What YouTube video? I haven't read that comment yet; still awaiting results from the Online Content Vetting Foundation. Yours flew through the process though. Congrats!
In all seriousness though, I do agree somewhat with the GP. Inherent vetting can be good. But it's also a tool used against us for manipulation. An example of this would be app stores. Heavily vetted, but you are force fed the apps they want you to see, and they have every right to deny you access to apps they find undesirable.
We need systems of reputation and trust to emerge, as they always have, and we need the freedom to choose them. Tools like Twitter allow largely unvetted content, sure, but they also allow users to curate their own circle of trust. This comes with risks of course, but I trust it more than some omniscient entity handing me content like mana from heaven.
That’s because they are vetted by ONE organization, that privately owns the store. It is actually an example of private capitalist ownership, again.
In science, no one “owns” physics. No one “owns” articles on wikipedia. The ideal is to have multiple reviews represented and all of their major legitimate concerns should be addressed before publishing something to the public. Think of concentric circles where the inner circle isn’t just Apple or Google but a good mix of experts with different views.
The hard part is resolving disputes between experts, or determining if a criticism is legitimate. This is what “edit wars” are like on wikipedia. Perhaps in this case, both points of view should be included side by side.
In a capitalist market system, though, explaining nuances of WHY Trump’s or Biden’s administration did something, or including the entire context of a gaffe video, would make it uninteresting to their audience. Imagine if Fox News would fairly report the results of studies about single payer healthcare around the world - their audence would bounce. They face intense market pressures to cater to their audience, this is WHY they report as they do and WHY they tell their straight news anchors to “rein it in”.
The one exception may be Tucker Carlson over there, who is able to somehow maintain a show while going against the entire military-industrial complex and establishment, unlike Sean Hannity. It is a rare phenomenon to see someone with such a highly promoted time slot have such a contrarian position. But if it sells to an audience, I guess it works. CNN totally jumped the shark when they discovered they can cover the malaysian airline flight for months 24/7 and their ratings went up. They went from being a straight news network to pandering for ratings too. None of the open source platforms or wikipedia would sell out like that.
In all seriousness though, I do agree somewhat with the GP. Inherent vetting can be good. But it's also a tool used against us for manipulation. An example of this would be app stores. Heavily vetted, but you are force fed the apps they want you to see, and they have every right to deny you access to apps they find undesirable.
We need systems of reputation and trust to emerge, as they always have, and we need the freedom to choose them. Tools like Twitter allow largely unvetted content, sure, but they also allow users to curate their own circle of trust. This comes with risks of course, but I trust it more than some omniscient entity handing me content like mana from heaven.