"Hate" is also very subjective as well. If it is controversial even in the slightest, then someone, somewhere, is going to be offended and think it is hateful.
When you insulate people and teach them to be offended at the slightest "micro" aggression, then people become intolerant and unable to function in normal society without being "triggered".
As in putting content creators into a state of fear and uncertainty?
Regulating algorithms that amplify these effects seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me.
What users of these sites have found, is that the companies are regulating algorithms in order to amplify these effects: namely to discourage certain political advocacy and encourage others.
YouTube, by their own words, operates at "entire Internet scale." Having a single megacorp decide for everyone how to "regulate algorithms that amplify these effects" is too much concentration of power! Who knows? Maybe such megacorps would abide by "Don't be Evil" one day, then turn around and have to abandon such a motto later?
Also, recommendations aren't part of a platform, they are Youtube's free speech. Those are in some ways more important than mere hosting, as that's how Youtube has radicalized people.
Again, that would be fine. If there was a consistent standard, content creators could just abide by those rules. That's not the experience of content creators. Instead, it's arbitrary, and often driven by the ideological whims of lower level employees with an axe to grind.
Also, recommendations aren't part of a platform, they are Youtube's free speech
That's awfully convenient. Virality and discovery are huge amplifying forces. In 2019, it makes no sense at all to be part of a "platform" then wield the editorial control of manipulating recommendations. The only reason that flies, is that the law and the general culture haven't caught up to the implications of manipulated virality and discovery. Would you like it if somehow Fox News were given editorial control of manipulating virality and discovery? If your answer is no, then you already understand that it's too much power to let a single corporation wield.
as that's how Youtube has radicalized people.
That NYT piece is a shallow hit piece. There's far less radicalization going on than the emperor losing his clothes. What's going on is that young people are figuring out the BS of the older generation, and the establishment NYT is trying to spin it in a way to scare people away from the process. Far more young people are just rejecting the establishment narrative and crafting their own. As usual, the establishment are crying the sky is falling, and the young people will be fine. (And a small fringe will be nut-jobs, and a smaller fringe will be vile, but that's always been the case as well.)
https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/measles-outbreak-anti-v...
It's not a bad thing per se. It's good if it's a good person. It's bad if one is a jerk.
If YouTube is now sized at entire-Internet scale, and is the overwhelming dominant player in next generation video news and commentary, then what YouTube does becomes a Free Speech issue. Something the size of YouTube should rightly be a Platform. It cannot be a Publisher at this scale. Wielding the power of a Publisher at such a scale is concentrating too much power in too few hands.
In a way, the days of the Printing Press were far superior to today's era of YouTube. Printing presses can be crafted by determined DIYers. Network effects couldn't suppress an independent press, but in 2019, YouTube just has to hold onto its Network Effect and wait until the energy and seed capital of potential competitors runs out, or they're at least reduced to 3rd-rate irrelevant zombie sites.