The main concern is quality. Embedding YouTube without original content will get it deleted. "hey, check out David Harvey explaining das Kapital" will be deleted but, "at 3.28 David Harvey explains the concept of use value. I'm still having trouble understanding the different types of value and why the distinctions are necessary. Aside from use value there are exchange and labour value but he also distinguishes price from exchange value. Why? "

:up:

Embedding YouTube without original content will get it deleted. — Benkei

I make my own videos posted that pertain.

Uh. Are you sure that's not publishing previously published work? Repeatedly? You've read the site rules right?

too right. I've seen this pattern too, people just posting videos (sometimes hours long videos) without explaining anything about why they're posting it, how it's relevant to the topic, anything.

Like they think they're so important that other people should dedicate hours of their life just to find out if this video this random person posted online might be worth watching. The conceitedness of it... exhausting.

Significant + for site quality.

The main concern is quality. Embedding YouTube without original content will get it deleted. — Benkei

I'd hope at sometimes when the actual primary source is a Facebook posting or heck, a Signal-posting, then the actual source could be referred than to a news article concerning this. I find it good that moderator discretion is used.

For example, if Trump announces that the US is leaving NATO in a post in X with Elon applauding the act, would it still be OK to post this?

I totally understand the concern of dis/misinformation and usually I try always check everything I refer to that it's not fake. And I try to put at least the link to the source, even if it's very easy simply to copy paste the quote and find the actual link.

And if something is deleted, OK, fine. Hope that doesn't mean that people will be banned.

I've seen this pattern too, people just posting videos (sometimes hours long videos) without explaining anything about why they're posting it, how it's relevant to the topic, anything. — flannel jesus

This naturally shouldn't be done. And if you have a video, please explain in written just what it says or tells or what is the meaning for you to post it. If it's a longer one, good way is to give actual time when somebody says something that you think is so important.

The general idea is in requiring reference to original sources of information as opposed to hearsay or entirely fabricated accounts found on social media and they repeating it as fact.

example, if Trump announces that the US is leaving NATO in a post in X with Elon applauding the act, would it still be OK to post this? — ssu

This would be an exception it seems because it's not hearsay. It's from the horse's mouth.

It's from the horse's mouth. — Hanover

Good.

There's a lot of that in our world today. (And refraining to put some whacky picture of a horse's mouth here)

Now, how do you legislate the viewing age of people in their own home?
My only issue with links to You Tube is that video content can be embedded. Sometimes I don't want great big moving pictures cluttering up my bandwidth; I prefer the option to follow a link or not.
Otherwise, this doesn't affect me either way, since I already avoid certain platforms.

Uh. Are you sure that's not publishing previously published work? — fdrake

I put it on YouTube so I can show it here.

My feedback is that this isn't a good move.

he general idea is in requiring reference to original sources of information as opposed to hearsay or entirely fabricated accounts found on social media and they repeating it as fact.

example, if Trump announces that the US is leaving NATO in a post in X with Elon applauding the act, would it still be OK to post this? — ssu


This would be an exception it seems because it's not hearsay. It's from the horse's mouth — Hanover

Legal brain in action.

"The intention of the legislation should hold sway over nitpicking its wording." If no judge has said that yet, it's about time one did.

Opening a can of good intentions, the moderators were presented with a can of worms.

sad smile

Coming from you, I'm now confident it's a great move.

Thanks! This is a good decision.

Just for clarification, if wrapped in an elaborated explanation and relevant context, with an actual argument, what then? Is it something like “use common sense” for when it is relevant? And longer YouTube videos are sometimes something else than social media opinion pieces, so what are the definitions on that? Is it mostly to get spamming twitter and other short form stuff that is forbidden?

First of all, it is obvious that banning social media links is a wise and nice decision.

Whenever I read the replies to this thread, I can't avoid laughing about some folks. I think it can't be clearer: Going forward, any post that includes a link or embed from social media outside these areas will be deleted in full. No partial edits. No warnings. If you’re not sure whether something counts as “social media,” err on the side of caution.

