Webwide is the inclusive forum community for web designers, developers & makers.

Whether you're an enthusiast, in training, or a seasoned pro – you'll fit right in at Webwide. We understand that our community is one of creation which is why we, unlike many other discussion forums, encourage sharing of your own projects and content. Creating a forum account is fast, easy and completely free so you can start participating right away.

Read our Code of Conduct

Free Forum Membership Benefits

  • Participate in hundreds of interesting discussions
  • Network with industry peers and make new connections
  • Show off your own projects and relevant content
  • Get help and feedback for your coding and designs
  • Buy and sell services and resources in the marketplace
  • Participate in our friendly community challenges
  • Earn trophies and work your way up our leaderboards
  • Enjoy exclusive Webwide member discounts and offers
  • ...and so much more!

📺 YouTube CEO: We’ll ban any coronavirus content against WHO guidelines

Adam

Mr. Webwide
Administrator
Joined
Sep 24, 2019
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
1,070
Points
1,115
Location
United Kingdom
Local Time
Today, 00:26
Credits
9,652
Pronouns
he/him
What do you think about this news that YouTube will ban any coronavirus-related content that goes against WHO guidelines?

I am totally torn, I can not make my mind up.

On one hand, we have a serious misinformation problem but on the other, where does the censorship end?

Do these monopolistic platforms have a responsibility to uphold free speech given that they make any serious competition mostly unfeasible?
 
Last edited:

Sharkie

🦈
Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
100
Reaction score
132
Points
115
Location
Canada, eh! :)
Local Time
Yesterday, 19:26
Credits
589
Pronouns
She/Her
Real Name
Shayna
Honestly, good on them for trying to stop the spread of misinformation. But I think it would be better to put a warning if they find a video to be suspicious. That way you don't hit the censorship sketchiness, but you also are trying to combat misinformation.

It's the same problem with Amazon becoming a platform for white supremacists (The Hate Store: Amazon’s Self-Publishing Arm Is a Haven for White…). Where do you draw the line between allowing all content and censoring very obviously bad things?

It's such a fine line, and I truly don't know what the right solution is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LividJay and Adam

Dominic

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
101
Points
265
Location
Zurich
Local Time
Today, 01:26
Website
dominiclooser.ch
Credits
183
What do you think about this news that YouTube will ban any coronavirus-related content that goes against WHO guidelines? I am totally torn, I can not make my mind up. On one hand, we have a serious misinformation problem but on the other, where does the censorship end? Do these monopolistic platforms have a responsibility to uphold free speech given that they make any serious competition mostly unfeasible?
I am completely against this. For me, the base problem lies already in the fact that there is practically just one source for video material and this source is owned by a commercial company. I've seen multiple youtube videos deleted with content i found totally okay. In my opinion, it's very bad if there is a single instance which can decide what is allowed to say and what not (hello 1984). People should be able to form their own opinion on a basis which is as heterogenous as possible. The big media companies are already in very few hands, we should use the internet better. I would love to have something similar to youtube, but non-commerical and more open and democratic as wikipedia. No censoring.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sharkie and Adam

Gummibeer

Astroneer
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
926
Reaction score
788
Points
785
Age
27
Location
Hamburg, Germany
Local Time
Today, 01:26
Website
gummibeer.de
Credits
1,726
Real Name
Tom Witkowski
I am completely against this. For me, the base problem lies already in the fact that there is practically just one source for video material and this source is owned by a commercial company. I've seen multiple youtube videos deleted with content i found totally okay. In my opinion, it's very bad if there is a single instance which can decide what is allowed to say and what not (hello 1984). People should be able to form their own opinion on a basis which is as heterogenous as possible. The big media companies are already in very few hands, we should use the internet better. I would love to have something similar to youtube, but non-commerical and more open and democratic as wikipedia. No censoring.
Wikipedia isn't comparable. It's a crowdsource. It would only be comparable if the crowd could alter image and audio track of a video - or in other words: the crowd could censor it.

I would be interested in what they put in the "against WHO guidelines"-bin?
Is a video discussing face masks and finding a lot against them already against WHO? Or only if they recommend to don't wear them? 🤔
And how important is the "guidelines" word? Or is a video discussing the failures of WHO already banned? 🤔

If it's done right it follows the anti fake news algorithms and companies. Which is also censorship but both are dangerous for our life.
 

Dominic

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
101
Points
265
Location
Zurich
Local Time
Today, 01:26
Website
dominiclooser.ch
Credits
183
Wikipedia isn't comparable. It's a crowdsource. It would only be comparable if the crowd could alter image and audio track of a video - or in other words: the crowd could censor it.

I would be interested in what they put in the "against WHO guidelines"-bin?
Is a video discussing face masks and finding a lot against them already against WHO? Or only if they recommend to don't wear them? 🤔
And how important is the "guidelines" word? Or is a video discussing the failures of WHO already banned? 🤔

If it's done right it follows the anti fake news algorithms and companies. Which is also censorship but both are dangerous for our life.
I agree that Wikipedia is not a perfect example. But what I meant is a system which is not controlled by a profit-oriented organization and kind of democratic (whatever that means exactly). The thing is: in wikipedia multiple people can decide what the 'truth' is. In youtube one instance can delete movies. Wikipedia (and Wikidata, Wiktionary) is a good example how forms can work which are more open, more diverse and more inclusive (I know that there are still a lot of problems).

I don't get this sentence: «If it's done right it follows the anti fake news algorithms and companies. Which is also censorship but both are dangerous for our life.» Can you please elaborate
 

Gummibeer

Astroneer
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
926
Reaction score
788
Points
785
Age
27
Location
Hamburg, Germany
Local Time
Today, 01:26
Website
gummibeer.de
Credits
1,726
Real Name
Tom Witkowski
I don't see a problem in the profit-oriented. For profit they would only play ads every 5secs in those videos. 😅 It's more about the single organization of truth which could get problematic.

I meant that this censorship, for this exact specific case and assumed done right and not misused, is something like the fake-news filters on Facebook and so on.
The idea is to protect the people. It's not about protecting an institution (WHO) but the humans. There are tons of assholes spreading dangerous lies about Corona. And because a virus doesn't only hurt the single "stupid" person like a broken leg but the whole society they try to suppress these lies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Adam and Sharkie

Dominic

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
101
Points
265
Location
Zurich
Local Time
Today, 01:26
Website
dominiclooser.ch
Credits
183
There are lot of difficult but very important philosophical questions involved in this:

1. Is there something like objective truth?
2. If yes, can we recognize it?
3. If yes, how to decide who is right when there are contradicting opinions about truth?

Filtering out 'fake news' sounds alright on first sight, but is very dangerous. Galileos statement that the earth orbits the sun was considered fake news in those times. I personally prefer that people can decide themselves what they consider true or not, i don't like Google doing that for me and not even let me see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharkie and Adam

LividJay

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2020
Messages
53
Reaction score
70
Points
30
Location
Virginia, USA
Local Time
Yesterday, 19:26
Credits
126
But I think it would be better to put a warning if they find a video to be suspicious. That way you don't hit the censorship sketchiness, but you also are trying to combat misinformation.
I think this would be the best way to handle this. YouTube shouldn't be dictator of content.
 
Top