Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Censorship at its finest

Recommended Posts

Youtube block and throttling Steven Crowder is one thing and is not a new issue. But censoring it ONLY in the USA?? YouTube isn't even trying to be sneaky about their political leaning.

I would be interested to see how searches go from forum members in other countries. Being in the USA, I searched "Steven Crowder Change my mind" and the only videos from his page came up in the "watch again" section. In the actual search results, the first video from his channel was 30 videos down (which no one ever scrolls past the 10th video)

Thoughts?

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In good news, FB has apparently dropped it's censorship of the church's stuff on religious freedom.    It no longer gives you this message when you try to share the link:

Image may contain: text

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ambivalent about this. After all, if a baker can pick and choose who they serve, Youtube and Facebook should be allowed to as well. That said, I'm deeply concerned they are censoring only conservative voices. Do The Young Turks get censored?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, it's fine for private platforms to censor content.  We here at thirdhour do it daily, what with the banning bots and p0rn spewers and criticisms of our church.  1st amendment doesn't apply here.

Also surely, it's not fine for a monopoly of a public good (like neighborhood supermarket, or hospital, or power company) to refuse to serve someone based on 1st amendment issues.  You can be in the KKK for all society cares, you still get to buy food and have running water and stuff.

As social media platforms, especially YouTube and Facebook, gain prominence and usefulness in our lives, one can see it moving from 'private platform' to 'monopoly of a public good'.  Is it there yet?  I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I'm ambivalent about this. After all, if a baker can pick and choose who they serve, Youtube and Facebook should be allowed to as well. That said, I'm deeply concerned they are censoring only conservative voices. Do The Young Turks get censored?  

You can test the young Turks out, they aren’t at all. Search them and you will get video after video for pages linking to their page.

I just searched “Steven crowder” and you will get his page, his two most recent videos, and then nothing for 33 videos down (you will get videos about him from other sources, but none from his page specifically). And amongst those videos that come before his are TINY channels getting sub 10,000 views trash talking Steven crowder. How do these tiny, anti SC, displace his 30,000-15,000,000 views videos?

It isn’t immediately huge deal, he is already demonetized, and people looking for him are going to find him. But it’s just so perplexing that YouTube throttles one of the largest and most outspoken US conservative commentators on their site ONLY in the USA.

 

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fether said:

But it’s just so perplexing that YouTube throttles one of the largest and most outspoken US conservative commentators on their site ONLY in the USA.

Agree totally. It's disturbing to me too. Like I said, I'm ambivalent about this-but I'm furious that Facebook and Youtube seems to only censor conservatives. I'm an old fashioned libertarian. I believe in this wild thing called freedom! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

As social media platforms, especially YouTube and Facebook, gain prominence and usefulness in our lives, one can see it moving from 'private platform' to 'monopoly of a public good'.  Is it there yet?  I dunno.

I'm a free market capitalist.  So, I'm all about private industry having freedom.  But there is a problem with Youtube being given this excuse.  They are now so ubiquitous and powerful that they are no longer affected by market forces.

One may cry,"But it's free market!!!"  And in some ways I'd agree with that.  But a monopoly is not only determined by being the only game in town.  The law forbids a private entity from "exercising monopolistic powers".  And they are doing so.  They hold a market advantage so strong that by practicing monopolistic powers, they see only the market forces that a monopoly would see.  There is also no "free entry" into the market by a competitor.  Anyone starting up a new platform nowadays (like Jordan Peterson's platform) will be so hampered that they will effectively be the corner grocery store competing with a national chain.  They will NEVER grow to be any kind of real competition.

If other platforms did the same thing as Youtube, market forces would certainly drive down their revenues.  And they'd make changes to their practices.  But Google will never see that happen because of the power they wield.  So, even though they aren't a technical monopoly, they have all the market advantages and buffers that a monopoly enjoys.  And they have been practicing all the powers of a monopoly without detrimental effect from market forces.

This is very dangerous because Youtube is not just "a video sharing platform".  It has become  the common man's soapbox or public square.  It is quickly overtaking other media as the common man's means of sharing of political information.  To shut down a channel means they are kicking someone out of the public square.  So, the cry of "I'm just a private business!" doesn't ring true.  If anything, they could be sued for fraud.

