had in mind, as I'm sure they are both Obama, and Clinton supporters. They should really re-evaluate their political inclinations. Nice straw man, though.

  6. Media bias and misrepresentations by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing has struck me recently, which is that YouTube allows us to catch out misrepresentations and media bias.

    In previous years, we would *only* have the media interpretations of current events. My parents, for instance, would read the newspaper article about some incident or other, and have no way to judge whether the opinions and position were in any way correct.

    Nowadays we can easily dig down to the source, and verify what we are told.

    As an example that everyone knows about, we can look to some of the things said about Trump:

    • The New York Times: “Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.”
    • Time Magazine: “Trump’s comment that Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.’”
    • Associated Press: “Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals”
    • CBS News: “Trump defends calling Mexican immigrants ‘rapists.’”
    • L.A. Times: “describing Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’”
    • Fortune: “in a speech branding Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.”
    • Hollywood Reporter: “he referred to Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’”
    • Huffington Post: “He called Latino immigrants ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists.’”
    • The Washington Post: “He referred to Mexicans as “rapists.”

    What he actually said:

    They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.

    An accurate representation of what he said was "some illegal immigrants are criminals", which is true simply by the law of averages, with the implication that if they went through a vetting procedure we could perhaps filter out the criminal portion.

    This was taken so completely out of context that WaPo rephrased it as "He referred to Mexicans as “rapists.", with the implication that he insulted the entire population of another country, and a fair portion of our own citizens.

    It's highly interesting to me that, as individuals, we now have the ability to find the evidence and come to our own conclusions, rather than blindly listen to the pronouncements of the elite.

    And a little bit, I think that's why Trump's supporters are so immovable. When the MSM cries "but he's a *racist*!", most of the people who were at the rally think "he didn't actually say that".

    It's definitely interesting the effect that YouTube has had on the political landscape.

    1. Re:Media bias and misrepresentations by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      My parents, for instance, would read the newspaper article about some incident or other, and have no way to judge whether the opinions and position were in any way correct

      Your a bit young so I guess I should point out that in my parent's day, you simply wouldn't have opinion in newspaper articles. You would have statements by people related to the stories and the who, what, were, why, and when facts and the statements were clearly marks as somebody said something. That is old School Jounalism. The opinions were saved for the op-ed pages which everyone knew was not news but opinions and editorials. I recently saw someone citing an op-ed page as if it was reported fact when it was just someone's opinion so I guess no one can tell the difference any more.

    2. Re:Media bias and misrepresentations by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've found that the moment you try to correct one of these stories attributing a false statement to candidate-x, you are immediately labelled as candidate-x fan-boy. And it goes down hill from there.

      To be fair, I *am* a Trump fan.

      For the past decade or so we (ie - Slashdot readership) have lamented the high-level of corruption in politics, and have identified the root cause as campaign contributions in return for political favours(*). A games-theory analysis shows that any normal political candidate will end up catering to the wishes of corporate interests in order to get elected.

      As an example, consider [then] Senator Obama's flip flop on telecom immunity six months before the election, and for which he received generous campaign contributions that allowed him to win the presidency.

      We've often wished for a candidate who can avoid the soul-selling and do things in the interests of the people. In this election, we have two: Trump and Sanders.

      I'm a fan of both. Having a Trump/Sanders election would be the best thing for this nation, and serve as a wakeup call to the elites.

      The people are tired of corruption in politics, and want something in return for their votes.

      (*) I'm referring to American politics, but it probably applies in other places, such as Canada, the UK, and Australia.

    3. Re:Media bias and misrepresentations by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Opinion and "facts" were divided better, but rampant bias was still present in story selection and the truthy factoids chosen for publication. Look at US news coverage of the Vietnam war with with a jaded eye, and you'll see it: did you know we won every major battle in Vietnam? That's not the story the press told, because they wanted us out so very badly. Just like today, the press thinks of itself as smarter than the peasants, who are in need of having their beliefs "corrected". Read some earlier Heinlein stories where is opinion on the press leaks out: literal "newsclowns" in fright wigs and floppy shoes show up in multiple works. Same thing, different generation. Go back further and you reach the height of "yellow journalism".

      Newspapers have always printed fiction inspired by true events, slanted to produce a desired result. Only the sports page is trustworthy, and then only the scores.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.