| > "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. |