That's not what he's talking about. For example, today, it is much easier on social media to share left-wing opinions than to explain the drawbacks of, for example, positive discrimination or massive fundings for [insert minority here].

Maybe that's what you want – not be aware of those drawbacks. But those people who are censored still exist, are more rejected, and they can't confront their ideas, so they derive towards extremism. Now you can't hear their demands, you get surprised with their votes (hello Trump voters) and they keep being racists (or insert minority here).

Extremism isn't a birth defect. It's a reaction to circumstances. Go visit 9Gag. Under anonymity, huge numbers of young people have very pronounced hatred towards minorities and SJWs.

I'd prefer seeing this debate happening on Youtube and public spaces than excluding them than not knowing where they are.

If those things are happening in the world, then I do think it's valuable to be able to see them.

Recent example: Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy.

There's a strong point to be made that taking the trouble to burn a man alive inside a big jail is only valuable to them because the citizens of their enemy countries are watching.

And there's also the difference between reporting horrible, graphical news, and being the platform for ISIS to tell and show them in their terms.

> Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy

Do you have a source for that? The only one I could find is The Weekly Standard which doesn't cite any officials or sources itself.

Yeah, that's my source too, by way of Twitter. I would assume they're not just completely making it up, but who knows?

Stories with no cited sources, anonymous or otherwise, are almost certainly making it up (or, to be charitable, conflating several disjunct events into a causal stream that doesn't exist.)

Such videos are already against Google's terms of service.

This new policy and the tech that backs it are little more than a political cudgel.

What an absolute joke of a response.

> But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary. Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.

What about that isn't clear to you? He supports it on principle.

Sounds similar to a fair bit of video game content. Bayonetting innocents, adolescents brutally murdering other adolescents... Drawn or photorealistically rendered or real, where do you draw the line?

One is fiction and the other is not.

If ISIS released purely fictional accounts using actors and advanced CGI of the exact same content, you would be OK with it showing up on YouTube then?

Would a disclaimer blunt its impact as a recruitment tool?