On June 5th, YouTube announced in a post on its official blog that it is going to be:
Removing more hateful and supremacist content from YouTube
by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.
Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.
Reducing borderline content and raising up authoritative voices
In January, we piloted an update of our systems in the U.S. to limit recommendations of borderline content and harmful misinformation
We're looking to bring this updated system to more countries by the end of 2019. Thanks to this change, the number of views this type of content gets from recommendations has dropped by over 50% in the U.S. 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. As we do this, we'll also start raising up more authoritative content in recommendations
Continuing to reward trusted creators and enforce our monetization policies
we are strengthening enforcement of our existing YouTube Partner Program policies. Channels that repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies will be suspended from the YouTube Partner program, meaning they can't run ads on their channel or use other monetization features like Super Chat.
In an article discussing this, Silicon Valley reporter Casey Newton of The Verge notes that this "is expected to result in the removal of thousands of channels across YouTube."
The crackdown goes into effect today and will "ramp up" over the next few days.
Aristarchus adds from Time:
The video streaming company says it has already made it more difficult to find and promote such videos, but it's now removing them outright. YouTube will also prohibit videos that deny certain proven events have taken place, such as the Holocaust.
The changes come as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other online services face mounting concern that the services allow, and in some cases foster , extremism.
YouTube's new policies will take effect immediately. Specifically, the service is banning videos "alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion." The ban applies to a range of characteristics, including race, sexual orientation and veteran status.
[...] The companies have said they are walking the balance between creating safe spaces while also protecting freedom of expression. With little government oversight on online material, internet companies have become the arbiters for what is and isn't allowed.
Related Stories
From The Verge, an article on autonomous weapons systems:
YouTube’s new policies designed to more aggressively tackle supremacist content have also led to some creators claiming their videos have been improperly removed or hidden in the process. They argue that YouTube is not distinguishing between actual hate content and videos that document hate groups for educational or journalistic purposes.
In militaries, there is a saying: "Friendly fire isn't."
YouTube announced on Wednesday that it was taking stronger measures to ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.” It was only minutes later that creators began to see channels being removed or videos pulled down — including a channel run by a history teacher, a video uploaded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and independent journalist Ford Fischer.
Fischer is a YouTube-based reporter who covers politics, activism, and extremism. He’s shot footage at events like the Unite the Right white supremacy rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, as well as gay pride parades. Some of his footage is used by documentarians and educators to study extremism and activist groups around the world, Fischer tells The Verge.
Looks like YouTube is going to demonetize aristarchus!
Previously: YouTube Clamps Down Further on Undesireable Speech
(Score: -1, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Monday June 10 2019, @06:10PM (3 children)
Hello frens,
While we celebrate this great news, it's important to remember that nazis hide behind comedy [spectator.us] history [twitter.com] and ambient music [twitter.com]
Those of us on the morally superior left must resist! [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @08:30PM (1 child)
Twitter? You linked to Twitter!! You must be new here. Only TRDT links to Twitter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 10 2019, @09:10PM
Very sad what's happening on Twitter. Twitter should let the banned Conservative Voices back onto their platform, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. They are making a Giant Mistake!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:09PM
I think they meant to say ...raising up authoritarian voices.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday June 10 2019, @06:23PM (24 children)
Legacy media is dying, and they're demanding alphabet prop them up. Both by demonetizing and banning anyone that dares to take them on, and by "raising up authoritative voices" which is code for promoting properties of the big media companies.
This is win win for the legacy media, so far at least. They post some fake news, then they write to youtube citing their own nonsense and demanding action.
If Youtube caves, they've clawed back some of that ad revenue that keeps wanting to follow the audience over the independent sites, AND;
If Youtube doesn't cave, they just write more clickbait stories about how awful Youtube is until they do get something out of them. THEN;
They cite the episode in the future as proof of their allegations. After all, why would Youtube cave if they weren't wrong?
It's Youtube itself that's under attack, and so far they aren't being very nimble in their defense.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday June 10 2019, @06:27PM (2 children)
Eh, youtube isn't the only channel on the internet. If they want to shed some of their audience, let them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Monday June 10 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)
ISP's are next to censor content.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday June 10 2019, @06:54PM
They are the first! The only real issue with the internet is service provision. It's too easy to block.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Touché) by NPC-131072 on Monday June 10 2019, @06:49PM (8 children)
Hello fren,
Are you saying the media are acting like a cartel or something? No platforms for nazis [thepostmillennial.com] is not a difficult concept. There need be no financial incentive [nytimes.com] to do the right thing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday June 10 2019, @07:01PM (7 children)
"Wah they're attacking Joe Rogan for the fake crime of constantly having guests on whose positions include ethnic cleansing"
The intellectual vacuousness of "You call everyone you don't like nazis" (But please ignore that the article I'm losing my mind over clearly differentiated between being nazis and way-too-many-promotions-of-nazis) is always pretty astounding. It's always made by 100% shitty people. No exceptions. Every single time, flagrant lies.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @08:09PM (6 children)
Really? List them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday June 10 2019, @08:46PM (5 children)
Someone else did a better breakdown than I ever could [twitter.com]
Since that doesn't actually list the worst offenders:
*Peter Bogghossian, a real piece of shit with the flimsiest of academic covers. Has written that all Muslims should be seen as exactly as threatening as Islamists because a gross misinterpretation of the biological concept of signaling theory. (And ironically because tribalism means Muslims must see all outsiders as threatening through contrivances). Also responsible for a lot of other alt-right propoganda, but we're trying to ID genocidal people here.
*Milo Yiannopoulos who literally fucking worked for the Daily Fucking Stormer.
*Candace "Hitler was okay until he left his borders" Owens.
There's a lot of others who are way alt-right but steered clear of anything I'd call genocidal: Peterson, Rubin, Gaad Saad, Crowder, Shermer, and dozens of lesser-knowns.
But regardless of the truth of the claims here you are, demanding more evidence of me, but not even questioning the link you got from the GGP that out and out lied about the content NYT article. I get that no one actually expects any kind of standard from the right, because "just asking questions" about the truth and never questioning blatant lies is easier than admitting you're bullshitting for the audience.
(Score: 1, Informative) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:17PM (4 children)
This has got to be one of the stupidest non-troll comments I've ever seen posted on SN. That fact that it has, currently, moderation of +4 Informative is just embarrassing.
After complaining about the 'The intellectual vacuousness of "You call everyone you don't like nazis"' in a previous post you have now gone and done just that!
Peterson - not a Nazi, not alt-right
Rubin - not a nazi (is actually a Jew), not alt-right
Gaad Saad - not a Nazi (is actually a Jew), not alt-right
I don't know so much about the rest of them, but I assume it it just as dubious to call them nazis or alt-right as well (I just had to check out the claim about Milo working for the daily stormer though, that was a good one! Yeah - complete bullshit). I do recall Bogghossian being one of the people who authored those joke articles that got published in a bunch of humanities journals lol, I'm assuming that is why you don't like him.
