Creationists can post their crap freely on YouTube—and I don’t see YouTube getting its editorial policy criticised for allowing them on.
Basically, that site allows viewers to use their own editorial policy, and to get their video recommendations from any source they like. That seems to me to be obviously how a video hosting service should operate.
Critics claiming bloggingheads.tv is not being sufficiently censorious seem about 180 degrees out of whack to me. For me, the more compulsory content filtering a hosting service implements, the less usable it becomes.
Fine, your homepage is a text hosting service. This is idiotic—the aspect of your comments that generates downvotes and annoyance. I shall say no more.
“Hosting service” is generally construed to mean a service provided at large, to the public, not a private moderated website that hosts videos. Calling BHTV a hosting service implicitly compares it to sites like YouTube and Vimeo, which it has little in common with. Neglecting to point that out suggests a greater interest in being technically correct than in being helpfully informative when you could easily have been both.
Er, the range of the customer base is not involved in the definition of hosting service. Hosting services need not target the general public—they target whoever they think needs their service. There are all kinds of exclusive hosting services out there. If you think otherwise, surely you ought to at least support your strange idea with some kind of reference.
I didn’t really implicitly compare with YouTube—rather I explicitly compared with YouTube—mentioning their service by name. Both sites host videos, though YouTube has a much better player and search facilities, and is much closer to being unmoderated and uncensored.
Creationists can post their crap freely on YouTube—and I don’t see YouTube getting its editorial policy criticised for allowing them on.
Basically, that site allows viewers to use their own editorial policy, and to get their video recommendations from any source they like. That seems to me to be obviously how a video hosting service should operate.
Critics claiming bloggingheads.tv is not being sufficiently censorious seem about 180 degrees out of whack to me. For me, the more compulsory content filtering a hosting service implements, the less usable it becomes.
Bloggingheads.tv is NOT a hosting service (it could be, but it’s not). It is a thematic forum, with an audience.
Moreover, the diavlogs in question were “Science Saturday” diavlogs.
ETA: actually, the Behe one wasn’t a “Science Saturday” diavlog, but the young earth creationist one was.
A “thematic forum”? Could you elaborate on this?
Technically speakiing, it is a hosting service.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_hosting
Yes, your statement is not technically a lie.
If you feel misled by my comment, I don’t see how I am to blame—and it seems to me that I do not deserve your link.
Bloggingheads.tv is a video hosting service. It hosts videos on its server and streams them to clients.
Your totally inaccurate comment on this topic seems more likely to mislead than my accurate one.
Fine, your homepage is a text hosting service. This is idiotic—the aspect of your comments that generates downvotes and annoyance. I shall say no more.
It would indeed be rather stupid to call my home page a text hosting service.
“Hosting service” is generally construed to mean a service provided at large, to the public, not a private moderated website that hosts videos. Calling BHTV a hosting service implicitly compares it to sites like YouTube and Vimeo, which it has little in common with. Neglecting to point that out suggests a greater interest in being technically correct than in being helpfully informative when you could easily have been both.
Er, the range of the customer base is not involved in the definition of hosting service. Hosting services need not target the general public—they target whoever they think needs their service. There are all kinds of exclusive hosting services out there. If you think otherwise, surely you ought to at least support your strange idea with some kind of reference.
I didn’t really implicitly compare with YouTube—rather I explicitly compared with YouTube—mentioning their service by name. Both sites host videos, though YouTube has a much better player and search facilities, and is much closer to being unmoderated and uncensored.
Check out: http://www.youtube.com/user/Bloggingheads
I’m not a fan of Behe. He’s like the center of a slice of bread.