Nope, we're talking about "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies".
As much as I don't like censorship, views that advocate for extermination of other people can rightly fuck off.
What I don’t agree with is conflating that with being un-PC. Or having s difference of opinion on contentious social topics, even if they can be personally offensive.
For example, for some, abortion is seen as pro-death. For others denying asylum is tantamount to a death sentence and thus is also death and hate. Or saying “f the police”. Police will say that is calling for hate, etc.
Today it feels like the PMRC was just a few decades too early. Would music be better without misogyny, violence, yes, in many respects but also we would deny a voice to those who feel oppressed and need an outlet to voice against the mainstream understanding.
I think that this will be bad for the platform overall -- an increase in censorship is never good.
From the YouTube blog post:
> We’ve been taking a close look at our approach towards hateful content in consultation with dozens of experts in subjects like violent extremism, supremacism, civil rights, and free speech.
So at the very least they claim to understand that it should not be a random decision.
People against (limited) censorship usually react very quickly once it's their group that's being attacked (as some very famous subreddit does)
Consider a discussion forum that never banned any users or removed any spam. It quickly becomes very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when a third of the posts are "CHEEP ROLE X bUY NOW" and another third are racial hatred.
Increases in curation (private censorship of one’s own offering) are very frequently good.
Whether the paying customers are consumers or advertisers, quality of curation is typically on of the main things they are paying for in content platforms. It’s true that there has been some effort to substitute algorithmic recommendation engines providing a consumer-specific view in place of curation, but it's also pretty clear that even the best of those is not viewed as an adequate solution by significant segments of the market.
That's not specific enough. What about people who want to preserve European culture but don't think its "superior" to any other culture?
Views that were nominally conservative not long ago (and were actually also held by a lot of democrats) get recast as “Nazi!!1!1” in today’s environment. Weird historical inflection point we’re at.
"But what about..."
NO. We're talking about people who want to exterminate other people. We know that because the last time they got power, we had mass executions (Holocaust), lynchings, and a century of extreme segregation.
This isn't a 'what-if'. We know what happened the last time.
Never again.
If half of the US is described as extreme, then we can justify shutting down their voices.
Directly as you quoted, "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies", those are three separate things and there are a whole range of ideologies there.
The person I replied to specifically called that last one into question, because of the fact that it is so broad.
We we both able to point out other kinds of views that people consider to be bigotry and you literally just directly equated those examples with Nazis. This is exactly why people can't be given this kind of broad censorship power. You proved it in one comment. Congratulations.