Should there, could there be a rule against people using videos as cites in GD, GQ, and Politics, except when the point of debate is whether a certain source said a certain thing? It seems like the opposite of fair play to drop a 30-minute YouTube video and expect others to sit through it.
We do have a rule against betting because it makes debate conditional upon risking lost money.
I would suggest that YouTube cites are a similar species of bad faith, because it makes the debate conditional on risking whatever time is lost by watching someone’s crap video.
Unless the video’s purpose is to back up an assertion that someone said a certain thing, I think there should be a blanket ban on video cites.
Why? Do you also object if someone links to a book-length website or PDF? If a link takes a long time to look at, just ask which specific bit is relevant.
Was this question prompted by a specific thread? Or several?
I object if someone tells me I need to read an entire book or lengthy PDF to respond to them. If it’s an e-book or PDF, they can copy the text into the post, or at least point me to the chapter and page. I don’t mind that because I’m a fast reader, and text is clear about what’s being said.
In my experience, video sources are almost always persuasive propaganda crap, and the poster is never clear about what they think the video says, and even with a timestamp I’m not willing to sit through 60 seconds of YouTube to absorb someone else’s point.
The only exception is a situation where the question is, say, “did Joe Smith say or do XYZ”, and the video proves out the question.
It’s a recurring problem, but here’s one recent example where a poster has just started shitting out YouTube links intended more as persuasion than evidence.
I think this particular poster fits the mold of a problematic account that may not be around very long, so I won’t invest any effort at all in their context-free YouTube links. If it does indeed include the undiscovered cure for cancer or whatever, please let me know and I’ll stand corrected.
I wouldn’t make a blanket prohibition in GQ. However, you are free to ask someone to explain the relevance of a video link, or if it’s long, ask for a time stamp. I would consider moderating someone who persisted in posting such links without clarification, but I would handle it on a case by case basis.
It might help :dubious: if, after someone posts a link to a lengthy YouTube video, posters consistently asked the person to link to a relevant portion of the video. All you need to do is add &t=_min_sec to the end of the URL and bingo, someone can quickly check out the supposedly meaningful part.
Then you’d get people going “The part you linked to isn’t relevant at all, and doesn’t say what you claim”, with the response of “Well, not that part, you have to watch the important parts”.
Remember how we used put (PDF) after a link, back when PDF’s were real band-hogs, as a courtesy to the reader?
I think we should have a similar etiquette to post (Video/YouTube) after a link, unless it’s a bare URL and it’s obviously YouTube. But if the poster has used the “Insert Link” function and it’s not obvious from the name they gave the link that it’s a video, courtesy suggests that they should put (video) after the link.
Personally, I rarely if ever open a video link, for the reasons others give here, and I’m ticked if someone uses the “Insert Link” function in a way that conceals that it’s a video link.
At best, unless graphic are really needed- a Vid takes 30 minutes what could be read in one minute. They are a prop for the illiterate. Many are just a guy reading what could be posted as text.
Now, if someone is claiming - for example- Trump did or didnt say something- then sure a link to that press conference is fine, altho a link to where they summarize and quote is better.
I think a naked link to a vid with no explanation etc is cause for moderation. Not necessarily a warning, of course. Maybe we could make that a rule. Of course a reply to e.g. "where did trump say that? " could be just a vid of course, since the context is clear, IMHO.