New Youtube Censorship and Its Implications

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,601
Last night YouTube took to its 'Official Blog' to more or less announce that they would be taking steps to censor content they found to be "controversial" even if it didn't break any laws or violate the site's user agreement. And while the message vowed to be part of an effort to "fight terror content online," the move was met wth widespread skepticism among YouTuber's as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to censor conservative speech.​
Link

Quote from 'Youtube' regarding how it will 'fight terror':

If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.​
Link




Who will suffer, and who will benefit? Who will suffer, but shouldn't, and who will benefit that should not?

What are the implications for free speech which is a seminal Western value?

If they haven't already will other social media corporations impose the same level of censorship? Will forms of censorship vary from country to country, or be uniform in the case of censorship being rolled out by transnational corporation/s .

Again and especially if the system of censorship expands and persists, what are the implications for free speech which is a seminal Western value? What are the implications for the Western value system as a whole?
 


toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,906
Their site , they can show what they want.

If enough people don't like it , somebody will start another site. They probably felt they had yo do something to deal with the global Muslim threat which uses western technology o promote their religion, after the recent murders they had to do something.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,614
It would be concerning if the terror threat were used to silence critics of US foreign policy.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Google ( Alphabet ) heavy hitter Eric Schmidt has opinions on US Foreign Policy that are very PNAC-ish, whilst coated in a politically correct veneer.

In fact he has views that amount to using information to achieve comtrol over public opinion.

The OP is discussing the consequences that can be logically expected from this perspective.

These large US Info-monopolies are not as benign as they advertise themselves. And the establishment in this country are completely compromised in respect of all discussions on the matter.

If you want to know who is control of you, ask who is it that you do not hear criticized.
 

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,253
Their site , they can show what they want.

If enough people don't like it , somebody will start another site. They probably felt they had yo do something to deal with the global Muslim threat which uses western technology o promote their religion, after the recent murders they had to do something.
The only issue is that another site would not get status on the Google search engine. Very hard to target mass audiences like You tube can.
 
Last edited:

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,601
These large US Info-monopolies are not as benign as they advertise themselves.
Google is certainly marketed as being benign, even child-like. For example the use of bright primary colours.

I'm reminded of the rather creepy 'playrooms' in their corporate offices:



The corporate wolf in sheeps clothing?

Whatever it is it certainly has huge power and wealth. What is the potential for such a large corporation with almost total, global informational reach + vast wealth, to abuse its power?
 

L'Chaim

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
18,736
Today's terrorism comes almost exclusively from the Islamic world. How can you fight that without only targeting Muslims? You target everybody. So when you go through an airport everyone is subject to the same security measures. You change laws that restrict everyone's freedom because only to target Muslims would be unfair, as the majority of Muslims aren't involved in terrorist activities and don't support terrorism. So here with Youtube we have free speech suffering, in order to stop "terror on line".

Now if Youtube are really good at policing this they will do it properly. If not you will see videos being banned that don't actually come under the 'fight terror content online'. Many times laws, opinion pieces in newspapers etc. will try and appease those people that are restricted in promoting something (in this case terrorist promoters). So they will impose the same restrictions on those who oppose terror as to those who support terror, just to show those who support terror that they are impartial. That's wrong! So that's why Youtube will have to be very good at policing their new policy
 

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,341
It would be concerning if the terror threat were used to silence critics of US foreign policy.
No.

The really massive danger is the drip-drip effect, year in and year out, of them telling you how to think.

An awful lot that we're seeing now was being set out seventy years ago; it's just that technology is making it a lot easier.

It wasn't only the Communists and the Nazis who were planning for a New World Order.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,601
Only issue is that another site would not get status on Google search engine. Very hard to target mass audiences like on You tube.
If a new tube site is started to compete with youtube, what if Google (which owns Youtube) decide not to allow it to be used on the android platform? What if that site is censored from google search results for containing "controversial" views? What if, as a result, the new site just can't get off the ground? Demand is there, but not enough to bypass the Google monolith, as it were.

Imagine having a political debate in a huge, crowded hall (representative of the world wide web), Google is the moderator + has an extrememely high level of control over the venue. The are two sides to the debate, however the moderator decides to withhold microphones from one side only. One side is paid expenses, the other is not. One side is given access to statistics to allow them to gage changing opinions and reactions within the audience. The other side is not.

Which side will 'win'?
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,399
Whatever it is it certainly has huge power and wealth. What is the potential for such a large corporation with almost total, global informational reach + vast wealth, to abuse its power?
All power is suspect, whether State power or corporate power. In Google's case, there is an overlap and it is a nightmare for civil liberty. I suspect however that if they keep up their prejudiced behaviour they will alienate enough people for a viable alternative to be created.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,601
if Youtube are really good at policing this
Why were the various videos posted by Ron paul 'restricted', 'demonitized', etc.? Is there any way to even find out?

Why should one accept Google (who have acquired Youtube) is in any way shape or form objective when it comes to judging political speech?

Why we should we even dream that such a transnational corporation would be even remotely interesting in being politically fair? What are the political views of the elitist owners of Google? How are they relevant to the debate on freedom of expression? Are the owners of google likely to be apolitical, detatched and objective, or actively political at every turn?
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,081
Well if Youtube care about its future success it wouldnt be enforcing strict censorship laws.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,601
All power is suspect, whether State power or corporate power. In Google's case, there is an overlap and it is a nightmare for civil liberty. I suspect however that if they keep up their prejudiced behaviour they will alienate enough people for a viable alternative to be created.
How long will that take, if ever? And what happens to free speech in the mean time?
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,601
Well if Youtube care about its future success it wouldnt be enforcing strict censorship laws.
Google defines 'strict' and it also defines 'censorship', 'restriction', etc. For those already being censored, how do they challenge those definitions?
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,050
Its a frightening thought that our feeds are filtered by a company run by cultural Marxists.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Google is certainly marketed as being benign, even child-like. For example the use of bright primary colours.

I'm reminded of the rather creepy 'playrooms' in their corporate offices:



The corporate wolf in sheeps clothing?

Whatever it is it certainly has huge power and wealth. What is the potential for such a large corporation with almost total, global informational reach + vast wealth, to abuse its power?
The Objective : Never let them grow up. Keep them in a state of arrested development. Patronizing is the adjective that describes adults being treated like children.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Today's terrorism comes almost exclusively from the Islamic world. How can you fight that without only targeting Muslims? You target everybody. So when you go through an airport everyone is subject to the same security measures. You change laws that restrict everyone's freedom because only to target Muslims would be unfair, as the majority of Muslims aren't involved in terrorist activities and don't support terrorism. So here with Youtube we have free speech suffering, in order to stop "terror on line".

Now if Youtube are really good at policing this they will do it properly. If not you will see videos being banned that don't actually come under the 'fight terror content online'. Many times laws, opinion pieces in newspapers etc. will try and appease those people that are restricted in promoting something (in this case terrorist promoters). So they will impose the same restrictions on those who oppose terror as to those who support terror, just to show those who support terror that they are impartial. That's wrong! So that's why Youtube will have to be very good at policing their new policy
It would be interesting to see a lust of the shareholders of "Alphabet". ( The corporate concern that own Google).

Are there any Gulf based investors ?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top