81–90 of 744 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany does fine not allowing for nazi ideology to be espoused. Commoditizing the spread of bad ideas is not, in fact, a public good.
The U.S. isn't Germany. The U.S. has a first amendment.
A wholesale expunction from one end of the spectrum is hard not to interpret as politically charged censorship. Let's see how many Antifa and BLM videos get taken down.
And here we go. As usual the "racist" pretext is being used to censor videos. I have no doubt that there are some terrible awful racist videos in that lot but you have to wonder how many times this is ALSO used as a mean to censor pretty much any video that the youtube execs don't like. Censorship is getting worse Edit: Replacing "Censorship is coming back" with "Censorship is getting worse"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany does fine not allowing for nazi ideology to be espoused. Commoditizing the spread of bad ideas is not, in fact, a public good.
The U.S. isn't Germany. The U.S. has a first amendment.
And here we go. As usual the "racist" pretext is being used to censor videos. I have no doubt that there are some terrible awful racist videos in that lot but you have to wonder how many times this is ALSO used as a mean to censor pretty much any video that the youtube execs don't like. Censorship is getting worse Edit: Replacing "Censorship is coming back" with "Censorship is getting worse"
No censorship. You are still free to create your own YouTube clone and publish your extreme political views there. Maybe call it "GabTube"?
It is a private company doing the censorship but this is 100% in the definition of censorship.
And here we go. As usual the "racist" pretext is being used to censor videos. I have no doubt that there are some terrible awful racist videos in that lot but you have to wonder how many times this is ALSO used as a mean to censor pretty much any video that the youtube execs don't like. Censorship is getting worse Edit: Replacing "Censorship is coming back" with "Censorship is getting worse"
By all means offer a better solution for dealing with the problem of algorithms matching viewers with extremist content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual rules is very impartial (btw, [1] should be the actual link): > Today, we're taking another step in our hate speech policy 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. If they apply this rule to every instance of allegation of…
Hate speech is free speech. We know this both through logical deduction and through multiple different Supreme Court rulings. The "impartial" label just obscures the fundamental problem of it being absurd to consider any speech harmful to anyone, ever, especially within the context of an online content platform that isn't meant to be a publisher with a prerogative to edit said content.
How can logical deduction flawlessly relate such subjective terms?
Why do some people think they're entitled to say what they want on youtube?
'“Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site,” YouTube said in a statement about its decision on Mr. Crowder.' I'm sure those policies will shift stealthily until everything except Baby Shark videos is banned. Left, right or center politically? But a little too spicy for your average 8-year-old? Banned. Gotta keep the Coca-Cola ad execs happy. It's a curious h…