A standard, uniformly applied, is more likely to be removed (when its seen to be bad) than one inconsistently applied on the basis of ideology or public outcry.

Is it possible to have a uniformly applied standard for content as diverse as YouTube's? We can't even find a consistent standard to identify pornography, much less all of the other content YouTube wants off its platform

And this is why public protests are good for governments. They channel a lot of energy into a few precise issues, away from broad structural changes.

Are you sure? Like the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer were about broad structural issues in policing. Unless you meant even bigger structural issues such as systemic racism which they were only tangentially about but definitely increased the awareness of.

So that's why Russia or Myanmar shoot or arrest protesters. Tiananmen Square was also just the government's attempt to help the protester's cause?

Flamewar comments will get you banned here. No more of this, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Get your fascist crybaby self out of here.

Flamewar comments will get you banned here. No more of this, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yes, because right now it is effectively Google having a pretext to remove whatever they want, by only selectively overriding moderation.

Just yesterday, a group posting Xinjiang videos was censored from YouTube.[1]

Are their videos going to be reinstated? Unlikely. They will have to try their luck on some obscure platform

Imagine if you had video evidence of human rights abuses (lots of people do), just hope that you can raise enough outrage quickly enough before it gets flagged and removed.

I know that Google and Facebook are private platforms, but that should not excuse them covering for genocidal maniacs.[2]

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-youtube-takes-d...

[2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...

I believe that was the point being made in the comment:

"...competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives"

the problem is its mostly the dregs that get banned, and having a platform full of dregs is its own serious issue.

Yea and also having it as your initial content off puts a lot of viewers, and similar to people making and creating stuff.

While it might boost you initial user-base its gonna make growth slow to a crawl long term unless you have some clever way if dealing with it.

I think your solution is to have people pay you to put up that content.

False dichotomy. Would be best if they didn't make them in the first place through employing naive censorship heuristics.