You really should lay off the kool-aid man - you're starting to scare me.
PS. if you want to post a video that supposedly proves that one of the above is a nazi, be sure to include the entire thing in context so we can see how much of an idiot you are.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:08PM (3 children)
I fucking knew it. I fucking knew there'd be a dishonest shit who'd pull some identify politics bullshit. These people aren't worth your integrity.
Do you want an article from altright.com listing gad saad as one of "The seven hottest men in the alt right"?
Do you want 8chan pol threads praising Peterson's role in radicalizing people?
What standard of evidence would actually convince you, rather than a 6 deep chain denial where you ignore the literal daily stormer writer to quibble about people who are unequivocally alt-right purely on the basis of their religion, like that's some kind of inoculation against meritless ideologies that favor mass murder?
Do you have any standard of evidence, or are you just a perpetual pedant whose whole life is centered on petty denialism?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:42PM (2 children)
I see you and your merry band of idiot moderators are insisting on doubling down on the stupid.
So if a Nazi says something good about someone that makes that person a Nazi? Pure idiocy.
Why not actually find out what the person themselves actually thinks about the Nazi ideology?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBWyBdUYPgk [youtube.com]
This is part of a lecture series on the big 5 personality traits but it is the best example I could think of off the top of my head.
Break out of you bubble and stop being a tool of ideologues.
(Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
That's the other one. That's the other bullshit line you have.
"You must not be familiar with them and you take them out of context"
The fact that instead of answering the fucking question about what your actual standard of evidence is, you find a new pedantry to pursue, unrelated to the one before is a giant red flag. A piece of crimson fabric stretching from Huston to the sea of tranquility. If I found myself just constantly shifting not just the burden of proof and my goalposts for what must be proven but the subject at hand in a conversation, I'd take it as a reason to rethink my position.
Keep in mind that I more than demonstrated my original position, that Rogan hosts people who have in their stable of awful positions, some form of genocide(and that the OP was fucking lying about what an NYT article says).
And now, the position you're expecting me to defend, is that Jordan Peterson is an open Nazi, a position I was very clear I wasn't taking. (Though there are things like his assertions about postmodernism being a "cultural marxist" plot to undo the west is 1930s nazi propaganda reformulated only in the barest way, which I'd say are more than adequate for lumping him in the alt-right) It's nothing short of flagrant intellectual dishonesty.
When you can't do anything but chase dishonest representations of minute supporting details of arguments, just stop. Stop forever.
(Score: 1) by The Vocal Minority on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:56PM
At this point in time responding to you is probably pretty pointless but your post is like a huge pimple of bad reasoning that I feel I just have to squeeze. OK here goes.
I like how I have now become another faceless tormentor, calling out your bullshit. Part of a vast alt-right conspiracy out to cut down your tower of self-righteousness.
Have you ever considered that the reason you keep getting accused of taking things out of context and accusing people you disagree with of being nazis is because, maybe, just maybe, that is exactly what you do?
Probably because you posed it as a rhetorical question, after the nazi-by-association nonsense I called you out on. And in any case I did pretty much imply what evidence I would accept by, you know, linking to what the person ACTUALLY said. I will concede though, given your obvious mental problems, you could not have been expected to pick up on that. And as for the second part of the quoted text, loved that one because then we get:
No you had quite clearly tried to imply Saad and Peterson were nazi's, or at least alt-right which is pretty much the same thing these days (and as you yourself imply below). Perhaps you need to take some of your own advice? Yes originally it was "supporting genocide", which although not quite equal to nazi it is part of what the nazi's (amongst others) have done and are known for, and saying Rogan, Saad or Peterson support it is equally vacuous.
And in the very next sentence we now we are back to implying nazi, this time because they have both criticised communism. Flagrant intellectual dishonesty? Oh I agree! I'm somewhat reminded of Chomskys analogy of the thief, who when caught with their hand in someone's pocket, immediately accuses their intended victim of being a thief to divert suspicion from themselves.
Oh I almost missed this.
Moving goalposts again? I said nothing about the original claim, which I suspect was largely just a troll designed to send you off on a frothy rage. Worked didn't it?
Why yes of course sir, I will stop immediately, lol. More crying "thief".
Oh well that was fun, if a little time consuming - I don't hold out much hope you but at least you have gone from scary (I thought you were going to keep doubling down on the nazi thing, which would have been a worry) to humorously sad.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @07:47PM (11 children)
That's the paranoid alt-righty way of looking at sure. Especially, when you're already using terms like "alternative-facts". How's that saying go? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts?
Perhaps what that mean is that they're going to raise visibility of videos based on actual facts, like the Holocaust happened, instead of some Nazi shitbag's video declaring it never did. "Authoritative" here can simply mean videos using actual truth versus conspiracy theories, and Fox News propaganda points. I don't see how the MSM is involved, other than those propaganda points that keep getting pushed.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Monday June 10 2019, @08:50PM (3 children)
"Yes, we're entitled to present evidence supporting our opinions."
In a trial, "facts" mean evidence. In context, "alternative facts" probably meant "you've presented your evidence of a claim, and we are preparing to present our evidence to the contrary."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:23PM
You are not quite correct.
Source. [thelawdictionary.org]
In other words, facts are actual occurrences which the trier of fact has found to be real, almost equivalent to the definition that most people subscribe to. Facts are not subject to opinion, if they are then they are not facts. "Alternative facts" is code for, "you are wrong about what reality is and we want to substitute our interpretation," and is usually proposed by somebody not conversive with what the facts actually are. The correct form to dispute fact is to state, "That is not a fact," followed by, "this is..." Not attempt to establish that an "alternative" fact exists which would require an alternate reality to exist to hold it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @09:39PM
Uhhhhhh, no. Alternative facts in this case refers to that scarecrow Kelly Anne responding to facts contrasted with Whitehouse lies by saying, "These are alternative facts". Meaning, you can have two diametrically opposing statements of information, one a fact, one a lie, and somehow they both become equal in worth.
That's what the alt-right means when they say alternative facts. It's to give their propagandist lies the same provenance as an established fact.
For example, the world being 6,000 years old, and Noah's Ark existing, are alternative facts.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:09AM
All too often, what happens is that both sides simply 'cite facts' meaning mentioning things they believe.
You want real facts? You need to sift through evidence.
Independent media is not uniformly of high quality, but legacy media is nearly uniformly low quality. They are constantly citing 'facts' without evidence, and often they're simply wrong. And demonstrably so.
Do they respond by increasing their quality controls? No, they respond by smearing the portal where critical voices are most numerous.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:19PM
Hardly 'alt-right'. The numbers prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:38AM (4 children)
That sounds good, on the surface.
