Sign in to follow this  
NeedleinA

Censorship?

Recommended Posts

Youtube announced the following 12/9/20:

Quote

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

At what point does this stop, I mean honestly?
They are going to remove differing opinions now?
How about alien and bigfoot videos? Flat earth videos too? Differing religious videos? Where does it stop?

One of the only books I remember reading in high school, hah:
s.thumb.jpg.5caf28d8cb32f7a5730e792f809d2355.jpg

One can easily argue, "Hey, they are a private company and they can censor as they like".
Well here is an alternative private video company for conservatives if needed: https://rumble.com/

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult to grasp the mindspace you would have to be in to actively support censorship at such a large scale, while still thinking it is the moral high ground. As far as many of the tech giants pushing this forward being private companies, that is all good and well up until the point where they begin meddling with other peoples freedoms outside of the scope of running a simple social website. It could be argued that they are less company at that point and more of a political movement. Or both. I believe there is a definite attempt of Youtube and other major platforms to censor beyond the scope of their own "private company". Of course people can decline their offered services. It just would be an awful lot easier if there was less deceit and more clean cut truth as far as how they really operate, so people could make a well informed decision.


I had not checked out Rumble yet! Will add that to the list. Have been looking for alternative platforms to support for a while. So far these three also look like they are having some success too: Parler, Slug, Bitchute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This move by YouTube isn't related to the election, they have been doing this for a while particularly with regards to conspiracy theories related to crime cases. Some channels have seriously ruined people's reputations and all they had to offer for their audience were unfounded theories. Anything for a "like" and to attract subscribers. I doubt Big Foot or aliens can be affected but real people, yes. I have no issue with disagreement BUT if the content is to incite violence of any kind, it needs to be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just speculation on my part, but I think this move was intended to prevent YT from being a platform for potentially treasonous content in the likely event that the courts allow Biden's presidency to begin. These social media companies have read the room. They see the talk about secession and violent backlash if Trump loses in the courts. They don't want to be accessories to that. 

And @Suzie is right, at a certain point, the safety of election officials, judges, state legislators, and other people involved in this process has to be considered. Election officials are already facing threats and intimidation.  The major social media companies banned Qanon content for the same reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Youtube announced the following 12/9/20:

At what point does this stop, I mean honestly?
They are going to remove differing opinions now?
How about alien and bigfoot videos? Flat earth videos too? Differing religious videos? Where does it stop?

One of the only books I remember reading in high school, hah:
s.thumb.jpg.5caf28d8cb32f7a5730e792f809d2355.jpg

One can easily argue, "Hey, they are a private company and they can censor as they like".
Well here is an alternative private video company for conservatives if needed: https://rumble.com/

They ARE a private company, but with the proliferation of the myriad videos placed on it, they are basically a monopoly in some parts of the world.  They need a valid competitor which they are NOT ALLOWED to quash. 

It would be great if they HAD an equal competitor, or at least one that could grab at least 30% of the market share in those areas of the world.  It is not just the censure that they feel they can now implement, but other policies that have occurred over the past year or two which indicate they realize how much of a monopoly they currently hold.  ONLY a company with a monopoly would implement some of the policies they have implemented (monetization [with the imposition of ads and commercials]of non-monetized videos and those of charity or non-profit organizations for one) recently.

They are a private company, but they either need to be broken up due to monopolization of the market, or they need to have a competitor which actually IS a competitor and is allowed to flourish as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic Civic teaches us that with every Right comes with related Responsibilities.  And if you neglect your Responsibilities you can loose your Rights.

For the right of Freedom of Speech you have the Responsibility to use it wisely but you also have to accept the fact that you are going to hear things you do not want to hear.

Now everyone has the Right to decide who and what they are going to listen to.  However you need to be very careful when you let someone else decide for you.  Larger organization may say they are doing such suppression for "Your Safety and Protection"  but they lie.  They do it because it matches what they want.

So when we join these larger groups we have to make sure whatever restriction they have (or add later) match up with what we have decided.  If it does not then it is not the group for us and we need to go elsewhere.  If there is no elsewhere then we need to create it (which may mean breaking a monopoly first)

Take for example this Website.  We ask everyone to read and agree to the Site Rules.  These Rule limit what we allow here.  Everyone that looks to join or has joined need to decide for themselves if those restrictions are in harmony with what they choose.  If it is then great.... if not then they need to go elsewhere.  In our case there are plenty of elsewheres.

The case of You Tube is much the same.  If you do not like it go elsewhere, if there is no elsewheres then create one.  If like in the case of You Tube they are so large that you might need a Goverment remedy to assist then whatever restriction becomes ammo for the case against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 2:49 PM, Grunt said:

I look forward to YouTube being broken up and sold off, along with Facebook.

