12 Replies to “What It’s Like Getting Censored On Youtube”

  1. So Facebook’s community doesn’t favour science. Or medicine. Or evidence. Or logic. Yup, nothing new to see here.

    But a great presentation for those who aren’t paying attention.

    This is how don’t be evil becomes OK, shut them all down. We’re better than they are.

  2. That is a good video.

    Now, in my opinion, it’s time for a new method of electronic comm-uni-cation owned by a group competitive entities. But them comm-uni-cation derives from the same word as ”comm-unity” (guidelines) so we’d still be in trouble. No??

  3. The former non-conformists who shaped Silicon Valley with all of their out-of-the-box thinking … have become the conformists … conforming to the community.

    They have all become that which they hated*

    * prior to becoming billionaires owning monopolies.

    1. When William Shockley, et. al., established his company, Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, in what came to be known as Silicon Valley, I don’t think the shenanigans of outfits like Google and Facebook was what they had in mind.

  4. “But that infringes on freedom of speech!”

    One more time for the cheap seats: you don’t have a right to use someone else’s computer for free. There’s nothing stopping you from uploading your video to any of the other paid video hosting sites in existence, or buying/renting your own server and hosting it there.

    Other than the fact that you’d have to pay money out of your own pocket, that is.

    It amuses me how many of the right-wing arguments against “Big Tech censorship” sound a lot like “gibsmedat” but with better enunciation.

    1. Like it or not, Youtube and twitter have become the public square. Banning speech from the public square because of ideology or politics is anti-American, and has electoral consequences.

      Youtube, FB and Twitter have the ability to influence elections. So they need to be regulated, or broken up, or turned into public utilities. It’s been done before, time to do it again.

      Like AT&T in the 1980’s.

    2. Section 230 of the communications decency act says otherwise.
      So long as they are providing a public platform, they are not allowed to exercise editorial control over the content. The second they choose to exercise editorial control, they become a publisher and are liable for all content posted to their site.

      What does that mean for in plain english for the leftists who can only regurgitate talking points they heard somewhere else and never really thought about?

      Let me ‘splain it to you.

      If they chose to censor anyone other than for what is required by law:
      1) They can be sued for all copyright infringing material posted on their site (think of all those movie clips);
      2) They can be sued for all trademark infringing material posted on their site (think of all those memes);
      3) They can be sued for all defamatory statements posted on their site (think of everything people said about the Covington kids);
      4) They can be charged for all the hate speech posted on their site;
      5) They can be charged for all the child pr0n posted on their site;
      6) They can be charged for any other criminal or tortious content .

      You see the simple choice is, they are free to censor anyone they want for any reason, but in doing so become 100% responsible for everything they choose not to censor, or they can act like a utility and provide the same service to everyone regardless of ideological positions.

      Your rationalization hamster running in it’s wheel sounds a whole lot like most authoritarians who believe that double standards are twice as good.

      1. Danial and I have had this discussion before. He disagrees with the Ma Bell analogy (after the split-up two people using different phone suppliers could still talk to each other on the common carrier versus a non-technical grandma using facebook can’t talk to her friend using not-facebook), and looks to the letter of the law as written that the monopolies an do whatever they want. To me that analogy is the moral case.

        Your listed reasons are good and I agree with them. They comprise the legal case.

  5. D R as I have said many times, don’t use them, use someone or something else and “they” will die.

  6. YouTube was allowed to grow into this giant monopoly by allowing them a “platform exemption”. Now they act as publishers, but still hide behind that exemption. Forcing them to choose to act as either a platform or a publisher from now on would be step 1. Probably wouldn’t have to break them up after that because it would create openings for competitors.

    1. Not much satisfaction in being able to say I told you, because the powers that be are still using the same flawed computer models to keep the hoax going. It is a hoax, fatalities aside, the hoax revolves around the control of the populace, as the level of control used was never needed to control the spread of cov2. That is fact not fiction. I am not a medical bureaucrat or a politician therefore knowing the truth is easy for me.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation