[imode]

I see a lot of people not wanting to offer alternative solutions to the treatment of this particular individual's content: if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is.

I'm sure you'd complain about any measure other than leaving this individual alone. If so, you deserve to be angry, because you're part of the overall problem.

Edit: To remind all of you, downvotes should be reserved for things that are strictly disruptive or not contributing to discussion. Unless we're free to disregard the rules, now.

[karatestomp]

We could not tie hosting and media discovery and ad sales all together. No “social” crap or “you might also like” bubble-prompting algos on the site hosting the video and also selling the ads. That’d be a good start.

Same as “it sure sucks that Facebook has to abuse low-paid workers with gore porn but what else can we do?” I mean. We could not? Allow sites that require doing that to exist? Just a thought.

[edit] my point is that we look at these problems through a very narrow lens that excludes solutions that serious harm the profits of Internet giants. I think that’s silly. If their business model causes awful things maybe it shouldn’t be possible to have that business model.

[at_a_remove]

Don't consider the downvotes as not contributing to the discussion, think of them as ... deplatforming your idea. It cannot be allowed to stand as-is, after all.

[imode]

It's nice that you can't contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. Means I'm right.

[chii]

> if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is.

have youtube put on a warning saying that this content is misinformation/wrong. But not censored because censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind.

Censoring it is just promoting it to other underground channels that are more difficult to censor.

[detaro]

> censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind.

And having warnings slapped on it doesn't?

[chii]

it looks less conspiratorial. if you see a warning, but you have the freedom to view it, you won't get emotionally triggered to think that you're being attacked. it's like banning books, vs putting a warning out about it, but continue to allow it to be sold and read.