 

One can dream about it but I doubt it will ever happen.  They should remove legal protections that these companies have from being sued.  Why should they get special legal protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

 

One can dream about it but I doubt it will ever happen.  They should remove legal protections that these companies have from being sued.  Why should they get special legal protection?

Well, originally the protection was based in being a platform as opposed to a publisher.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Well, originally the protection was based in being a platform as opposed to a publisher.   

To expand on this idea.

We have the postal service and the telephone service, both of these are protected.  Both of these services allow information to come to you unaltered, the end user it responsible for taking the proper action based on what they give.  The services themselves are protected from being sued if you are being harassed, threatened, or if you make bad choices based on what comes through.

Digital media was thought to be largely the same, and there is a good reason for that. For if Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube and other, in as much as they are showing a person what they have selected to get or someone selected to send a person they would be well within the protections offered.  But they do more then that.  They also suggest, based on your personal information that you have surrendered by using the platform, they offer up "You might also like"  The moment they do that they become a publisher as well.

This also causes problem.  While seeing the larger world is good, these Suggestion do not show you the larger world.  They show you the smaller subset of the world that it thinks you are interested in, thus people begin to think that the whole world is made up of people like them, and the people not like them are horrible violent criminals... Thus people start becoming indoctrinated.

The fix of course is to stop the variations on the "You might also like" and the customized searches.  But that hits their bottom line and they do not really see it as the problem (because who does not want to be validated that the world thinks like them).  Thus they try to solve the symptoms rather than the cause.  They flag accounts, posts, the look for key words, and otherwise try to be come a Nanny to protect the people from a problem that they have fundamentally caused.

They are now clearly in the Publisher category because they are taking editorial control of the content.  Our laws simply need to catch up to this reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, estradling75 said:

They are now clearly in the Publisher category because they are taking editorial control of the content.  Our laws simply need to catch up to this reality.

And they are going to try and convince us that they are not for as long as they can get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what someone claims they believe - there is no justice between birth and death.  Without the belief of an afterlife where all that commit injustices in this life will be held accountable - no one can claim that they believe in justice or that justice exist or is in any way that justice is connected to reality.   But it is also interesting to me that many that claim to be religious and believe in an afterlife; believe that they will not be held to any accountability because they believe in G-d.

Sadly most believe justice is only something that applies to others - especially others that they do not love all that much.

As for election fraud - the one thing Trump has done is make the world aware that it happens in the USA.  But even worse there is no force within our government to keep election fraud from happening.  And like so many things concerning politics and law - the risk of punishment in politics is out of balance with the rewards for breaking the laws - and I personally doubt it is going to change until both parties want it changed because citizens demand it be changed.  Most citizens still believe there is not enough fraud to change an election.  My question is - why would anyone do it - if it does not work?  No one takes risks without believing and expecting it will work.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 6:47 PM, JohnsonJones said:

They ARE a private company, but with the proliferation of the myriad videos placed on it, they are basically a monopoly in some parts of the world.  They need a valid competitor which they are NOT ALLOWED to quash. 

It would be great if they HAD an equal competitor, or at least one that could grab at least 30% of the market share in those areas of the world.  It is not just the censure that they feel they can now implement, but other policies that have occurred over the past year or two which indicate they realize how much of a monopoly they currently hold.  ONLY a company with a monopoly would implement some of the policies they have implemented (monetization [with the imposition of ads and commercials]of non-monetized videos and those of charity or non-profit organizations for one) recently.

They are a private company, but they either need to be broken up due to monopolization of the market, or they need to have a competitor which actually IS a competitor and is allowed to flourish as such.

Private companies can and do exist in free countries without competition - they are called public utilities.  Internet companies that do not have competition ought to be regulated as a public utility.  - anyway that is my opinion.   I also believe that medical providers ought to be public utilities. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Private companies can and do exist in free countries without competition - they are called public utilities.  Internet companies that do not have competition ought to be regulated as a public utility.  - anyway that is my opinion.   I also believe that medical providers ought to be public utilities. 

 

The Traveler

I actually agree with the idea about Internet companies and even to a lesser degree, medical providers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social media sites, primarily Face Book, Twitter, and YouTube, all claimed that they were open forums, and that most of their content was user-supplied. They must not be held to account for what is on the site, because, by its nature, these sites are uncensored public domain. As a result, they got the following protection:

Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +0.4% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.

