Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:40 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 190 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: YouTube to Ban Videos
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14121
Location: STRAYA!
In b4 MAH FREEDOM OF PEACHES!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/youtube-remove-extremist-videos.html

Quote:
YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

YouTube announced plans on Wednesday to remove thousands of videos and channels that advocate neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies in an attempt to clean up extremism and hate speech on its popular service. The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post. The prohibition will also cover videos denying that violent events, like the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, took place.

YouTube did not name any specific channels or videos that would be banned. But on Wednesday, numerous far-right creators began complaining that their videos had been deleted, or had been stripped of ads, presumably a result of the new policy. “It’s our responsibility to protect that, and prevent our platform from being used to incite hatred, harassment, discrimination and violence,” the blog post said.

The decision by YouTube, which is owned by Google, is the latest action by a Silicon Valley company to stem the spread of hate speech and disinformation on its site. A month ago, Facebook evicted seven of its most controversial users, including Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars. Twitter barred Mr. Jones last year. The companies have come under intense criticism for their delayed reaction to the spread of hateful and false content. At the same time, President Trump and others argue that the giant tech platforms censor right-wing opinions, and the new policies put in place by the companies have inflamed those debates.

The tension was evident on Tuesday, when YouTube said a prominent right-wing creator who used racial language and homophobic slurs to harass a journalist in videos on YouTube did not violate its policies. The decision set off a firestorm online, including accusations that YouTube was giving a free pass to some of its popular creators. In the videos, that creator, Steven Crowder, a conservative commentator with nearly four million YouTube subscribers, repeatedly insulted Carlos Maza, a journalist from Vox. Mr. Crowder used slurs about Mr. Maza’s Cuban-American ethnicity and sexual orientation. Mr. Crowder said his comments were harmless, and YouTube determined that they did not break its rules.

“Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site,” YouTube said in a statement about its decision on Mr. Crowder.

“We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community,” the company wrote on Twitter.

The whiplash-inducing deliberations illustrated a central theme that has defined the moderation struggles of social media companies: Making rules is often easier than enforcing them.

“This is an important and long-overdue change,” Becca Lewis, a research affiliate at the nonprofit organization Data & Society, said about the new policy. “However, YouTube has often executed its community guidelines unevenly, so it remains to be seen how effective these updates will be.”

YouTube’s scale — more than 500 hours of new videos are uploaded every minute — has made it difficult for the company to track rule violations. And the company’s historically lax approach to moderating extreme videos has led to a drumbeat of scandals, including accusations that the site has promoted disturbing videos to children and allowed extremist groups to organize on its platform. YouTube’s automated advertising system has paired offensive videos with ads from major corporations, prompting several advertisers to abandon the site.

The kind of content that will be prohibited under YouTube’s new hate speech policies includes videos that claim Jews secretly control the world, that say women are intellectually inferior to men and therefore should be denied certain rights, or that suggest that the white race is superior to another race, a YouTube spokesman said.

Channels that post some hateful content, but that do not violate YouTube’s rules with the majority of their videos, may receive strikes under YouTube’s three-strike enforcement system, but would not be immediately banned.

The company also said channels that “repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies” but don’t violate them outright would be removed from YouTube’s advertising program, which allows channel owners to share in the advertising revenue their videos generate.

In addition to tightening its hate speech rules, YouTube announced that it would tweak its recommendation algorithm, the automated software that shows users videos based on their interests and past viewing habits. This algorithm is responsible for more than 70 percent of overall time spent on YouTube, and has been a major engine for the platform’s growth. But it has also drawn accusations of leading users down rabbit holes filled with extreme and divisive content, in an attempt to keep them watching and drive up the site’s use numbers.

“If the hate and intolerance and supremacy is a match, then YouTube is lighter fluid,” said Rashad Robinson, president of the civil rights nonprofit Color of Change. “YouTube and other platforms have been quite slow to address the structure they’ve created to incentivize hate.”