Then, there is the guy like me. I know the holocaust happened. I know multiple millions of people were killed in the holocaust, and not all of them Jews. And, I question the number of people killed. My position is, no one has an exact count of the dead. There is some likelihood that only 4 million Jews were killed, and not the officially sanctioned 6 million. There is a greater likelihood that 7 or 8 million Jews died, and they simply can't all be counted for various reasons. So - if I question that officially sanctioned number, if I argue for either a lower or higher number, does that get me put on a list? Will that get me banned? Would that be reason to label me a Nazi? If I did the research, and found a dozen smaller towns and villages in Europe where unknown sub-stations executed and processed Jews and other victims during the genocide, what then?
Authoritative voices are all fine and good - but always question authority. Today's SJW's have done a 180 from the '60's when we were told to question authority. They want to replace existing authority, and forbid anyone questioning the new authority.
That is most definitely a giant step backward for society.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VanessaE on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:04AM
No one worth a damn is saying not to question the official story for an event, especially when you're just questioning the fine details. As Jews we're taught to question everything within reason, for the sake of learning/education.
Go ahead and question the exact numbers, because who knows... you may just be right. Maybe it was only 4-5 million (highly unlikely), maybe it was 8 million (possible, but improbable)? Just don't do so in public view, without reputable sources with verifiable facts and records to prove your point. Since no one in the past 80 years has managed to come up with something concrete and verifiable, 6 million remains the official count, and I strongly doubt that'll change now.
When one gets to a point of denying the sheer volume of murders or that the event happened at all, without a metric shitton of evidence to support that denial, that's when one gets labeled, and rightfully-so. I don't know what the threshold is between questioning and denial, but it sure as shit is way more than zero. Any data a denier could possibly come up with at this point is massively, ridiculously overwhelmed by evidence proving the extent to which it did happen.
This is Soylent, and like the green site, we need a car analogy:
There is an envelope full of receipts in the file cabinet in the house, boxes of worn-out and/or damaged parts in the garage, a rusty, and a sludge-covered engine sitting on blocks behind the house, with an oil pan with a huge hole in it sitting off to one side. All of that stuff fits only one specific year, make, and model of some classic car, with that specific engine. The driveway has been contaminated with oil for the past couple of months, and there's a spot in the yard next to the driveway where the grass has died, evidently from some kind of chemical contamination.
In the driveway, there's a car of the same year, make and model which takes those old parts... it looks, runs, and drives beautifully, with an engine compartment and undercarriage that looks like something out of a car show. In short, the car is pristine. Therefore, SURELY it has never had a breakdown, let alone a blown engine. No, that's just impossible, and all those parts are just a coincidence, the rusty engine was planted there by some guy from the other side of town, and those receipts were all forged, and anyone who claims otherwise is some kind of revisionist or just a liar.
From my perspective, THAT is the degree of denial we're seeing today (scaled appropriately). Meanwhile, an intelligent person just questions the level of wear or damage of decommissioned parts and the dollar figures on the receipts, if anything at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @08:52PM (1 child)
Always with the identity politics.
"Today's SJW's have done a 180 from the '60's when we were told to question authority. They want to replace existing authority, and forbid anyone questioning the new authority."
You probably have no idea that you're massively projecting and applying your anger to the fake SJW Bogey Man. Are there extremist authoritarians on both sides? Yes. Are conservatives massively more authoritarian than liberals? Yes.
This is not a debate, you are simply wrong and for years have refused to see reality. Go on freaking out at every instance of liberal bullshit while ignoring the mountain you keep pretending doesn't exist in your backyard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:12AM
Identity politics are the province of the D's.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:47PM
You're presupposing your own victimhood on this.
Ok.
Would depend on context. By default I would say no. There just isn't anything there that's controversial. Of course it isn't reason to label you a Nazi.
Congratulations! You're a historian now. Present your findings to the academic community for peer review. Those interested in the search for the truth (real historians) would incorporate that information into our known history of World War II. Remember when I said context? If you presented it in YouTube, or some other outlet, you would be a historian presenting evidence to give us extra insight into the world at that time. Nothing wrong with that. If you wore a Nazi uniform though, well they might call you a Nazi.
Yeah, it seems you constructed the whole situation, in which you were the victim, just to smear the other side here. Most people do question authority these days, and if you want to talk about people like you described, then include the far-right too. Orange Anus is a criminal in the office, but as a whole, anybody "questioning the new authority" gets attacked by the Trumpanzees. See? It works both ways.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:08AM
No, it's not, but that's a convenient way for you to wave it off without examining it.
In fact, though right-wingers are definitely among the targets, it's far from just them.
The left-wing antiwar folks are more my concern, and they're getting hit just the same.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @06:30PM (1 child)
"Removing more hateful and supremacist content from YouTube"
remember whitey, continuing to exist is supremacist.
"by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status."
choosing who one wants to associate with is every free person's right.
"Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place."
now youtube will decide what history is based on "documentation". never mind that much of the "history" of the holocaust is lies. noone with any following ever said sandy hook never happened and these propagandists/censors know this.
"Reducing borderline content and raising up authoritative voices "
skewing results based on PC/funder bias.
"Continuing to reward trusted creators and enforce our monetization policies "
purging wrongthink. changing name to notyoutube.com
-------------
move your channels to lbry, bit.tube and peertube. download vids that you think are important.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday June 10 2019, @09:23PM
For the first time in my life I'm going to pull all my archives from Gmail and be prepared to have all my Google stuff shut down for "hate speech." Too bad my university uses Google services, I was really enjoying having my own .edu address.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday June 10 2019, @06:33PM
Vox Media has its turn.
Luckily, its own employees will lead to its downfall:
Vox Union Reaches Accord With Publisher a Day After Walkout [bloomberg.com]
Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_XKc35gUEo [youtube.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday June 10 2019, @06:34PM (24 children)
Some content is clearly undesirable (pro-Nazi rants, holocaust deniers, Islamic State promotional videos) but a lot is borderline. Who's the censors at Google, and by what rules do they judge what's acceptable and what isn't? And acceptable for whom?
I realize Google is a private company and they decide what activities they want on their networks. Still, Youtube videos have an impact on public opinions and policies, so I feel we-the-people and our elected representatives should have a say in this - at least those representatives who happen to be honest.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 10 2019, @06:45PM (19 children)
In the end, it is really simple. Either private companies have no right to dominate public speech channels or private companies have to comply with free speech rights.
We should give them a choice - stay below 1% of population engagement or allow free speech.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 10 2019, @07:20PM (17 children)
The thing is, to replace Youtube, all that needs to happen is that some other video site offers competing content that's better. And hosting videos is a pretty easy thing to do: There are free tools you can use as video players, the data is a few hundred MB, it's so simple I could figure it out without a lot of research when I had to do it. And there are already competitors, e.g. DailyMotion and Vimeo. As an example of how any particular middleman cutting someone doesn't actually stop them from getting a message out, Alex Jones has been kicked of off FB, Youtube, and a bunch of other places, and yet he's still putting out his stuff for his audience, just on his own servers.