Of course, now they want to protect the public from dangerous content, based upon the site-owner's subjective, and usually left-leaning, perceptions. Moderates and liberals often see these as reasonable restrictions. They proclaim that private companies should be allowed to censor however they wish. OK. However, if so, then the owners are no longer disinterested providers of a user-driven content platform. They are now publishers. They are deciding what gets produced and what does not.

I oppose censorship and uphold the right of social media companies to control their platform content. Of course, Section 230 must be taken away. RIGHT???

Share this post


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

Social media sites, primarily Face Book, Twitter, and YouTube, all claimed that they were open forums, and that most of their content was user-supplied. They must not be held to account for what is on the site, because, by its nature, these sites are uncensored public domain. As a result, they got the following protection:

Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +0.4% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.

Of course, now they want to protect the public from dangerous content, based upon the site-owner's subjective, and usually left-leaning, perceptions. Moderates and liberals often see these as reasonable restrictions. They proclaim that private companies should be allowed to censor however they wish. OK. However, if so, then the owners are no longer disinterested providers of a user-driven content platform. They are now publishers. They are deciding what gets produced and what does not.

I oppose censorship and uphold the right of social media companies to control their platform content. Of course, Section 230 must be taken away. RIGHT???

Section 230 is actually a very important item today in regards to free speech.  Without it, forums such as this, may not exist.  Without such a protection sites would have a choice to either be simply a transfer hub of information with zero moderation (unlikely most would do this, as it loses focus) or only allow content that they, themselves, post. 

In the former most business, even non-profits and charities, would see no real benefit.  It would be like hosting a server.  In the latter, there is no freedom from anyone to be able to say anything.

The problem that many have with the sites currently is not that they cannot be pursued legally  (unless one is upset at their moderating, but that happens constantly.  I'm sure this site has it's fair share of moderation occasionally as well) but more in regards to the moderation sections...

Quote

A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[

However, this is also in line with other restrictions on the freedom of the site, such as following ensuing laws regarding infringement, privacy or criminal material.

I actually think section 230 (though at the time many felt it may limit free speech) in it's interpretation today has preserved a LOT of the free speech we have on the internet...while at the same time allowing various private sites to have the freedom to let people post (though, as pursuant to 2 A and B) without the fear of being sued as the publisher of the same information, but instead relaying it back to those who posted.

The instance where someone posts something that another thinks is slander, abuse, or attack which is not taken  down (in my opinion) should not be reflected necessarily upon that site, but legal means should be pursued against the offender who posted such material, rather than the site that allows the speech of others on it.  Instead of holding others personally responsible in these instances, people want to try to silence the sites instead...

To silence such sites, even with the moderation they have, I think would do a great disservice to free speech on the internet today if one did it through such a repeal of the protections of Section 230 of the CDA or specifically (Title 47 Ch 5 Subchapter 2 part I section 230).

In my opinion of course.

 

PS:  Ah, and for the relevant pursuing information on the actual item in question...

47-230 on cornell's law website

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer, and the law may well be on the side of the big-3 platforms to keep section 230. On the other hand, the calls to have it removed come from consumers who feel a "bait and switch" has happened. These hugely influential platforms began as nearly unmoderated sites, allowing the free exchange of idea. They become behemoths, and rightly gained the section 230 protections, since the sites were bastions of unfettered customer-provided content. THEN, all three flipped, and said the felt obligated to moderate/restrict/censor content they found dangerous, wrong, or beneath their standards. Conservatives continue to believe that these restrictions are levied heavily against their candidates and causes. So, it's an open question as to whether they should continue to receive legal shelter given their out-size influence and alleged biased moderating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm not a lawyer, and the law may well be on the side of the big-3 platforms to keep section 230. On the other hand, the calls to have it removed come from consumers who feel a "bait and switch" has happened. These hugely influential platforms began as nearly unmoderated sites, allowing the free exchange of idea. They become behemoths, and rightly gained the section 230 protections, since the sites were bastions of unfettered customer-provided content. THEN, all three flipped, and said the felt obligated to moderate/restrict/censor content they found dangerous, wrong, or beneath their standards. Conservatives continue to believe that these restrictions are levied heavily against their candidates and causes. So, it's an open question as to whether they should continue to receive legal shelter given their out-size influence and alleged biased moderating.

The problem I see isn't with them being able to do what the Constitution should allow them to do (moderate those who are on their private property of the business) but in that they are so large that in some areas they are literally a monopoly, and as a monopoly type organization, can influence and hold power like any other monopoly. 

The solution to this is to weaken the monopoly.  One should not try to destroy the rights of everyone else (most of the companies that benefit from Section 230 are not the Large corporations, they can actually afford a lawsuit or two...but the small groups like this one which probably could be overwhelmed without those same protections).  Instead, another method that can weaken their hold should be found.

