171–180 of 645 posts
Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.
Thats not fact, just drivel. If it were true YouTube would long be an enemy of pretty much everyone.
and Twitter, and facebook, and etc, yes. The ones shaping the discourse "for the good of society" are, in fact bad for society, even when the power was inherent and not used.
Now one has to work to deny the negatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing the fact that automated copyright take-down systems aren't perfect and are likely designed to learn towards taking fair things down, and not living infringing things up.
I'm not missing anything. If this is automated, you're telling me they can't put in a rule that says "if public access, then take-down not apply"? Maybe you're making a different claim that a network stream (from CBS or another) is not eligible for re-stream? That I find more compelling, but then again it also shouldn't be hard to add another layer to that rule.
Given the lack of such metadata on the streams which typically have protected content, the system taking these down probably just looks at similarity of content to streams which are proprietary and silences them "to be safe".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's probably worth doing more than just looking at video titles before you describe a complex topic as being "right-wing."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep... even with covid, "it's just 14 days, to flatten the curve", "covid passports are just a conspiracy theory", "all vaccines are safe", "...except astrazeneca" ... "...except J&J" .... "...except moderna",.... add inflation denials, and yeah... Basically the difference between conspiracy theories and reality was ~6 months.
You do understand that COVID was new to everyone and, as such, new information has been learned as we’ve progressed through this pandemic that has caused a shift in course? It doesn’t have to be because of a conspiracy for new information to direct in a different way. In fact, if despite new information we didn’t adjust, that’d be just plain regressive.
> "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
Same with vaccines... all four approved vaccines here were perfectly safe, until they weren't. The mandates basically forced you to pay for testing unless you get vaccinated, and while all other vaccines need two doses, J&J needs only one, so a lot of people got vaccinated by that, because paying 12eur for tests every 48h to be able to ride a bus to work was expensive... and a 20yo girl died due to the vaccine (blood clots), bringing the death toll for girls under 25 to "1" because of the vaccine and "0" due to covid (with around half of ~2mil population getting infected). And what did people say? "why didn't she take the mRNA vaccine?" Why... because the science, our ministers, doctors and the government said that J&J is perfectly safe... a few days after, vector vaccines only for 50yo+ and those who explicitly request them.
And also... a lot of masks actually dont help at all:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
> Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
For a year now, people were wearing masks, which let through 97% of (influenza-like) viruses, and that was "perfectly ok" (except in few countries, that mandated ffp masks).
TLDR: If we remove every skeptic (eg. people who wear masks, even though WHO says that there's no evidence masks help, and might even even be worse, if you handle them incorrectly), and then science "changes", and we ban all those, who say masks don't help... who's left?
So it looks like the people at Alphabet/Google are well into suppressing political discourse, in which case I think a break-up of the company once this administration is voted out is totally in the cards.
[1] https://listen.warroom.org/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=gIeuKWPwW6dBmcIkh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…
Too bad he didn't pull the trigger considering he had already gunned down people. Isn't that the narrative? If some starts shooting people some one with a gun will stop him
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They violated Youtube's ToS with their conspiracy theories and got kicked out, it seems. great sign of progress. Just mere 400 years ago they would have been tortured and burned at stake as heretics. Though who knows, the way things been moving lately ...
Yes I see it as progress that YouTube kicks off antivax conspiracies. It would be nice if Facebook did the same
I think at this point we can just expect this stuff. The ridiculousness of it, though. The rekieta law stream (which is fantastic , btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8 ) has anywhere from 4-12 active lawyers giving commentary and context to everything that is happening. This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet. However: often times these smaller independ…
This is one reason why I think P2P tech like peertube will not only be around longer but even thrive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imo it's censorship to the degree that seeing a ratio does explicitly or implicitly set a specific context to a video. For example, say we have a government published video for an initiative that is incredibly unpopular. However, by masking the actual dissent, all you see is one side of the equation, not allowing you as a citizen to easily see how contentious / controversial something that could directly affect your…
I mean, that's definitely your opinion, but this doesn't match any definition of censorship I'm aware of -- it sounds like you want compelled disclosure . It's a single statistic that YT collects per video. YT also has location data for the dissenters. Is it censorship that they aren't showing a country-by-country breakdown of where the dislikes are coming from? Is it censorship that they aren't showing a town-by-tow…
It's just that it is a very unique situation. We're at a stage where YT is one of the most important platforms on the current web, it's incredibly centralized, and at the end of the day it is up to the whims of Alphabet execs on how they want information published on their platform.
So maybe it's not exactly "censorship" in the standard definition. However, there is functionality that exists and has existed in the product since inception (when it was a rating system instead of voting). You have always been able to see how unpopular a video really is. Taking this away is an alarm to me, especially in today's environment.
I apologize if it's a bit hard for me to explain my reasoning here, but it just truly unsettles me.