But what counts as social media?
But what about straight news?
But what about long videos?
But what about YouTube?
But what about YouTube Kids?

:lol:

Only those who allow AI to think for them ask such foolish questions. Jesus, it will be worse than I expected.

Only those who allow AI to think for them ask such foolish questions. Jesus, it will be worse than I expected. — javi2541997

I like your new feistiness, but many of the questions were reasonable.

I like your new feistiness,but many of the questions were reasonable. — T Clark

I don't want this to turn into a major burden for moderators; so personally I'm going to be really "dumb" with this rule and not spend more than activating two braincells to consider a post. If it isn't necessary to make an argument, I'm going to delete it. I don't even see the point to link to a Musk post on X just to prove he actually said something. I can rely on charitable interpretation that my interlocutor isn't lying. And if he is, someone will probably point it out.

@General: Since this is a new rule, there's not a 100% alignment between moderators yet as every moderator agreed in principle but they might still apply it differently.

If this level of uncertainty is too hard to deal with for some, I suggest those people put on a straightjacket and sit in a corner of a cushy white room and never engage with another person ever again.

. I don't even see the point to link to a Musk post on X just to prove he actually said something — Benkei

Me either. It wouldn't make sense to lie about something anyone can go and check for themselves in seconds if they are in doubt.

I think the ban is a very wise decision.

Yeah, I don’t think anything from such social media is of any relevance. But YouTube has a lot of quality channels that has really good material. But I agree that there has to be relevance to an argument being made, not instead of an argument.

I am extremely pleased that such links are being banned as people kept posting them to me. I think that it led to some viruses on my Software and this has been one of the reasons I have steered away from the forum a bit because there has been so much linking to other sites and to 'You Tube' recently. I didn't come here to watch 'You Tube' and videos, especially as some take a while. It feels like an obligation to watch it before replying and I prefer reading.

Also, I prefer if people can summarise ideas as part of an argument, as opposed to just including what appears to be a chunk of undiigested ideas Sometimes, people don't back them up with an argument and it feels mere chunk of undigested information.

As far as links to other threads, including much older ones, I am unclear whether links to this site will be acceptable or not. I have never done this, but I do know people often do this because they don't wish to repeat themselves. Of course, it is possible to refer to threads by name and give the page number of a specific post. If someone is interested enough, it is easy to search for past threads.

It’s a great move and I applaud it. :clap:

ease of access to referenced information is actually pretty important I think. There's a reason academic journals require cited sources.

Generally, social media posts carry a low level of reliability because anyone can post anything without limitation and footnoting it here then elevates it to a supposedly meaningful source.

If someone uses a social media post as a method of formally presenting their position and that is what is being debated, you have no reliability issue, so it should technically pass (like if Trump informs the world of his Greenland invasion on X).

However, I get that nuanced rules can quickly become impossible to enforce and moderation shouldn't require every mod to sit as a judge and sort through arguments. It's easier with a hard and fast rule, even if the net thrown is occasionally too wide.

In any event, I would think the necessity to cite to social media would be very rare. If this rule can eliminate without objection 99% of those cites, the objective has been accomplished. We'll deal with those rare moments when they occur, but generally, no one cares what Bob from Peoria thinks of climate change

The exact level of discourse I'd like to avoid. This isn't Twitter.

I agree, but checking the work in an academic source would likely be laborious. Checking that Elon Musk tweeted something on X would not be.

In any event, I would think the necessity to cite to social media would be very rare. If this rule can eliminate without objection 99% of those cites, the objective has been accomplished. We'll deal with those rare moments when they occur, but generally, no one cares what Bob from Peoria thinks of climate change — Hanover

:up:

Does this mean I can't post a Spacetime video to explain what energy is? I've posted that thing about 5 times already.

Not any longer indeed.