They claim to be a video sharing platform. Their true motive now made apparent is: We're an information mining company that is weeding out (silencing) conservative voices in the public square while prominently promoting liberal voices so that elections will lean heavily toward our political direction.

If there really were free entry, this wouldn't be a problem. But they really are that powerful.

BACK TO TOPIC:

Google is doing the exact same thing through search engines.  But at least there, we see more evidence of "free entry."  I use Duckduckgo as my search engine.  And I'm very pleased with it.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mores said:

I'm a free market capitalist.  So, I'm all about private industry having freedom.  But there is a problem with Youtube being given this excuse.  They are now so ubiquitous and powerful that they are no longer affected by market forces.

One may cry,"But it's free market!!!"  And in some ways I'd agree with that.  But a monopoly is not only determined by being the only game in town.  The law forbids a private entity from "exercising monopolistic powers".  And they are doing so.  They hold a market advantage so strong that by practicing monopolistic powers, they see only the market forces that a monopoly would see.  There is also no "free entry" into the market by a competitor.  Anyone starting up a new platform nowadays (like Jordan Peterson's platform) will be so hampered that they will effectively be the corner grocery store competing with a national chain.  They will NEVER grow to be any kind of real competition.

If other platforms did the same thing as Youtube, market forces would certainly drive down their revenues.  And they'd make changes to their practices.  But Google will never see that happen because of the power they wield.  So, even though they aren't a technical monopoly, they have all the market advantages and buffers that a monopoly enjoys.  And they have been practicing all the powers of a monopoly without detrimental effect from market forces.

This is very dangerous because Youtube is not just "a video sharing platform".  It has become  the common man's soapbox or public square.  It is quickly overtaking other media as the common man's means of sharing of political information.  To shut down a channel means they are kicking someone out of the public square.  So, the cry of "I'm just a private business!" doesn't ring true.  If anything, they could be sued for fraud.

They claim to be a video sharing platform. Their true motive now made apparent is: We're an information mining company that is weeding out (silencing) conservative voices in the public square while prominently promoting liberal voices so that elections will lean heavily toward our political direction.

If there really were free entry, this wouldn't be a problem. But they really are that powerful.

BACK TO TOPIC:

Google is doing the exact same thing through search engines.  But at least there, we see more evidence of "free entry."  I use Duckduckgo as my search engine.  And I'm very pleased with it.

These are great points, and I mostly agree with them. I think we all need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Youtube was censoring liberal voices and generally leaving conservative ones alone. Would we still feel the same way? Maybe, but it would be easier to say "Well, they are a private company and can do what they wish." It's a complex issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

These are great points, and I mostly agree with them. I think we all need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Youtube was censoring liberal voices and generally leaving conservative ones alone. Would we still feel the same way? Maybe, but it would be easier to say "Well, they are a private company and can do what they wish." It's a complex issue. 

I think this is a valid point. But the fact remains that it IS my ox being gored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I think this is a valid point. But the fact remains that it IS my ox being gored.

This is a good point.  To some it is about "it's not tyranny when WE do it!"  To me, it is that

  • A) I NOTICE it more when it is happening to me.  Therefore, I feel the need to end it MORE when it is happening to me.
  • B) Youtube is LYING about why they are censoring or throttling conservative voices.

If they just came right out and declared:

Quote

We're a private company in a free market.  So, we can do what we want as long as we are clear about what our site is about.  And we choose to encourage liberal voices.

I would have a much easier time accepting it.  Instead, they're lying through their teeth.  What's more... they seem to believe their own lies.  Truly sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

These are great points, and I mostly agree with them. I think we all need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Youtube was censoring liberal voices and generally leaving conservative ones alone. Would we still feel the same way? Maybe, but it would be easier to say "Well, they are a private company and can do what they wish." It's a complex issue. 

I would feel the same.  Freedom of speech is of great importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:
6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

These are great points, and I mostly agree with them. I think we all need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Youtube was censoring liberal voices and generally leaving conservative ones alone. Would we still feel the same way? Maybe, but it would be easier to say "Well, they are a private company and can do what they wish." It's a complex issue. 

