YouTube to remove videos and channels with "hateful and supremacist" content

[QuantumPhysics]

This is just an excuse to censor truth. I knew this was coming 10 years ago. Perfect timing with the perfect storm of food shortage, war and the war to depopulate christians soon to follow. Revelation 6 is about to be fullfilled.

"Truth"...

Yeah...I've seen just how much truth is coming out of these people.

Good job Social Media.

 

[That Dude There]

"Truth"...

Yeah...I've seen just how much truth is coming out of these people.

Good job Social Media.

Of course there is garbage out there, some planted for the purpose to make the truth look crazy. We have been brainwashed from birth, and most are screwed because they are lost, and will never find the truth.

 

[wiyosaya]

There have been many studies about this issue of censorship affecting conservatives online. I do not have the time or the will to comb through thousands of articles and studies personally in order to win online arguments because it's pointless. I would instead direct you to Youtubers like Tim Pool who go into those studies at great length and in great depth in their videos. Tim Pool is particularly known for this kind of thing. He pulls up the studies in his videos, shows all the graphs and charts, reads through them line by line with his own commentary, talks about the authors and the organizations that fund the research, and he does his best do so in an unbiased manner. I especially enjoyed watching the Joe Rogan video with Tim Pool and the guy that runs Twitter. Tim called him out on conservative censorship on the platform and the guy had no rebuttal, only that they were "continuing to learn and evolve", but it became plainly obvious that there is active censorship against right-leaning voices. I have spent many hours casually listening to Tim and others while I work as they are discussing such things and I suspect that OP does or did the same. It's important to keep an open and objective mind to come to an informed conclusion.

IMO, you are not helping.

One of these supposed reports is here https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...iggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
Try the terms for the autocomplete blacklist. Such as Ted, or Lying, or crooked. Simply does not work the way that the "report" says it does.

You say you don't have time, yet you spent how long writing that paragraph? As I see it, if there are so many studies out there it would be a trivial matter to find them.

I am willing to bet that none of these supposed reports have even one iota of scientific merit to them.

When you have a captive audience on a u-tub channel off of which you can make a substantial amount of $$$$$$, some people will say virtually anything to keep their audience clicking. The only thing they care about is $$$$$$$.

Personally, I hate gagme. I don't use their search engine. I block all their ads on u-tub with uBlock Origin for the limited amount I use them. I won't log into u-tub so they can track and store data on me personally. It is not all that hard to avoid them. My life goes on without them. That's my protest against them. I live without them. Their search engine has devolved over the years into an unreliable advertising morass - and as I stated prior, they are a parasite on the world in my eyes.

Sorry, but with all the jerks on the planet, I don't believe any claims like this, and it is not up to me to validate the claims of another. It is up to the person making the claim to support it with evidence. Even if someone did come up with something that was valid rather than some made up BS to keep people coming back to u-tub channel, I doubt it would make me hate gagme any more than I already do, yet I would be happy to acknowledge the validity of the claim.

For me, the worst thing about these supposed claims is people believe them.

On that point, here is a link that many may find interesting - https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

As I see it, there are some interesting conclusions in this study. I am sure there are those that on reading the study, if they don't take the TL;DR route, won't believe it. Fake news, they'll grumble. A liberal institution they'll grumble. And here's a sample that I am sure will irk some:

Immigration emerged as the leading substantive issue of the campaign. Initially, the Trump campaign used a hard-line anti-immigration stance to distinguish Trump from the field of GOP contenders. Later, immigration was a wedge issue between the left and the right. Pro-Trump media sources supported this with sensationalistic, race-centric coverage of immigration focused on crime, terrorism, fear of Muslims, and disease.

As I see it, this study validates my sentence "For me, the worst thing about the supposed claims is people believe them." As I see it, those with weak BS detectors are easily swayed by people with loads of BS.

As to thousands of studies that relate to gagme censorship - there is no evidence of that. Some people might buy that without validation, I will not.

As I see it, you should really take your own advice about maintaining an open mind. And you should validate all claims.

“Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

 

[jpuroila]

the intention of these policies are probably noble

This is a joke, right?

 

[QuantumPhysics]

It's funny how not a single one of the opponents of the social medias here have mentioned how many times social media has been used to live stream violent attacks against people - or to recruit more racists to the cause.

And that is the reason I support them 100%.

