I not this message:
IMPORTANT: Due to COVID-19, we will conduct fewer human reviews, in order to protect the health of our extended workforce. Unfortunately, as a result, we may remove content that does not violate our Community Guidelines
My question is how can an online YouTube company stipulate that due to their protection of the health of their extended workforce that they may remove content that does not violate their Community Guidelines?
Surely a extended (remote) workforce can work from home in accordance with social distancing and isolation?
The majority of people (80%) are not in danger of a mild virus. It is those with compromised immune systems that are apparently at risk.
How do we know you are not censoring content you do not agree with that may offer information that is not the standard narrative?
How do we trust Google (now owner of YouTube) given the Cambridge Analytic situation and using algorithms to place information in front of people to influence behaviour?
What does the global population want? What is in the public interest? Would it be a free internet where all views are given a platform?
I certainly support public standards in respect of information that does not promote violence. However, I am all for freedom of speech even by those I don’t agree with. For example I would not shut down the 5G or the pro smart cities material even though I believe it is not in the public interest. I would like to see both pro and against so that I can make a choice. That is respect for me as a citizen to make up my own mind.
In education teachers will provide alternative views for children to decide so they learn how to determine their own thoughts. There is no corporate influence in the classroom to subliminally give them cues that they remember and later will prompt them to purchase. I worked for a educator in London and there tests had corporate logo’s designed to influence children. We see the issue of advertising to children when they do not have parental supervision which may push them to pressure parents, not unlike placing items at a checkout so kids will go for them and embarrass parents so they weaken to buy. It is this incessant need to seel and discard the real needs of people that I am awakening to. Is it truly service if messages are delivered to serve the sender not the receiver.
Other issues concern grooming, where messages are sent over and over and people get used to seeing them and through operant conditioning people just accept the message after a while. It is not a forum with standards, debate, contrasting views where the public can really discuss what is in our interests and what is not.
There are real concerns in the community about mind control and algorithms affecting what is seen and what is not seen. What is high on rankings and what is shunted lower due to not paying or ideological preferences of corporations. It is known that the CIA and NSA are working with Silicon Valley and hence, high tech companies. How is surveillance affecting us, information management from a certain perspective rather than open minded approaches that respect we are in a global village and it is not about specific interests but how we can co-exist as a diverse, vibrant global commons. Unfortunately when business interests come into play the whole feel and freedom of the space slowly changes as ads pop up, people buy space so they can influence, and the money incentive stifles what is seen and what is not. It is so unfortunate as we all lose that diversity and creativity that happens naturally without interference.
I am not voting for a Brave New World. I am voting for a free public commons where there is minimal interference and a celebration of what it is to be human and to co-collaborate on ventures that advance our world in ways that maximise happiness and ecological sustainability. See no-one pays me to say this, it comes from my heart which is my true nature. Yet if I was a corporate person my message would be different as an agenda would be there. This is why true freedom is so important for expanding our world in ways that benefit everyone.
Perhaps what we need is a global regulator who can make decisions on the basis of information that cause deliberate harm and information that serves education, knowledge and interests. To be careful to make it narrow as interpretation can be wrong, culturally filtered, personally judged or ideologically narrowed. Can we do this in a way that honours the voice of billions?