Also, your argument applied to print media would demand that the New York Times (or any other big-name publication that you like) print the letter of every crank that writes in to announce that they've solved the Kennedy assassination, because anything else is censorship.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday June 10 2019, @07:59PM (7 children)
> Also, your argument applied to print media would demand that the New York Times....
Don't be a tard, or expect everyone else here to be one. The NYT is clearly a publisher and this free to publish or not publish with very few restrictions other than settlements in or out of court when (not if)( they libel someone.
The problem, as I keep saying, is Youtube and other social media types keep demanding they receive all of the benefits of a publisher and none of the liabilities. That they ALSO receive all of the benefits of being a platform / common carrier while accepting none of the responsibilities that normally go with that status. Because Internet or something.
Kinda like Uber gets to ignore the taxi regs, labor laws, etc. because internet. Sorry, wild west Internet is over; time to grow up and realize all previous laws, conventions, customs and even common sense do not vanish the second an IP address gets assigned.
No. Make them choose, platform or publisher. And be damned because their current business model can't survive under either set of laws and regs.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:33PM
Damn jmorris, always asking for more regulation...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 10 2019, @11:09PM (2 children)
Soo~ooo, what you're saying is some sane, targeted regulation might be just what the doctor ordered...? :) My, my, my...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by jmorris on Monday June 10 2019, @11:58PM (1 child)
More like I'm adopting the wisdom of Malcolm Reynolds. If somebody is trying to kill me, I'm gonna kill em right back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @08:55PM
Hah, you have to bury doing the right thing under a mask of violent bravado because it shows the cracks in your own worldview. I guess any improvement is good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:01AM
"Kinda like Uber gets to ignore the taxi regs"
Those taxi regs that required a sate sanctioned limited medallion to limit competition should have never existed to begin with. They only exited because monopolistic businesses lobbied for them and the only people that benefited from them is those businesses. They hurt the public.
"time to grow up and realize all previous laws, conventions, customs and even common sense do not vanish the second an IP address gets assigned."
Many of those previous laws were intended to limit media competition to the detriment of the public. Same with taxi cab medallion laws. IE: Laws that limit who can use spectra and laws that limit competition for cable and internet providers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:23AM (1 child)
Nice try, but you're very wrong about this, in two ways:
1. What are the liabilities of being a publisher you're referring to? The fact is that publishers can and do publish pretty much whatever the heck they'd like. And no, they aren't liable for libel if they publish something that's inflammatory: That's on the authors, or "content creators" in the new jargon. As for their copyright-related responsibilities, they have both a legislative requirement that they follow, and court settlements with copyright owners that quash content that breaks copyright regularly.
2. A platform isn't the same thing as a common carrier. For instance, Fox News is a platform, but I doubt you would demand that they cover the Biden presidential campaign in a way that Biden was happy about, because Fox News viewers have the simple remedy of changing the channel. By contrast, if AT&T were preventing all traffic related to the Joe Biden campaign from reaching all of their Internet customers, especially if AT&T is a telecom monopoly for an area, that's a different issue entirely, because the remedy is either ridiculously expensive or non-existent.
If video creators or viewers don't like the rules of Youtube, they can create or view videos on a competing service. And it's entirely possible to set up your own service if one of the existing competing services doesn't meet your needs. If any competitor does well enough, they can hire some of the smart people who have worked on Youtube's algorithms to make good search and recommendation engines. All of this can happen under current law with no government action or further government regulation, and the cost to users for switching is a matter of a different word in a browser address bar.
So again, how is your complaint boil down to anything but "A private company won't allow me to use its resources and popularity to make my statements available to a wider audience, but I want to, so the government should force them to change that policy"? If so, why is that same principle not in play for the New York Times print edition, or online news websites like InfoWars, but is in play for Youtube? Or is it that your real principles in play here have jack squat to do with free speech or law and everything to do with wanting your viewpoint spread by all means available and you're mad that somebody is making that harder?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:56AM
Responsibility for what -THEY- publish. They can't just say "We aren't responsible for user generated content, but if you notify us we will remove illegal stuff." If they are a publisher, no Safe Harbor provision of the CDA, DMCA, etc. for them. If they are a platform, then they can't exercise editorial control but they DO get the Safe Harbor.
Ok, let me stop you right there, I see your problem. You are a retard. *** RETARD ALERT *** You will just have to imagine the GIF of Mr. Garrison ringing the bell since this isn't an imageboard.
Fox News is a publisher, not a platform. Doh. They make no pretense of being a neutral carrier open to anyone to publish content across. Other than their comment section of course, that is sorta open. At least they still HAVE a comment section, which is more than most other media outlets can say.
Being a monopoly isn't the problem. (OK, it is a problem, just not the problem under discussion today.) Again, your mental defects are impairing your reasoning to the point it is hard to even communicate across such a gulf. The second AT&T starts picking and choosing who you can connect to across their network for any reason other than legal problems (takedown notices, blatant infringing behavior, etc.) or purely technical network administration issues / problems (trying to HOST the Biden campaign website on the end of your cable modem or something equally idiotic, trying to fairly ration finite bandwidth to all customers, etc.) they stop being a platform and become a publisher.
Actually, it isn't. YouTube operates as a loss leader to prevent any competitor from being economically viable. The libertarians will say they make it up on the back end by driving traffic through the Googleplex so it is OK, but the cynic would say it is to maintain a monopoly on the global conversation. And if it really were so easy, if moving off YouTube were so painless, why so much angst among the banned and more tellingly why so much political agitation on the Left to deplatform all of their foes from it? And please don't be so dumb you fail to see the power of the network effect at work on YouTube and the far greater one at work on Facebook, Twitter and the others. It isn't QUITE like telling someone in 1970 that if they don't like AT&T, or that AT&T closed their account, they are free to start a competitor, but it is pretty close.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday June 10 2019, @08:55PM
People choose YouTube over IndieWeb solutions in order to have a chance to be listed in the recommended videos at the right colum of a YouTube video page. Recommendation is something that IndieWeb has historically failed at [indieweb.org].
Let's say I were to set up video on my own website. Now I need to emulate the right column. How would I go about automatically finding videos on other websites that are related to a given video in order to link to them?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday June 10 2019, @09:31PM (3 children)
From what I understand, Youtube was operating at a loss because a monster like Google could afford to host fuckhuge amounts of data files like videos, for free, to be data-mined. Unfortunately, only monsters have the pockets deep enough to maintain an unpaid video hosting service.
