>Most YouTube users (and people on the Internet in general) do not conduct themselves respectfully or demonstrate any sort of intellectual curiosity when engaging with these sorts of feedback mechanisms.

You nailed how I feel about this entire conversation. The author of the blog PopeHat summarized it really eloquently:

Stop pretending bad faith is good faith for the purposes of “politeness” or “dialogue.”

https://twitter.com/Popehat

Finally someone posted something logical and well reasoned, thank you!

Content creator protections and guardrails go both ways and can protect both the producers of propaganda but also the small independent voices of dissent too. People don't realize that voices of dissent can be shouted down or terrorized by trolls and harassment. Imagine a scenario where a small content creator speaks out against powerful governments. These governments have their online propaganda farms troll that users content with dislikes and hateful comments designed to scare them into deleting it. The dislike ratio is then used to downvote the content so it doesn't appear in people's recommended watch lists a form of censorship in itself.

I'd rather have a platform both protects the powerful and the vulnerable equally well than a platform that protects neither or only one of them.

These businesses were built from pseudonymous comments (and posts) and open, lightly moderated discussion. The question is whether what Youtube is doing will kill the golden goose, which has somehow easily weathered the owner-demeaning attacks from its disgusting users for its entire existence.

It depends on the video.

Say you and your band from college found one of your old recordings and posted it on YouTube. 5 years later a friend you lost contact with finds the video and comments, hey I saw you guys live. I