I would feel the same.  Freedom of speech is of great importance.

I too would be upset, but because I don't care too much about liberal sources, I wouldn't notice it and would likely not make a big deal about it. As Vort suggested, it is a bigger deal when it is your own ideas being censored. If my house ox is gored, it is a BIG PROBLEM.If my neighbor's ox is gored, then it is only a big problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I would feel the same.  Freedom of speech is of great importance.

 

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I too would be upset, but because I don't care too much about liberal sources, I wouldn't notice it and would likely not make a big deal about it. As Vort suggested, it is a bigger deal when it is your own ideas being censored. If my house ox is gored, it is a BIG PROBLEM.If my neighbor's ox is gored, then it is only a big problem.

I have no doubt that both of you would feel the same way. You are both people of great integrity. (I'd say men of great integrity, but @mirkwood is going though a gender fluid phase.) 

However, I have grave concerns that in our highly partisan culture,  many other conservatives would not feel the same. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

However, I have grave concerns that in our highly partisan culture,  many other conservatives would not feel the same

I would argue that the loud conservatives (excluding Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones) would fight censorship of the left. I can see Shapiro and the whole DailyWire team, Crowder, Carlson, and Jordan Peterson all beating any censorship of the left to shreds if it would ever happen. Probably making snark remarks in the process, but the best conservatives have a stronger allegiance to the constitution than any ideology (From what I see at least).
I honestly believe we would have a healthier political lifestyle in the world if conservatives ran the media and not liberals, are there any countries where conservative media dominates (and I mean conservative in the american sense)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Fether said:


I honestly believe we would have a healthier political lifestyle in the world if conservatives ran the media and not liberals, 

I see it a little differently. No one should argue that there isn't a liberal bias in the media. All reporters for the MSM are liberals and they'd even admit that. What some conservatives think (some, not all, some) is that there is a giant conspiracy where reporters say "We're going to execute our liberal agenda and screw those nasty conservatives".That wouldn't be tolerated. No, not even in DC or New York. Even liberals try to be fair. I know that's hard for some (again, some, not all. Some) on the right to comprehend or believe. And yes, there is a huge difference between a "liberal" and a "leftist". A leftist would say "We're going to execute our leftist agenda and screw those conservatives while we are at it." 

The MSM is dying off. No one watches the 6:30 news anymore and even fewer people read those things called newspapers. In a generation the "MSM" that we grew up with won't exist. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I think we all need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Youtube was censoring liberal voices and generally leaving conservative ones alone. Would we still feel the same way? Maybe, but it would be easier to say "Well, they are a private company and can do what they wish." It's a complex issue. 

So, I was tickled pink to see Netflix/Facebook/Twitter/and others, dump all the anti-vax propaganda nonsense, in the wake of the returning preventable diseases sweeping the county.  It seemed like a public health issue, nothing to do with politics.  From where I was standing, spreading opinions with which I disagree is one thing, but spreading untruths which lead to the return of smallpox and measles and whatnot, is more than just exercising 1st amendment rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I was tickled pink to see Netflix/Facebook/Twitter/and others, dump all the anti-vax propaganda nonsense, in the wake of the returning preventable diseases sweeping the county.  It seemed like a public health issue, nothing to do with politics.  From where I was standing, spreading opinions with which I disagree is one thing, but spreading untruths which lead to the return of smallpox and measles and whatnot, is more than just exercising 1st amendment rights. 

I hear you, and I've thought about this a long time. You know how furious I get with ant-vaxxers. Should they have the same rights as I do to spread their opinions? Much like the diseases they spread because they can't grasp basic science? As much as I hate to admit this, they have the right to be gravely misinformed and spread what they believe to be true. I go a step further. I have the right to lie to you and tell you I served in the military, even though I didn't*. Freedom of speech means being allowed to say things that @MormonGator finds abhorrent and immoral.

Of course, I don't have the right to lie to you and take your money-so I can't claim to be a veteran, defraud you of your money, then claim it was my "free speech". 


* I'm not saying I served in the military, I never did. Using it as an example. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this