This is inexcusable. Just cancelled my YouTube premium subscription. All they did was play a clip from CPAC. I wish nothing but the worst for Google.
youtube is a piece of shit, I adblock them and cancelled premium as soon as they started censoring
YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
31–40 of 872 posts
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#32One of the hosts wrote this about it [1]: particularly appropriate quote: > What casual observers might not understand, however, is just how far the policy goes. Not only does YouTube punish channels that spread misinformation, but in many cases, it also punishes channels that report on the spread of misinformation. The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator. If a channel produces a…
This makes sense. The use-mention distinction does not exist in common parlance. For instance if I were to say “The n-word is reprehensible” this is acceptable but if I were to use the alternative signifier for the same referent, I would likely be banned. If not here, then in most places.
With this shift in society, it makes sense for our AI banning tools to also conflate use/mention.
It is less a programmatic problem and more a real problem. Since even if you don’t use but mention you are considered to have signal-amplified and therefore used. That is, mentioning is now using.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#33Quoted post unavailable.
They don't have any issues saying the 2000 and 2016 elections were stolen so you are probably correct.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#34[deleted]
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#35One of the hosts wrote this about it [1]: particularly appropriate quote: > What casual observers might not understand, however, is just how far the policy goes. Not only does YouTube punish channels that spread misinformation, but in many cases, it also punishes channels that report on the spread of misinformation. The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator. If a channel produces a…
Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Not at all. Google is a private concern with the right to publish or not any content they see fit. That they can defacto censor opinions they don’t approve of is a failure of the market.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#36Quoted post unavailable.
John Mearsheimer is now "Russian propaganda"? LOL
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#37I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…
Meming about and being afraid of WW3 is critical in containing/deescalating it. WW1 happened partly because nobody was afraid of it happenning.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#38Quoted post unavailable.
I don't recall the Women's March on DC storming the capitol in an effort to prevent ratification, but sure, if you define 'messed with' broadly enough, you will be 'technically correct'.
In much the same way as dying of starvation can be technically described as 'missing a couple of meals'.
The difference between the two sides is that one believes that the system works, but is unfair, and the other one believes nothing.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Not at all. Google is a private concern with the right to publish or not any content they see fit. That they can defacto censor opinions they don’t approve of is a failure of the market.
Corporations do not have rights, they are government-defined entities—not people. There's no "Bill of Corporate Rights" or "UN Convention on Corporate Rights."
Corporations have locally-defined privileges and exist by, and at, the will of the people where they reside. Governments can change what those privileges are at any moment, for any reason—or no reason at all.
If we don't like what Google is doing, we can simply write laws regulating it differently.
-----
In reply:
> "In a U.S. historical context, the phrase "corporate personhood" refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Hint: ongoing legal debate, i.e. it's up to government to decide what "corporate personhood" means—exactly what I am saying. It's up to government, not "inalienable" or "natural" or whatever.
It's a purely legal question whether trillion dollar corporate mega-platforms with billions of users have the same regulations and responsibilities as widows and orphans. We don't have to let the Googles and Facebooks and Amazons and YouTubes of the world trample on basic human rights "because ackshually, corporations are people too." Certainly nothing about the 14th Amendment requires it.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#40Quoted post unavailable.
Curious about where you see an institutionalized support on the left for election tampering claims, if you have any sources.
Not GP, but Hilary Clinton 2016 [1]:
> “There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
[1]: https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-electi...
Hilary Clinton again in 2020 (which is the same election that Trump complains about, by the way) [2]:
> The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee predicted that among several scenarios, Republicans are going to try to “mess up absentee balloting” so that they could get a potentially narrow advantage in the Electoral College.
> “We've got to have a massive legal operation, I know the Biden campaign is working on that,” she said. “We have to have poll workers, and I urge people, who are able, to be a poll worker. We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places. This is a big organizational challenge, but at least we know more about what they're going to do.”
[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clint...
I also remember well the "Selected not elected" days after Bush v. Gore. That went on the entire time that Bush was president and went to sleep for a couple of terms when Obama won.
Just to be clear, I'm not making a judgement on who is right here. I think the truth is a lot more nuanced than "right or wrong." I;m just pointing out that we have a long history of politicians/parties questioning election results, but until now we've never had widespread attempts to silence it.