6 ms·

I disagree. I think their policy of reacting to content that is harmful and dangerous is a good idea. It's not like the are censoring them. They are still free

I disagree. I think their policy of reacting to content that is harmful and dangerous is a good idea. It's not like the are censoring them. They are still free to spout whatever nonsense they want, they just won't be monetarily compensated for putting other people's lives at risk. If someone made a cleaning video that encouraged users to mix bleach and ammonia to make a super cleaning liquid, I don't think anyone would disagree that it's harmful and dangerous.

lmilcin 8y ago
The worry is why a service that is designed to show people-created content should wield unlimited unilateral power to selectively decide what is going to be shown and what is not. Why a company and not a judge can decide what is not covered by freedom of speech? Can a large company just decide this because, well, it is large? I understand anti-vac people are seriously misguided and are posing threat to others but has there been any ruling on this or Youtube just decided it doesn't like it? I am of the opinion that this needs a transparent process so that YOUR rights are not stomped on when you are in minority. Say you we are transported back 200 years and you express an unpopular belief that black people should be made free and allowed to vote (and women too!) Who is to decide you are not allowed to even express your opinion because majority of the society thinks what you say is complete bullshit (why, who's going to do all this work?)
- lacksconfidence 8y ago
  They haven't decided that people can't see this content though. The content that is already there is staying up, new anti-vax content can be uploaded and will (likely, i can't know for sure i suppose) be suggested if you are watching another anti-vax video. They have only demonitized the content, deciding they wont pay money for anti-vax content.
  - lmilcin 8y ago
    Fair point. You are correct, they were not prevented from expressing their opinion.

lmilcin 8y ago

The worry is why a service that is designed to show people-created content should wield unlimited unilateral power to selectively decide what is going to be shown and what is not. Why a company and not a judge can decide what is not covered by freedom of speech? Can a large company just decide this because, well, it is large? I understand anti-vac people are seriously misguided and are posing threat to others but has there been any ruling on this or Youtube just decided it doesn't like it? I am of the opinion that this needs a transparent process so that YOUR rights are not stomped on when you are in minority. Say you we are transported back 200 years and you express an unpopular belief that black people should be made free and allowed to vote (and women too!) Who is to decide you are not allowed to even express your opinion because majority of the society thinks what you say is complete bullshit (why, who's going to do all this work?)

lacksconfidence 8y ago
They haven't decided that people can't see this content though. The content that is already there is staying up, new anti-vax content can be uploaded and will (likely, i can't know for sure i suppose) be suggested if you are watching another anti-vax video. They have only demonitized the content, deciding they wont pay money for anti-vax content.
- lmilcin 8y ago
  Fair point. You are correct, they were not prevented from expressing their opinion.