 

[Robertrogue]

There have been many studies about this issue of censorship affecting conservatives online. I do not have the time or the will to comb through thousands of articles and studies personally in order to win online arguments because it's pointless. I would instead direct you to Youtubers like Tim Pool who go into those studies at great length and in great depth in their videos. Tim Pool is particularly known for this kind of thing. He pulls up the studies in his videos, shows all the graphs and charts, reads through them line by line with his own commentary, talks about the authors and the organizations that fund the research, and he does his best do so in an unbiased manner. I especially enjoyed watching the Joe Rogan video with Tim Pool and the guy that runs Twitter. Tim called him out on conservative censorship on the platform and the guy had no rebuttal, only that they were "continuing to learn and evolve", but it became plainly obvious that there is active censorship against right-leaning voices. I have spent many hours casually listening to Tim and others while I work as they are discussing such things and I suspect that OP does or did the same. It's important to keep an open and objective mind to come to an informed conclusion.

IMO, you are not helping.

One of these supposed reports is here https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...iggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
Try the terms for the autocomplete blacklist. Such as Ted, or Lying, or crooked. Simply does not work the way that the "report" says it does.

You say you don't have time, yet you spent how long writing that paragraph? As I see it, if there are so many studies out there it would be a trivial matter to find them.

I am willing to bet that none of these supposed reports have even one iota of scientific merit to them.

When you have a captive audience on a u-tub channel off of which you can make a substantial amount of $$$$$$, some people will say virtually anything to keep their audience clicking. The only thing they care about is $$$$$$$.

Personally, I hate gagme. I don't use their search engine. I block all their ads on u-tub with uBlock Origin for the limited amount I use them. I won't log into u-tub so they can track and store data on me personally. It is not all that hard to avoid them. My life goes on without them. That's my protest against them. I live without them. Their search engine has devolved over the years into an unreliable advertising morass - and as I stated prior, they are a parasite on the world in my eyes.

Sorry, but with all the jerks on the planet, I don't believe any claims like this, and it is not up to me to validate the claims of another. It is up to the person making the claim to support it with evidence. Even if someone did come up with something that was valid rather than some made up BS to keep people coming back to u-tub channel, I doubt it would make me hate gagme any more than I already do, yet I would be happy to acknowledge the validity of the claim.

For me, the worst thing about these supposed claims is people believe them.

On that point, here is a link that many may find interesting - https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

As I see it, there are some interesting conclusions in this study. I am sure there are those that on reading the study, if they don't take the TL;DR route, won't believe it. Fake news, they'll grumble. A liberal institution they'll grumble. And here's a sample that I am sure will irk some:

Immigration emerged as the leading substantive issue of the campaign. Initially, the Trump campaign used a hard-line anti-immigration stance to distinguish Trump from the field of GOP contenders. Later, immigration was a wedge issue between the left and the right. Pro-Trump media sources supported this with sensationalistic, race-centric coverage of immigration focused on crime, terrorism, fear of Muslims, and disease.

As I see it, this study validates my sentence "For me, the worst thing about the supposed claims is people believe them." As I see it, those with weak BS detectors are easily swayed by people with loads of BS.

As to thousands of studies that relate to gagme censorship - there is no evidence of that. Some people might buy that without validation, I will not.

As I see it, you should really take your own advice about maintaining an open mind. And you should validate all claims.

“Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

The issue is blocking or censoring opinion from non verified sources, how long before they censor actual facts because it "seems" or appears to be "hateful" or "racist"? I don't know of any research or the such on these, however in my life it has been plain to see that mainstream media and even non-mainstream media has been censoring conservative speech much more than not. I believe everyone should say what ever they want, without censorship, however, you do not get protection from critics or people that might have a differing thought.

 

[Robertrogue]

It's funny how not a single one of the opponents of the social medias here have mentioned how many times social media has been used to live stream violent attacks against people - or to recruit more racists to the cause.

And that is the reason I support them 100%.

What does that have to do with anything? The problem is people, not the social media. If you watch a video and it makes you turn into a bad person, you were a bad person to begin with. These people are not changing minds or "recruiting" more racists, those people were racist to begin with and nothing is going to change that. I am of the opinion of, more freedom and more responsibility. Not, less freedom and less responsibility. You are responsible for your words and actions. If it is legal, great, if not then the law should step in and take care of it.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

What does that have to do with anything? The problem is people, not the social media. If you watch a video and it makes you turn into a bad person, you were a bad person to begin with. These people are not changing minds or "recruiting" more racists, those people were racist to begin with and nothing is going to change that. I am of the opinion of, more freedom and more responsibility. Not, less freedom and less responsibility. You are responsible for your words and actions. If it is legal, great, if not then the law should step in and take care of it.

Everything.

I stand by social media.