In response to the criticism, YouTube announced in January that it would recommend fewer objectionable videos, such as those with conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and vaccine misinformation, a category it called “borderline content.” The YouTube spokesman said on Tuesday that the algorithm changes had resulted in a 50 percent drop in recommendations to such videos in the United States. He declined to share specific data about which videos YouTube considered “borderline.”

“Our systems are also getting smarter about what types of videos should get this treatment, and we’ll be able to apply it to even more borderline videos moving forward,” the company’s blog post said.

Other social media companies have faced criticism for allowing white supremacist content. Facebook recently banned a slew of accounts, including that of Paul Joseph Watson, a contributor to Infowars, and Laura Loomer, a far-right activist. Twitter bars violent extremist groups but allows some of their members to maintain personal accounts — for instance, the Ku Klux Klan was barred from Twitter in August, while its former leader David Duke remains on the service.

Twitter is studying whether the removal of content is effective in stemming the tide of radicalization online. A Twitter spokesman declined to comment on the study.

When Twitter barred Mr. Jones, he responded with a series of videos denouncing the platform’s decision and drumming up donations from his supporters.

YouTube’s ban of white supremacists could prompt a similar cycle of outrage and grievance, said Joan Donovan, the director of the Technology and Social Change Research Project at Harvard. The ban, she said, “presents an opportunity for content creators to get a wave of media attention, so we may see some particularly disingenuous uploads.”

“I wonder to what degree will the removed content be amplified on different platforms, and get a second life?” Ms. Donovan added.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5635
Where will watch Folau sermons now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3182
So no more videos suggesting Communism as a viable system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 565
Location: Sydney (for now)
Don't like this at all, other than videos which already break the law (incitement to violence etc.) and are already dealt with under the current legal framework, there shouldn't be additional, pettifogging regulation based on vague and ambiguous assertions that are open to abuse.
This seems like just an attempt to censor topical debate which is deemed 'unhelpful' or 'offensive'; censorship of debate is a step toward totalitarianism, in my view.Further, just what qualifies YouTube to be the arbitrator of these fine lines? As the content host, they would surely exercise an excessive degree of caution which means that if the threshold is 'offensiveness', it must surely debase to the most sensitive snowflake out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10904
Location: Auckland, The Aura, NZ, Earth
Create a new site called YouTube Politics and literally force any video that is about politics or current social events to upload there instead. Leave YouTube for the rest of us. Then all these extreme nutters can insult each other in peace.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1975
Caley_Red wrote:
Don't like this at all, other than videos which already break the law (incitement to violence etc.) and are already dealt with under the current legal framework, there shouldn't be additional, pettifogging regulation based on vague and ambiguous assertions that are open to abuse.
This seems like just an attempt to censor topical debate which is deemed 'unhelpful' or 'offensive'; censorship of debate is a step toward totalitarianism, in my view.Further, just what qualifies YouTube to be the arbitrator of these fine lines? As the content host, they would surely exercise an excessive degree of caution which means that if the threshold is 'offensiveness', it must surely debase to the most sensitive snowflake out there.


Yeah, its a slippery slope which ends in youtube determining what is good for us and what is not. Better just to let anything go (within reason) and let the law deal with what gets removed or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5582
What violence will be unacceptable? Historical documentaries on the Crusades? Generation Kill? World War 2 footage? What will be deemed acceptable and who chooses?

I expect that the alternatives to youtube will be very excited by this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2755
Vegan extremists are going to be mightily unhappy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7570
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14121
Location: STRAYA!
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 565
Location: Sydney (for now)
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.



What level of censorship would bother either of you? Is there a threshold somewhere where you would feel uncomfortable?