Which is why we all should be doing the decentralized blockchain thingy for stuff like this. A little more processing power required on the user end, but not nearly as easily censored or shut down. Downloading movie files piecewise like traditional BitTorrent style won't work well enough, we need a functional web platform with a more real-time interface. We could make this happen and then hope the ISPs keep their grubby hands off of the protocols.
Of course what will happen with this might be interesting. Trump or the government could force their hand, or Google could simply decide it isn't worth the hassle and shut it down! It is curious that both the Democrats and Republicans are both going after Google and Facebook etc. The Republicans are pissed about the obvious bias and the Democrats are still salty about that Hillary losing thing.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:22PM
bit.tube
lbry.io
https://joinpeertube.org/en/ [joinpeertube.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:00PM (1 child)
Was there a point in there?
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:41AM
I guess the two dominant parties would call it a "lose/lose" situation, eh, doc?
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:20AM (3 children)
No, we are talking about the medium of exchange of free speech. NYT can print or not to print whatever as long as it is produced by their employees. A better analogy is to require a printer to print any material. For example, a Holocaust denial paper has to be printed if paid for even if the business is Jew owned.
But you gave me an idea. Similar to banking separation, we need to separate opinion producing business with opinion exchange business. There is apparently conflict of interests. The same joints publish their opinions and censor others in a scale not seen ever before.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:46AM (2 children)
Right now, no such law exists requiring printers to print anything at all, nor is any bookstore or library required to have any particular books on hand. That material gets printed because there are neo-Nazi publishing houses in the US and other countries that will print it. So the free market is preventing the censorship - why should online be any different than print media in this regard, when it's even easier for the free market to prevent censorship?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:50AM (1 child)
That's because print media was way less monopolistic than internet media. Also, print did not have that much influence and was way more difficult to fake. Today we have monopolies on one hand and technology to cheaply manipulate opinions on the other. The next elections might be hacked by a gang of teenagers with a few bitcoins.
Free market needs strong limitations such as anti-monopoly policies. Otherwise free market will either die or become not so free.
Besides, free speech assumed that the air where sound waves propagate is not censored and free. Once print became "speech", it would be vise to make the same true for printing process. In the Internet times, broadband should be virtually free and definitely not censored. Large platforms, such as Facebook, go into the same bucket.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:04AM
You continue to insist that Youtube is a monopoly when there are a bunch of existing competitors, and the cost to switching services is a matter of changing a URL in an address bar, and the cost to creating a new service is relatively low - rent out some cloud servers, install some FOSS, do a bit to make it a decent-looking website, done. There have even been some advertising efforts from those competitors that amount to "Your stuff is being blocked by Youtube? Put it on our service instead." That all makes Youtube not a monopoly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:23PM
That's not really necessary. All we have to do is actually give them the option of complying with the common carrier rules (no moderation of content) or they get the same regulation (and liability) as other publishers. That'd shut this down quickly, because they simply can't afford to actually curate the content properly, so they'd have to stop.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @06:54PM (1 child)
Solution: Nationalize Google. Do not allow private companies to operate websites or networks which could impact public opinions and policies. Only the government should be allowed to decide policies and especially public opinions are correct.
I think that addresses your complaint with a workable1 solution. I cannot think of anything that could go wrong. Therefore it should be enacted at once!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
1See: Great firewall of China
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @07:40PM
This solution is unworkable as described. How will it lead to increased taxes, increased spying, and/or increased bans on stuff people like?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Mer on Monday June 10 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)
The stinker is that despite cranking the vice again and again they each time take down pundits that have unpopular opinions but are by no mean fascists and the nazi problem doesn't really shrink. It's true you've got the scum of the earth using the platforms, actual nazis, pedophiles, terrorists... They're not lying on that front.
But whether you think it's incompetence or they keep them so they always have a justification for the latest change targetting wrongthink alphabet's actions have done very little to fight against it.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday June 29 2019, @03:16PM
Those folks are there in negligible quantities of course, but that's not what it is about, regardless of putting on appearances.
The vast majority of what is putatively being cracking down on migrated elsewhere years ago. The individuals being caught in these crackdowns are not generally Nazis, pedos, or terrorists. They are Trump supporters, libertarians, devout individuals, large or small government conservatives, classical liberals, gun enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, global warming skeptics, anti-vaxxers, free speech proponents, pro life individuals, and lately people that would be considered 'moderate' or even 'liberal' that foolishly try to keep their party from drifting further towards the far ends of left wing ideology.
A number of the above I truly would rather faded into obscurity organically, however if you take all of the above together (and probably a bunch I'm leaving out) and tally them up, I suspect you are far past 50% of the population. I can't see this as being a winning play for these companies in the long term, although leveraging an effective oligopoly controlling the public square to disrupt the speech of those with different or opposing views may gain some advantage in the short term.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Funny) by EvilSS on Monday June 10 2019, @06:36PM (4 children)
Can we add "favorite Computer, Smart phone, Console, OS, CPU, GPU, Car, or power-tool manufacturer, game publisher, or game storefront." to that list? It would eliminate a good 90% of YouTube fanboy content and may leave something actually worth watching on the platform.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @07:48PM (3 children)
Don't be daft. Of course not. You just outlawed marketing :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday June 10 2019, @07:59PM
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday June 10 2019, @08:56PM (1 child)
Now that sounds like a damn good idea. Jesus could have said, "marketing is the root of all evil".
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @09:43PM
Well, point in fact, marketing uses the tools of the root of all evil; Deception and Manipulation.
I remember learning about marketing at one point, and it was exceedingly clear. Marketing was about manipulation at its core, and the truth was entirely unnecessary, and in some cases, counter productive to the goal of changing people's minds and encouraging consumption.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @06:47PM (1 child)
AT&T in the days of its glory, got its ass handed to it for less.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @06:56PM
That is because the courts had not yet been acquired by corporate America. Only the politicians.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Monday June 10 2019, @06:51PM (9 children)
I'm curious how sensitive this filter will be, because there is some legitimate use for people questioning published narratives. One example from deep below the fold in today's newsphere is a NYT retraction about evidence from the Skripal terrorist attack. https://twitter.com/julianbarnes/status/1136285830329376768 [twitter.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday June 10 2019, @08:04PM (5 children)
Remember, SJWs Always Lie. While they did nuke every mention of Nazis, apparently including every documentary on WWII (ironic to do that right after the big D-Day remembrance, or is it?) that wasn't their real target, only chaff. They are nuking the anti-vaxxers, the low card diet promoters, Anti Warmists, anyone questioning modern Scientism's official doctrines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:29PM (4 children)
So you're saying people putting out fiction and trying to portray them as fact, then. Thank you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday June 10 2019, @10:45PM (3 children)
Personally I'm dubious but keeping an eye on the anti-vax movement. They have really upped the number of things they vaccinate kids against in a pretty short time. So the evidence to date isn't convincing but the reaction implies there is something being hidden from the public. The government would NEVER hide things from us, right?
