60 Minutes article How does YouTube handle the site's misinformation, and hate speech

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-you...19-12-01/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=78037674

THe leader of Youtube was featured on 60 Minutes talking about a profile on the outlet and how Youtube has to balance free speech but stop certain content from escalating such as hate speech and conspiracy theories.

Susan Wojcicki: We have 500 hours of video uploaded every single minute to YouTube.

Lesley Stahl: Fi-- say that again.

Susan Wojcicki: So we have 500 hours of video uploaded every minute to YouTube.

Lesley Stahl: That is breathtaking.

Susan Wojcicki: It, it is, it is. We have a lot of video.

And a lot of influence on our lives, and how we pass our time.

Over a billion people listen to music on YouTube every month: it's the planet's top music site. There's a children's channel; with over 44 billion views.

Lesley Stahl: Do you let your children watch YouTube, including the young ones?

Susan Wojcicki: So I allow my younger kids to use YouTube Kids, but I limit the amount of time that they're on it. I think too much of anything is not a good thing. But there's a lot you can learn on YouTube. I think about how YouTube in many ways is this global library. You wanna see any historical speech, you could see it. You want to be able to learn a language--

Lesley Stahl: Make a soufflé?

Susan Wojcicki: --wanna laugh, you just wanna see something funny. A soufflé! Oh, yeah, cooking. Cooking's a great example.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/300-tr...19-12-01/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=78040386

Here is another one on how youtube is having to deal with campaign ads leading to the 2020 elections.

How to handle political ads on social media has become a growing concern as the 2020 U.S. presidential election approaches.

Facebook has taken most of the heat, after refusing to remove an ad for President Trump's reelection featuring false information about his opponent Joe Biden.

While political ads on social media do not adhere to different rules than political ads on TV, they have come under specific scrutiny because of their unique ability to disseminate – broadly and rapidly -- bad information, and the platforms' inability to properly police them.

Compared to TV, online ads can spread lies at an alarming rate -- bolstered by machine-learning algorithms that can identify target audiences at enormous speed and scale.

In October, responding to a groundswell of concern, Twitter announced it would ban political advertising on its platform. Google and its subsidiary YouTube do not ban these ads, but the company last month came out with adjustments and clarifications to its policy, including limiting microtargeting of users.

In an interview on 60 Minutes, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said the controversial Trump/Biden ad does not violate their policy.

 

[TheBigA]

In my view, the problem is that the sites themselves are creating rules, and have no real power of enforcement. So users post content that is causing problems, but the only rules they're breaking are from the site. Clearly we're at a point where federal law needs to be written to control the content on these sites, because the sites themselves aren't capable of enforcing their own rules. I know it's popular for politicians to talk about breaking up these companies, but that won't fix the real problem. There needs to be very clear federal regulation over what can or can't be posted, and very strong penalties for breaking those rules. These sites are becoming more powerful than actual professional media outlets, but they're allowed to operate with no actual regulation. The difficulty will come in writing the regulation in a way that doesn't interfere with the first amendment. But somehow, they wrote such laws for radio & tv. So it can be done.

 

[KeithE4]

In my view, the problem is that the sites themselves are creating rules, and have no real power of enforcement. So users post content that is causing problems, but the only rules they're breaking are from the site. Clearly we're at a point where federal law needs to be written to control the content on these sites, because the sites themselves aren't capable of enforcing their own rules. I know it's popular for politicians to talk about breaking up these companies, but that won't fix the real problem. There needs to be very clear federal regulation over what can or can't be posted, and very strong penalties for breaking those rules. These sites are becoming more powerful than actual professional media outlets, but they're allowed to operate with no actual regulation. The difficulty will come in writing the regulation in a way that doesn't interfere with the first amendment. But somehow, they wrote such laws for radio & tv. So it can be done.

YouTube and other social media sites have the same benefit as the cable noise networks: A lack of license from the government. And the government has no right whatsoever to regulate them. Even if Congress were ever to try, any laws that were passed and signed by the President (whoever happens to be in office, not just Trump) will be challenged, and likely shot down, by the Supreme Court due to violations of the 1st Amendment.

 

[TheBigA]

Even if Congress were ever to try, any laws that were passed and signed by the President (whoever happens to be in office, not just Trump) will be challenged, and likely shot down, by the Supreme Court due to violations of the 1st Amendment.

The same Supreme Court that said shouting "fire" in a crowded theater isn't free speech? That's what's happening. People are using social media for terrorism. And the sites themselves don't know how to respond. No company has enough staff to moderate 500 hours of video a minute.t

A candidate for office posts lies about his opponent. Doesn't the Federal Election Commission have a role?

https://www.fec.gov

I understand the difference between public airwaves and private web sites. If the sites are going to become the arbiters of what is true or false, there needs to be some standard by which those decisions are being made. Don't you think? People need to know what the rules are, and the punishment needs to be more than simply being banned. Otherwise you have total anarchy.