Genuine question because it's often dressed up in flowery terms like '...we'll tackle white nationalism' but how and who is that line drawn and set? KKK videos advocating violence, already illegal. How about someone reading excerpts from Churchill's book 'The History of the English-Speaking Peoples'? It has some choice phrases, along with countless other books, regarding some of the indigenous people of the new world and Africa. Should it to be banned on the grounds that someone might find it offensive? That's the inevitable direction of travel.

"Never judge a policy on its intentions, only on its results", Freidman's quote is equally applicable here as it is to gov't policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2277
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


The only people really bothered by this will be the crackpots who've managed to monetise their nonsense and their legion of fans and sympathisers.

Anyway, I reckon this thread might be good for a few pages. We can add it to the rest of the "Free speech" grift-schtick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4782
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


I'd be concerned at a bunch of Silicon Valley types determining what "extreme views" are. Essentially, anyone who wouldn't vote Hillary or Bernie Sanders is "extreme".

The purpose of freedom of speech (yes I know they are a private company and can do what they like) isn't so that nutters have a platform, it's so that you the listener can hear all points of view (including the nutters) and make your own mind up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 6894
facebook does the reverse, allows all bigoted religious nonsense and bans those who oppose it..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4782
comets wrote:
facebook does the reverse, allows all bigoted religious nonsense and bans those who oppose it..


I can see youtube banning Sam Harris videos where he criticises Islam.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14121
Location: STRAYA!
Caley_Red wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.



What level of censorship would bother either of you? Is there a threshold somewhere where you would feel uncomfortable?

Genuine question because it's often dressed up in flowery terms like '...we'll tackle white nationalism' but how and who is that line drawn and set? KKK videos advocating violence, already illegal. How about someone reading excerpts from Churchill's book 'The History of the English-Speaking Peoples'? It has some choice phrases, along with countless other books, regarding some of the indigenous people of the new world and Africa. Should it to be banned on the grounds that someone might find it offensive? That's the inevitable direction of travel.

"Never judge a policy on its intentions, only on its results", Freidman's quote is equally applicable here as it is to gov't policy.


You know YouTube can flick whatever videos or channels they like, right? I mean, it's their platform and it's their right to allow or remove videos on it.

It isn't censorship at all. Censorship is someone not being allowed to put a video up in the first place.

If people are truly bothered by it, they are free to develop their own platform.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2277
Oh yeah, Thomas.

I've never asked a mod for anything but can you please ban the first person who uses the term: "the market-place of ideas" or any variation thereof. Obviously this post exempted.

Watch out for it now it's bound to pop up at some point.

Duly noted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4782
We need to consider the marketplace of ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 3955
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
Bout time. The rednecks, racists, trumpinistas and Joe Rogan have been spouting their shit for too long the average merikan can't distinguish fact from fiction, good from bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4782
Thomas wrote:
If people are truly bothered by it, they are free to develop their own platform.


These companies are so massive (facebook, google ect) and have so much influence over our political discourse, the likes of which has never been seen to this extent, that they are effectively public utility companies. Eric Weinstein has spoken of this extensively.

The barriers of entry are so high to compete with them that saying "develop your own" doesn't cut it. It would be like setting up a lemonade stand to compete against Coca Cola.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm
Posts: 1278
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


TBF these platforms are privately owned & can do what they want, which is to become Ecco chambers of left leaning progressivism. That in itself is fine, the problem is them calling right of center opinion “far right”.

Speaks volumes about the people mocking free speech, I mean how much truly hateful content is on YouTube and who become the arbiter? Don’t we have laws for a reason rather than the subjective moral dictates of business owners?

Nanny staters love this shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10346
Harveys wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


TBF these platforms are privately owned & can do what they want, which is to become Ecco chambers of left leaning progressivism. That in itself is fine, the problem is them calling right of center opinion “far right”.

Speaks volumes about the people mocking free speech, I mean how much truly hateful content is on YouTube and who become the arbiter? Don’t we have laws for a reason rather than the subjective moral dictates of business owners?

Nanny staters love this shit.