The danger of the low fat diet, high carb diet the government pushes should be obvious to everyone by now. Sorry you are an idiot. And my views on AGW and Scientism vs Science are known well enough to avoid a rehash.
Because all of that misses the frickin' point. If people don't have the right to be wrong on these and a thousand other issues it is only because somebody has gained the power to declare what is right and ban any dissent. What part of that sounds like a country you want to live in?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:24PM (2 children)
It is said that your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. Denying AGW and being pro-disease will fuck up the society that I (and my son and everyone else I care about) live in.
If it were just a matter of these things being detrimental only to the deniers and pro-diseasers I'd be all for letting them believe in their nonsense, like a flat-earther. The flat-earthers aren't going to harm anyone with their beliefs, but the deniers and pro-diseasers are going to harm a LOT of people with their stupidity.
Neither vaccines nor AGW have anything to do with "scientism". There are enormous amounts of data and evidence on each subject. Vaccines have never been sold as 100% foolproof and safe for each and everyone. There are always a small percentage that don't respond to the vaccine and some that respond badly to them. This has NOT been hidden.
I'm not going to try and debate AGW with a denier, but I will say that I am going to trust climate scientists over ANY organization with a financial interest in CO2 production.
You can trust the judgement of a playboy model and big oil executives instead of scientists, that's your business. Just keep your fist away from my face.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:33AM (1 child)
For the purposes of debate, lets grant the vaxx issue. But remember that we weren't debating whether to mandate everyone has to be vaccinated for reasons of public safety. We were debating whether it is acceptable for ban all discussion of that issue, that it is so decided that we will punish anyone who even questions the official policy. Your position is that mere questioning of the Science is so harmful to public safety that it should be forbidden. So my point returns. Who decides? How does a Republic decide on who decides they are so right they will not only carry the day on the policy debate today but will never need to worry again because all further debate is illegal. And are we really ready to let GOOGLE be the decider? Would you trust a Legislature with that terrible power? The Supreme Court? Would you give President Trump that power? How can there even be any sort of "consent of the governed" in your world? Is a Constitutional Republic even possible in your world? And just how far are you willing to carry this ban? Would you make it like Holocaust denial in Germany, would you put people in prison for simply questioning it in a private conversation? Will the ban apply to scientists? If someone makes a horrible discovery will they will be imprisoned for ringing the alarm bell? Can Legislators be punished / removed from office for speaking of forbidden subjects? And again, who decides?
We end up where I started above, asking if that sounds like a country you would want to live in?
Accept reality, those dead White Guys on the money in your pocket saw all these possibilities and were a lot wiser than you. Free debate is the only path to a lasting political consensus. You aren't happy with the results so you want to kick over the table. But you aren't thinking ahead to the consequences.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:43PM
I have zero problems with the discussion and questioning of "Science"; that's how it is supposed to work!
I dislike the capitalization of "Science" when it isn't the first word in a sentence, which somehow makes it seem like some deity that requires capitalization (ie. God, Allah, Him, His, blah blah blah). Science is not a monolithic deity; it is a process and method that attempts to explain the observations of the world around us.
It's the constant shoveling of bullshit that I have a problem with. It is the deliberate erosion of critical thinking and deliberate propaganda to sow distrust in science for the sole purpose of protecting power and profits that I have a problem with. It is the constant drumbeat of elevating Belief over Evidence that I have a problem with.
You bring up great points about the banning of discussion, and I even agree with it. The problem is that too many people have been raised to Believe and not Think; to blindly accept what some authority figure tells them no matter how illogical, dishonest, or utterly wrong it is without even looking at (or in spite of) the evidence. And there is no consequence for the shoveling of bullshit either. If everyone looked at claims with a critical eye I'd agree with you completely.
To get back to the original topic and respond to one of your questions: on Youtube, Google IS the decider. They own it. They are not stopping these idiots from spewing their nonsense; they are free to go spew their nonsense on some other video sharing site. Google/Youtube just doesn't have to hand them their megaphone.
The government is theoretically not allowed to have that power due to the First Amendment (it gets ignored as much as the rest of it does, but that's a different discussion).
I am all too aware of reality, but I'm not willing to accept the status quo. Bullshit and propaganda reign supreme in this world of belief over evidence, and that is a table that needs to be kicked over. The consequences of not doing so are dire.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Captival on Monday June 10 2019, @08:45PM (2 children)
The Chinese Government denies Tianneman Square. Google is happy to work with them.
Half the Middle East denies the Holocaust. Google is happy to work with them.
Europe spent a decade covering up multiple massive child rape/sex slave operations in their own countries. Google is happy to work with them.
The lesson here is that any crime is acceptable as long as you vote for the 'correct' politics.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday June 10 2019, @09:00PM (1 child)
How so? Google pulled its web presence out of PRC in early 2010 and abandoned plans to actually release the rumored GFW-compliant Dragonfly search engine after a privacy review.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:54PM
Did they really? https://theintercept.com/2019/03/04/google-ongoing-project-dragonfly/ [theintercept.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @07:00PM (3 children)
"alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation"
Yeah... so that would be a ban on "Allahu Akbar". Often badly mistranslated, it means something more like "our god is greatest" or "my god is the best god". It is not a mere expression of greatness. It is a pronouncement of superiority over all others. It's about domination.
Then there is the gender and sexual orientation. LOL. Stonings? Actual rape culture? Rooftops?
Ah, but then the censorship would violate itself, like an ouroboros. Discrimination based on religion is banned, but it would be required.
I will be shocked if Islam doesn't get a pass. Unfair enforcement is 100% standard at youtube. This will be strongly enforced against conservatives, with the occasional token leftist sacrificed in order to promote the illusion of fairness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:55AM (2 children)
Oh, you mean like this? [youtu.be]
I'm sure this will be banned almost immediately!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:28PM (1 child)
You do realize that Monty Python is parody, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:49PM
Monty Python? Parody?
I don't understand those words.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. [youtube.com]
Here's a little number I tossed off recently in the Caribbean.
Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?
It's swell to own a stiffie, it's divine to own a dick.
From the tiniest little tadger, to the world's biggest prick!
So three cheers for your Willie or John Thomas.
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake!
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend. your percy or or your cock.
You can wrap it up in ribbons, you can stick it in your sock.
But don't take it out in public or they will stick you in the dock.
And you won't come back.
Thank you very much!
Oh! It's a frightfully witty song!
You do realize that I was mocking a nasty, trolling piece of shit, right?
What I posted actually had some value as entertainment, while dickhead's post was just hate-filled spew. I presume you can tell the difference. Or am I giving you too much credit?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @07:06PM (8 children)
Everything would be ideallic and conflict free if we would simply have the will to eliminate all conflicts at the source. The root cause of conflict is diversity of opinion. Force everyone to have the same opinion, and also force them to like it. Now you have no conflicts, but have eliminated diversity.
