111–120 of 269 posts
[1] https://twitter.com/shahitbiz/status/1405361123931656192?s=1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's their platform and they can do what they want this is not true for monopolies, AT&T can't disconnect your line because they don't like what you're saying on your calls.
AT&T is a common carrier. You'd have to, I don't know, get Youtube categorized as a common carrier. It's not like that's controversial a fight that Google has won every time it's come up. It's not like there are laws in places like NY that explicitly exempt information systems from being considered common carriers. We're a long way from being able to casually make a comparison between AT&T and Youtube that will be ta…
Honest question- what is Google's exposure here? Both Youtube and Google (Youtube's parent company) are blocked in China; those revenue streams were cut off a long time ago. What does Google have to lose by letting Youtube keep the videos up? I'm sure the exposure exists; I recognize that Googlers aren't stupid. I honestly am just curious what that risk is. Having lived in Shanghai for 5 years, I don't see China reve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China isn't even a market for them since YouTube is blocked. That's what makes this even more pathetic.
China is a market for Google as a whole , even if not YouTube. Just one more fun side-effect of bundling all our services under megaconglomerates.
I don’t think so. I think they built a social network that is too big for human moderation, so they opted to do moderation by applying statistical models to user reports.
That works great until malicious users work out how to game the system and take down videos they don’t like. So, here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is a market for Google as a whole , even if not YouTube. Just one more fun side-effect of bundling all our services under megaconglomerates.
But aren't all of Google's services indiscriminately blocked in China?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t looked at RT recently, but I didnt see conspiracy talk. I never saw a truther debate there. RT doesn’t have to lie at all to document many of the problems in the west. It was usually what should be Capt. Obvious stuff, stories not covered in the US media, Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan coverage, Snowden and Assange (take off the RT logo and the HN crowd would be orgasming to it), stories of racial inequality, finan…
> The channel [RT] has provided the likes of Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs with the opportunity to promote, to an international audience, their ideas about the New World Order, 9/11, the Bilderberg group or the climate change conspiracy, all while being treated with absolute deference by the channel's journalists. Embedded video clips of appearances on Russia Today have become a regular…
Except this is from 2018. It’s good that HN is catching up to RT:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435466-alex-jones-ban-internet-cens...
I don’t know the others, but LaRouchite (lol, that pro-Soviet org) Tarpley was a regular when I watched and I dont remember 9/11 stuff, but he was on all the CIA, Assange, Color Revolution stuff. Here he is on that other Putin channel, C-SPAN:
A lot of commenters here are suggesting Google took down these videos maliciously, as a conscious political act, or something along those lines. I don’t think so. I think they built a social network that is too big for human moderation, so they opted to do moderation by applying statistical models to user reports. That works great until malicious users work out how to game the system and take down videos they don’t l…
poetic
Their platform, their rules. If the rights group needs to publish videos, they should create their own platform.
Companies that interact with society need regulation as does YouTube. Its going to be hard to balance the freedom of expression vs what is harmful. In what is a grey zone I feel encouraging violence is the best line, and letting the courts sort out defamation.