Calm down, people are not mocking free speech, they’re mocking the misappropriation and misinterpretation of it - and I suspect you fully understand that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2277
J Man wrote:
Thomas wrote:
If people are truly bothered by it, they are free to develop their own platform.


These companies are so massive (facebook, google ect) and have so much influence over our political discourse, the likes of which has never been seen to this extent, that they are effectively public utility companies. Eric Weinstein has spoken of this extensively.

The barriers of entry are so high to compete with them that saying "develop your own" doesn't cut it. It would be like setting up a lemonade stand to compete against Coca Cola.


And?

Let's introduce some extremely robust anti-trust legislation? Right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 6894
During the Ides of March 2019, i remember going to youtube and reporting 5 videos of the live shooting, youtube only deleted one (the one with the less views), reported the video uploaders too.....came back and checked 12 hours later, all were still there with 20k+ views for most of them, Youtube doesn't give a shit about people, it likes to monetise of ANYTHING...even mass killing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8196
Location: Indiana
comets wrote:
During the Ides of March 2019, i remember going to youtube and reporting 5 videos of the live shooting, youtube only deleted one (the one with the less views), reported the video uploaders too.....came back and checked 12 hours later, all were still there with 20k+ views for most of them, Youtube doesn't give a shit about people, it likes to monetise of ANYTHING...even mass killing


I've reported a fake Facebook profile to Facebook at least a half dozen times that accused my wife of strip searching middle school girls created by a student. My wife is a middle school counselor and when made aware of allegations that students are cutting, she can request to see if they are. A local news source and the school system declared the profile fraudulent. The profile is still up on Facebook last time I checked. These companies are too big to be efficient or too rich to care.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8196
Location: Indiana
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


You must not remember this.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=81427


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 6894
Flyin Ryan wrote:
comets wrote:
During the Ides of March 2019, i remember going to youtube and reporting 5 videos of the live shooting, youtube only deleted one (the one with the less views), reported the video uploaders too.....came back and checked 12 hours later, all were still there with 20k+ views for most of them, Youtube doesn't give a shit about people, it likes to monetise of ANYTHING...even mass killing


I've reported a fake Facebook profile to Facebook at least a half dozen times that accused my wife of strip searching middle school girls created by a student. My wife is a middle school counselor and when made aware of allegations that students are cutting, she can request to see if they are. A local news source and the school system declared the profile fraudulent. The profile is still up on Facebook last time I checked. These companies are too big to be efficient or too rich to care.


lol i had something similar, a known actor threatened to murder me and then created a facebook profile and using my name with -killer on the end and threatened me via messages and when i reported it to facebook, they did nothing, that profile is still there for 5 years..somedays i miss Hi5/myspace lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 565
Location: Sydney (for now)
Thomas wrote:
Caley_Red wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.



What level of censorship would bother either of you? Is there a threshold somewhere where you would feel uncomfortable?

Genuine question because it's often dressed up in flowery terms like '...we'll tackle white nationalism' but how and who is that line drawn and set? KKK videos advocating violence, already illegal. How about someone reading excerpts from Churchill's book 'The History of the English-Speaking Peoples'? It has some choice phrases, along with countless other books, regarding some of the indigenous people of the new world and Africa. Should it to be banned on the grounds that someone might find it offensive? That's the inevitable direction of travel.

"Never judge a policy on its intentions, only on its results", Freidman's quote is equally applicable here as it is to gov't policy.


You know YouTube can flick whatever videos or channels they like, right? I mean, it's their platform and it's their right to allow or remove videos on it.

It isn't censorship at all. Censorship is someone not being allowed to put a video up in the first place.

If people are truly bothered by it, they are free to develop their own platform.


Then they must be broken up as monopolies. These new age monopolies, particularly those with significant network effects, are so under regulated relative to their traditional, non-digital counterparts, editing and vetting the platform for 'extreme' views constitutes an abuse of monopoly power in my opinion. There are already a myriad of rules which ban hate speech and incitement to violence.