It was mentioned already about others starting their own business, and in a fair economic arena that is normally a good solution.  America today has lost a LOT of what is capitalism, and as capitalism is squashed, corporatism or corporate monopoly is one of the things that can take it's place.  Right now, here in the West it appears that this has slowly been occurring over the past 2 decades.  This means that once they get enough power, a monopolistic corporation can squash any threats it sees to its own self interest. 

Another solution in the past was that unions were formed.  Unions between workers who refused to work under some conditions and could be bargained with did a great deal at making corporations and companies more concerned about workers, better pay and benefits, and a host of other measures that affected how the US middle class rose in power and numbers during the mid 20th century.  The Power of Unions and unifying have been greatly weakened over the past 4 decades, and with that, the protections in place.  That said, a similar idea could work if everyone could band together to boycott or avoid the social media spots that are troublesome by working together until their demands are met.  Unfortunately, as we've seen over the past decade, it seems these types of actions (Target Stores for example is probably stronger now than it was when the boycott took place) do not work anymore against the mega-corps of today.

Another idea is that government steps in to try to break them up.  One of the last big cases in this light was against Microsoft about 20 years ago.  We see that the penalties really didn't have that much of an effect on Microsoft and how it acted.  If anything, it's tightened it's grip and control over it's OS and what it can do on people's personal computers (automatic updates under the guise of security updates, requiring authorizations to even use their software and calling it more a rental than ownership, blocking computers that don't comply with their demands, still incorporating a web browser in their OS and attempting to force people to use it, etc...etc...etc).  The question is how much we can actually trust our government today to put the well being and needs of it's citizens over that of corporate interests, power, and money (donations, etc).

It can actually be quite complex, but we have to be careful that in trying to dismantle the monopolistic powers some groups (youtube, facebook, twitter, etc) are exercising that we don't actually hurt the smaller companies and groups as well and thus instead of weakening the monopolies we intend to, we actually make them stronger in the long run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Not a political discussion, part of the quote removed to not focus on the political**

I was watching the Senate hearing on Election Security a couple days ago.
One of the witnesses, Judge Starr, was asked by Senator Hawley about censorship:

Question:

Quote

Senator Hawley: (02:38:58)
Let me talk about the first amendment. Judge Starr, I want to begin with you because I know that you have spent much of your life as a litigator defending the first amendment. Have you ever seen anything like we saw in the closing days of the election when you had the biggest corporations in the history of this country, the most powerful corporations in the world, Facebook, Twitter, working ... to suppress legitimate reporting... Have you ever seen anything in your career like that, Judge Starr, where we have these giant, corporate conglomerates censoring and suppressing news directly bearing on an election weeks beforehand, and doing it apparently in conjunction with one of the major political parties? Have you ever seen anything like that?

Answer:

Quote

Judge Starr: (02:39:55)
No, I think we live in a new age and we need to go back to great lessons from constitutional law, as you well know, Senator Hawley.

Judge Starr: (02:40:02)
-from constitutional law, as you well know, Senator Hawley, and Justice William Brennan, an icon of the Warren Court, saying that our democracy is based upon robust and uninhibited debate and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes saying, “Let’s test things in the marketplace of ideas.” You can’t test places, ideas, and theories unless you allow the marketplace of information and communication to flourish.

I found both ideas to be extremely relevant. The need for:

1. Uninhibited debate
2. Allowing the marketplace to test the ideas of others

If someone produces a bad/inferior/faulty product, hopefully the marketplace/consumers will eventually reject that product and it will be pushed aside for a better/superior product.
If these big tech companies are censoring things, we really aren't allowed to "test the ideas" out. We are being forced a singular product/narrative only.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't DuckDuckGo rely on many of the same search algorithms as Google?

I'd imagine you'd want a spider search rather than what Google uses currently, but I'm not sure if there are any search engines that you can utilize that do not do similar things as Google.  I think Bing is one of the big alternatives, but has it's own censored options.

I, personally, still use Google and don't have a problem with it, but that's probably because it is currently the biggest kid on the block so everyone caters to it's search engine dynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump's - Twitter account suspended
551745899_Untitled-1copy.jpg.3b7d9b69663723fa2bd5ee5af339169e.jpg

President Trump's - Facebook page - frozen
War Room Pandemic Podcast - Removed from Youtube
Google & Apple removing the Parler free speech app
Etc. Etc. Etc.

One by one the dominos are falling.
"Think like us or else we will simply silence you"

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