disillusioned is taking the position of The Internet. If we allow these things, things will just continue to get worse and worse. Standards exist for a reason, Gresham's Law, and the rest of it. (Including some wonderful pleas for civility and kindness that I completely agree with)
raxxorrax is taking the position of The Human Species. We have survived and evolved because we are a wild, aggressive, curious species. Whatever boundaries there are, we will push them as hard as we can. Life will find a way.
Both of you folks are correct. This is the crux of the problem with technologies like YouTube (or books, for that matter). If YouTube is a publisher, then it has an opinion, a political position, standards for what it thinks is civil, and so forth. That's great, but there's no freaking way in hell I'm going to agree to having a handful of companies decide that kind of thing for the entire planet. The idea alone is insane. I just read yesterday about people getting warnings from Twitter from things they posted 5, 6 years ago that somebody in a dictatorship found offensive last week. It's ludicrous.
If, however, they're a public forum, then they should just shut up and stop looking at the things that appear on their site. The public forum -- books -- require chaos, disorder, and evolutionary pressure. Can't fight mother nature. Life will evolve.
But they can't do that, can they? Because they're monetizing all of that content. So they have to keep close track of each little piece of everything.
Now they're stuck.
They want to have it both ways, and we feeble-minded folks watching this spectacle end up choosing one or the other. It's a sucker's game, and no matter which side we choose, it doesn't work. That's because the premise is broken. BigTech wants to be two things at the same time. Picking one of those things and arguing with folks who pick the other one just plays into their schtick and keeps the gravy train rolling along.
Every Internet discussion ever. I'm glad you pointed it out! The world needs more reasonable posters.
Which part? If we are talking about this part:
>> I think that there's an element of validation and indoctrination that is a serious concern here.
Then I think there is evidence of that being true.
Take for example “incels”. They gather in online forums where they construct a worldview built entirely on misogyny, entitlement and hate. The ideas they are spreading among themselves are much worse than probably most of those people would come up with on their own. In their echo chambers they validate these ideas to one-another and make them seem acceptable.
https://www.ft.com/content/d71f3156-f94d-11e8-af46-2022a0b02...
People dont change you just filter them from your view of reality. And its no surprise people who bothered to look knew rather well that they existed.
The people I am talking about here are outright promoting rape, violence and child abuse. Not indirectly. Not between the lines. Just straight up stating those kinds of things.
From usenet to reddit, many communities that tolerate abusive conduct degenerate, as the "bad behaviour" is normalized and becomes accepted.
The fact that you can't create a child-proof YT doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to keep negative behaviour at bay.
In my experience the community changes as a whole, but not the individual actors. Once a community tips the member base changes. People displeased with the behavior leave and people attracted to it join.
The kids will flee the garden eventually anyway and "allowable discourse" is quite subjective.
You will never create a child-proof youtube. Those kids will eclipse your abilities and understanding at some point.
It would be better to create a separate platform