“The UK government is trying to push through a proposal that would force platforms such as YouTube to show public service broadcasters (PSBs) like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 at the expense of other channels, which could lead to the disappearance of independent channels”
(translated using DeepL)
24/7 government propaganda instead of what you actually want, sounds great.
UK is really doing hard work to make the country a worse and worse place to live.
So the UK wants to use the Canadian playbook:
That script is already written.
I am little confused by this, because when it comes to news, it’s already obvious that YouTube already favors the channels of legacy media (CNN, FOX, BBC, etc..) over independent news outlets that are native to YouTube or the internet.
IMO watching random videos/shorts on the home page isn’t what Youtube is really about anyway. They’ve jumped on the bandwagon but there are better mindless scrolling sites available.
Independent creators will have to rely on advertising outside of the platform similar to how OnlyFans works and viewers can rely on their own subscriptions page.
How it affects search results will remain to be seen and is probably a bigger issue. I don’t see how a specific search e.g. “airfix models” will be able to be spun to relate to a news channel.
The U.K. regime strikes again.
That said, it’s YouTube. It’s owned by Google. I haven’t been anywhere near it for many years. Whilst the U.K. gov is rapidly destroying traditional values and paving the way of other countries to become nanny states, I’m all for them doing things like this as it makes their perniciousness all the more obvious.
Do not get your news from YouTube or anything else Google/Meta etc have a hand in. Get rid of them as far as reasonably practicable.
There is also a lot of bullshit from independent creators too. I don’t think being bias towards the legacy media is necessarily a bad thing. I rather get the news from CNN or the BBC than the anti-vaccine bullshit that’s all over YouTube.
Be that as it may, discussing what content is better is besides the point and may be playing into their authoritarian theory of government information control being beneficial. Perhaps it would be beneficial, but the point is it’s a violation of freedom of speech. It’s interesting YouTube doesn’t mention any rights or freedoms in their message to creators, maybe they understand what people care about on the surface better than others.
Be what I said as it may be, BBC is really surprisingly good for the most part. Apparently they are required to give equal airtime to political parties based on their seats and are required by law to be unbiased.
Free speech doesn’t mean limitless speech. You can’t say whatever you want to say. No society in the world permits that. Not even in the US. A line is always drawn somewhere. You can’t utter death threats or hate speech under the guise of free speech.
In the US they don’t have this kind of tension since Silicon Valley owns congress - they are basically are the same revolving door 
Albeit paternalistic, consider it a blessing if they’re not maligned to exploit you
We don’t have that problem because we have actual free speech.
The government should never be allowed to decide what information is available to the people.
This UK attempt at dictating to a private enterprise what information is shown in what order to its customers is classic authoritarian over reach.
I don’t see what death threats or hate speech has to do with my comment or Britain’s new plan for youtube.
Hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment in the US.
One big problem with government regulating speech is that someone has to decide what speech is correct and what is wrong. As we see in the UK, simply saying something “grossly offensive” can get you thrown in jail for years with no jury.
It’s much simpler to determine if speech is intended to cause imminent violence and whether that speech is likely to cause imminent violence. There’s also defamation and harassment, but both have intense burdens of proof. That’s the situation in the US.
Saying, “I’m going to kill you in 1 year.” is probably not illegal because it’s not imminent.
Freedom of speech is not what you want it to be, it’s how the courts have interpreted the constitution.
What’s even the point of being human if every freedom is taken away in the name of security?
There is no universal answer to that existential question.
This is an old problem going back centuries. I think Ben Franklin had the best answer:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I hear you. I didn’t mean BBC vs Joe Schmo. I meant BBC vs respected independent journalists / political commentators, or independent news oulets. People who are credentialed. When a respected independent journalist / outlet can’t say the words sex or r*pe without being penalized, I find that extremely disturbing.