I have no doubt that alternative platforms will be set up, further stratifying public debate; this stratification is the most dangerous thing going on in the Western world and this is just another manifestation of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm
Posts: 1278
UncleFB wrote:
Harveys wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


TBF these platforms are privately owned & can do what they want, which is to become Ecco chambers of left leaning progressivism. That in itself is fine, the problem is them calling right of center opinion “far right”.

Speaks volumes about the people mocking free speech, I mean how much truly hateful content is on YouTube and who become the arbiter? Don’t we have laws for a reason rather than the subjective moral dictates of business owners?

Nanny staters love this shit.

Calm down, people are not mocking free speech, they’re mocking the misappropriation and misinterpretation of it - and I suspect you fully understand that.


(Breathes deeply & repeatedly into brown paper bag) thanks for pointing out my hysteria, I was completely unaware. Il go lie down for a bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7570
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


You must not remember this.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=81427

correct - I do not


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5191
Location: Vandean Coast
If YouTube start moderating their content in this manner it could be argued they are no longer just a platform, and it will give them more liability when it comes to the impact of their videos.
I wonder how long it will be before they lose a massive lawsuit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11632
comets wrote:
lol i had something similar, a known actor threatened to murder me


wat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16911
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
J Man wrote:
We need to consider the marketplace of ideas.


Just as well you didn't say market-place 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 5337
Location: Newport, Gwent
kiwinoz wrote:
What violence will be unacceptable? Historical documentaries on the Crusades? Generation Kill? World War 2 footage? What will be deemed acceptable and who chooses?

I expect that the alternatives to youtube will be very excited by this.

Probably, it seems like the type of thing youtube would do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50279
It’s a private company and is free to do what it likes. We should of course be educating people that the internet isn’t a safe and free resource though and to choose carefully what services they use.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50279
deadduck wrote:
If YouTube start moderating their content in this manner it could be argued they are no longer just a platform, and it will give them more liability when it comes to the impact of their videos.
I wonder how long it will be before they lose a massive lawsuit



Spot on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2073
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


I understand people's concerns and to a certain extent share them. However people'e freedom of speech is not being infringed - they are still free to upload videos to another site, or host them themselves on their own sites. I do think YouTube have certain rights to restrict the types of videos they deem appropriate - just as you can't upload porn (Porn of course is legal because it is a form of free speech), you can't upload other shit they deem inappropriate. I don't have an issue with that necessarily.

However can I imagine certain content policies that would be unpalatable? Certainly. But this doesn't seem to be that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29979
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


Ref, mod, cop, 'new' comedian in not bothered shocker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29979
Conservative Eddie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


The only people really bothered by this will be the crackpots who've managed to monetise their nonsense and their legion of fans and sympathisers.

Anyway, I reckon this thread might be good for a few pages. We can add it to the rest of the "Free speech" grift-schtick.


Just think, they could be this close to banning Jordan Peterson. That will keep you up at night in anticipation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29979
UncleFB wrote:
Harveys wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Am I alone in not being bothered by this?


Nope.


TBF these platforms are privately owned & can do what they want, which is to become Ecco chambers of left leaning progressivism. That in itself is fine, the problem is them calling right of center opinion “far right”.

Speaks volumes about the people mocking free speech, I mean how much truly hateful content is on YouTube and who become the arbiter? Don’t we have laws for a reason rather than the subjective moral dictates of business owners?

Nanny staters love this shit.

Calm down, people are not mocking free speech, they’re mocking the misappropriation and misinterpretation of it - and I suspect you fully understand that.


Mocking the misappropriation and misinterpretation of free speech. Gotcha.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 190 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], camroc1, CrazyIslander, Floppykid, Frank S, Gavin Duffy, Geek, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Jeff the Bear, Joost, Lemoentjie, obelixtim, rageagainstthemachine, tabascoboy and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group