Instead of forcing people to think alike, to avoid conflict, everyone should voluntarily think alike. Those who will not voluntarily think alike should be forced to voluntarily think alike. To eliminate conflicts. The censors can monitor for anyone who is not thinking alike.
Since everyone now thinks alike, everyone can be told, and will accept that we now have achieved diversity as well.
Now it will be unnecessary to censor, because there is no conflict, because everyone thinks alike, out of fear of the censors.
Everywhere will now be a safe space!
We can also eliminate all forms of color. Everything should be shades of gray with no color saturation at all. There is still that pesky colorful nature, but to the extent that there is anything green or blue left to see, it might be possible to use drugs to desaturate color vision.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @07:49PM (5 children)
There's a sci-fi dystopia novel in here somewhere...
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday June 10 2019, @09:02PM (3 children)
I'd guess it was Lois Lowry's The Giver, but that title might call to mind the second page of Goatse.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @09:41PM (2 children)
How did you get to 2nd page of Goatse?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:48PM
'Speak friend and enter'
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday June 10 2019, @10:51PM
Click..through? Click on?
Find the hyperlinked pixel*?
*do not do this at work
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @09:12PM
Huxley's Brave New World. For example The World Consensus Encyclopedia.
In Orwell's 1984 not everyone did think alike, even if that was what everyone was supposed to do.
In Brave New World, everyone was drugged out on Soma to avoid the pain of real life.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:37PM (1 child)
I agree with you. Now will you put down the gun?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:27PM
The state must use guns to ensure peace. You know: war is peace. Freedom is slavery.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday June 10 2019, @07:12PM
You can always just do it yourself [duckduckgo.com].
What's that? It's harder to make money [investopedia.com] that way?
I guess the question then becomes, "Why am I posting this stuff? Am I trying to get ideas and arguments in which I believe out there? Am I posting what I *think* will get me as many "clicks" as possible to maximize revenue?"
If the answer is the former (or even a combination of the former and the latter), then you might want to consider making sure that your ideas and arguments aren't held hostage to centralized providers.
But...But...But...Other folks get to make money with their stupid videos! Strip downs of electronic gadgets and howtos on proper make-up application and dos and don'ts while you're traveling in country 'x'. Why do those folks get to make money, and I can't do the same with my videos about torturing small animals, encouraging mass murder and beating oddly dressed folks?
That's just wrong, man!
Did I miss anything? Maybe that private entities are not bound by the 1st Amendment in the US? Or that advertisers (you know, Google's actual customers) often don't want their ads next to goose-stepping fools calling for the expulsion, murder and eradication of all but the "master race."
The TCP/IP suite of protocols were created with the idea that any node could be a client or a server. Despite what the big ISPs have done, that's still true. Just as Gutenberg's moveable type democratized printing, the Internet democratized the flow of information.
So even if you are a piece of shit with hate on your lips and murder and violence in your heart, you can still spew your nauseating rhetoric. Just not on YouTube.
I don't really use youtube, except for the occasional song, but I'd venture to guess that nothing much of value will be lost.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ilPapa on Monday June 10 2019, @07:40PM (7 children)
1) I believe that YouTube has the right to host whatever content, or ban whatever content, they want. Free speech does not guarantee that a multinational corporation will distribute your speech for free. And before you ask, no, I do not think a cake-baker in West Jesus, Missouri should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If they want to turn away a customer, let them fuck themselves all they want. Also...
2) I believe Alphabet should be broken the fuck up, stat. Like yesterday. There's no way on earth that a corporation with that much control over how people use the internet should also be able to own one of the biggest channels for content on the internet. It's an obvious violation of anti-trust laws. While we're at it, every telecom that provides content, every company like Apple, every motherfucking energy conglomerate should meet with the same fate. We're all better off when they're broken up the way a sledgehammer breaks up a boulder.
So, the way I see it, YouTube has a job to do: If it doesn't want to be associated with hate speech, harassment, bigotry and racism, they should absolutely throw all the wannabe nazis and soft-ass hatemongers like Stephen Crowders right the fuck off. And the US government (specifically, the Justice Department) has a job to do, which is bring the giant anti-trust hammer down on YouTube/Alphabet.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @07:58PM (4 children)
Absolutely not. That's one step away from "whites only pies". Remember, religion was often used to support the positions that blacks were inferior spiritually. Science was even abused at some points to declare the black man mentally and/or physically unfit for some tasks. The justification to turn away a customer primarily because they're gay is purely about racism and bigotry. If you can turn someone away because they're gay, then you can turn someone away because they're black. The arguments have an amazing amount of similarity WRT religion and intolerance.
I believe in the "right to refuse any customer", but not the right to engage in a clear pattern of discrimination. Not if you want a business license. If that gay dude wasn't wear shoes or shirt though, refuse service. However, that is based on facts, and not opinions.
These latest push to legitimize intolerance under the guise of religious liberty is a farce. You're free to exercise your religion, but only to the extent it doesn't affect others or their liberty. You're not free to use you're religion, or your freedom of religion, to justify discrimination. That's bullshit.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilPapa on Monday June 10 2019, @10:13PM
Well, we have conflicting rights here. If I remember correctly, the cake baker would have to SELL the gay people a cake, but they could refuse to decorate it with a wedding message. That seems a reasonable difference.
While the Mississippi lunch counter had to seat and serve food to black people, they could not be forced to wear t-shirts that say, "Hooray for black people". I think you see the distinction between business discrimination and compelling speech, as in a wedding cake that this cake-baker claimed was his "art form". At some point, the solution is not legal, but social. The gay couples should camp out on the sidewalk in front of the cake baker and make out and demonstrate and absolutely boycott the fuck out of that cake baker. Punish him in a way that the legal system is ill-equipped to do.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:09AM
A policeman shot a woman without cause. He was recently sentenced to 12 years prison. Somali protestors came out accusing the court of being racist and antiislam.
To get off these days all you need to be is dark colored and muslim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:45AM (1 child)
Imagine if you will a group of people that are so despised that the government must make a law to make it illegal to hate them.
Your dedication to the idea of "protected classes" will be the undoing of your haughtiness. Sooner or later, those you dislike will become protected classes as well not because they are weak or sympathetic, but because the constant vitriolic hate that your "side" vents upon them at every opportunity. Your side's hate and constant persecution under the guise of enlightenment will force its arrival.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:46PM
Sadly you don't realize that defending an innocent conservative from bigotry is 100% part of the message. Also, you seem to not realize that your "side" is already protected. You send your worst to college campuses to promote hate and bigotry, you get to protest and yell nasty shit at people going to get medical help, and no one is preventing Christians from practicing or talking about their faith.
