This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I would still own the fucking lawn. It doesn't matter if my lawn is cool, or if I invite some people and not others, or if I used to let anybody on for free but now I require you to take a copy of Watchtower if you want to hang out here, it's still my lawn. If you want to come to my party, you have to agree to my terms, because it's my party.
Leaving aside whether this is a true statement or not, what does this have to do with advertising? Is the argument that because they have a monopoly, it cannot provide the service ad-supported and must rely on a subscription model?
If we want to rehash the political free speech moderation argument great, but that's a totally different "digital commons" argument than the one being made in OP, that advertising must be banned so we don't have to see it.
Actually, the two are more related than you think. A lot of Youtube's censorship decisions come from advertiser pressure. They don't want to see their brand next to a "brand risk", so Youtube decides to ban the content rather than risk losing advertisers.
I don't think arguments about who owns something is a satisfactory way to resolve questions about it being a commons. If you're arguing from a purely legal perspective, cool, but people here are talking from a moral perspective. If the water company in your area suddenly became private and had the legal right to refuse service to anyone, and they started forcing you to use certain sinks of theirs that had advertisements, would you really say that they're not polluting the commons, because it's not the commons, it's their party and you have to play by their rules?
That's actually a pretty good point.
I have a well.
And the analogy here would be something like, the water company allows people to get free water service in exchange for watching ads, or you can just pay for the water service. If the water company introduced a brand new service where poor people got service for free in exchange for watching advertisements, I don't know how that can possibly be considered a bad thing for the consumer? Is the argument that by offering a free-to-use service they are polluting the commons? People have to pay for their water service because otherwise the consumer is choosing to pollute...themselves?
If you want to argue that Youtube should be a subscriber only platform, with no free access to anything, argue that. Hell, if you want to argue that youtube should be nationalized, that's insane, but argue it. But arguing that a private actor should be obligated to host and provide free content is asinine snailbrained socialism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link