So you are already protected, much like we demand EVERYONE be protected. But yer an authoritarian little cunt who sees the slightest pushback as serious persecution on par with a lynching or cross burning in your yard. Preeeety snowflakey there bub.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:57PM (1 child)
Now apply that logic to Clearchannel and Sinclair media.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:11PM
Absolutely. 100%. Neither of those entities should exist. They are very literally enemies of the people.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 10 2019, @09:24PM (17 children)
Many "proud" voices silenced at Facebook. They banned Minister Farrakhan, Alex/Infowars, Laura Loomer, and the fabulous Milo Y. Along with many others. And, I tried to tell you. But, censored by Editor Janrinok because, "oh, that's political." It's political because it came from me. If it came from someone they (Editors) like, possibly you would have heard about it. Because they're very biased politically. Too bad! foxnews.com/tech/facebook-bans-louis-farrakhan-alex-jones-milo-yiannopoulos-for-being-dangerous [foxnews.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:38PM (16 children)
This moronic farce (which becomes even more moronic when you realize that this poseur can't even touch the levels of idiocy of the real deal) of a user,rDT [soylentnews.org] is here to soak up downmods so that other folks get a pass as everyone is downmodding this garbage.
I mean, what other reason could there be for the continuation of this godawful parody? As I said, it doesn't match the ridiculousness of the real deal.
Just a crazy thought.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 10 2019, @10:54PM (15 children)
I'm hear to talk about -- write about -- the News. The REAL NEWS. And the very politically biased, very Censored & twisted version of it that they call Soylent News. But you, apparently are here to censor. And kiss the asses of youre fellow censors. Enjoy!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:05PM (14 children)
Geez Louise! I didn't even mod you down.
Why don't you give it a rest, friend. Doesn't it make your head hurt to blather on like that?
What's more, I'm not censoring you. I'm not even calling you a moron. I'm saying that your moronic blather doesn't even match the levels of dumb of the jackass you pretend to be.
Hell! The crap you spew isn't even of high enough quality to mock.
But there's no censorship here (and thank you to SN management and staff for keeping it that way), so I guess I'll just have to wait until your idiocy gets old for you or you have an aneurysm from processing such horse hockey.
In the mean time, have at it. I hope whatever perverse pleasure you get out of this is worth it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:15PM (1 child)
Wasted time in waiting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:36AM
So what, exactly, do you suggest I do instead? Hunt this guy down and cut off his fingers?
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 10 2019, @11:26PM (11 children)
You don't call it Censorship. When I put in the story of how Facebook silenced so many beautiful conservative, and other voices. And Editor Janrinok says, "oh, no thanks, that's too political." But he runs the same kind of story, when it comes from somebody else. Not from Donald J. Trump. And you thank him for it. Very sad. And, very foolish!!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:16AM
just call a drone strike on him
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:15AM (9 children)
We also have to look at the quality of the submission. Is it written factually and without bias? Is it supported by credible sources? In essence, does it comply with the submission guidelines [soylentnews.org]? If you dropped your rDT persona you would probably fare far better in your submissions.
(Score: 3, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:08AM (8 children)
You're saying what I said, in a little bit of a different way. You look at who a Sub comes from. And if it comes from someone in you're tight little Click it sails right through. If it comes from someone you don't like -- even if it's from a Subscriber -- very hard to get to Front, or Main "page." No matter what's inside it. The Facebook Story was covered by Breitbart and I did a Sub about it. Then Aristarchus, who apparently hates you, did 2 Subs about it. With Links to 2 Liberal sites known as Mary Sue & The Slate. Saying something very nasty about you in one of them and really, I can understand why that one didn't go through. And in one of them he called me a liar for no good reason. For no reason at all. But, I didn't call anybody a liar. Even the ones that are. I just gave the Link, and a Quote. Sometimes referred to as, Quotation. And, nothing from you about quality. Nothing about "credible." Really, Breitbart & FoxNews cover the same story as Slate and the other and it's not "credible" to you? Just "oh it's political, no thank you."
And by the way, for those (many) that didn't see that one. The Breitbart Link. breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/03/facebook-bans-dangerous-conservative-figures-but-continues-to-allow-leftist-calls-for-violence [breitbart.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:49PM (2 children)
From the submission guidelines:
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:09AM (1 child)
Many stories go through, very quickly, with just 1 Sub. And I would say, there's only 1 Sub for most stories. There were 4 Subs for this one. From 2 people. And you're telling me that wasn't enough. Unbelieveable! I guess you think "the site grows" from having Bullshit spread all over it.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:29AM
By the way, it was actually 5 Subs! Because Aristarchus did one with the Link to Esquire. We've all heard of Esquire, right?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:31PM (4 children)
No, we really don't. We read it first. The most important criteria for a story is the content, not the submitter. Is it well written or is it full of spelling mistakes? Is it something that we have not discussed recently? Is it 'on-topic' for this site? Will it interest our community? We can rewrite and help with submissions if someone has made an effort and we accept any version of English.
and
You have just destroyed your own argument. If I had a 'clique' (not click!), which I don't, then neither you nor Aristarchus would be in it.
I gave several reasons why a story might be rejected. You concentrated on one of them. In fact, it is because you tend to submit stories in your adopted persona that many get rejected. If you write like an adult, as I hinted at in an earlier post, then your submissions would stand a much better chance of being accepted. It is the quality of the submission that lets you down - that is the 'reason' that you avoided considering from the ones that I quoted to you.
If you are going to refer to a specific story please link to it. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to find which 'Facebook' story you are referring to.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:49PM
Smackitty smack, RDT please don't come back.
(Score: 2, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:47PM (1 child)
Thank you JR.
Your patience and tolerance are really something to see. I, for one, really appreciate it.
Even though User 6614 [soylentnews.org] repeatedly (both obviously and poorly) attempted to troll you, you calmly and precisely explained the site's Submission Guidelines [soylentnews.org] at least twice.
As much as I, personally, find that this particular user seems to spend most of his (her?) time spewing semi-literate, mostly off-topic drivel over most stories, it's important to maintain a sense of perspective.
You have acted professionally, even though your primary interlocutor in this thread has been all over the place.
Your actions are a credit to SN and, IMHO, worthy of note. Again, thank you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:20AM
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:23AM
You gave one reason why you rejected it. You said it was "left/right politics." Nothing about the Quality. Which is a Fake reason you're coming up with now. When Facebook bans people, it's too political and you reject. But, when YouTube bans videos you put it through. Double standard.
And, you misquoted me. You said I said that Aristarchus "had his submission accepted." WRONG. I said Aristarchus made 2 Subs and both were rejected. And actually, he did 3 that were rejected about the Facebook story. I thought it was 2, I just saw another. And you can see them all if you look for the Subs that mention Louis Farrakhan.