YouTube Corporate Censorship

[remington50]

After five days of investigation, YouTube decided that conservative pundit Steven Crowder’s use of homophobic language to talk about Vox host Carlos Maza didn’t violate its community guidelines.

Creators aren’t surprised that YouTube won’t enforce its own policies against harassment

Has anyone else been following this? The funny thing about all of this? Crowder isn’t even remotely radical, he isn’t homophobic, and the main reason that bitch Maza is mad is because Crowder exposes his stupidity on a regular basis. That stupidity primarily being that he is a cry baby who doesn’t like that other people have opinions counter to his own.

YouTube has actually completely demonetized Crowder. Which is a joke of course. Especially when you have some incredibly hateful crap coming from the left.

 

[remington50]

Here is more content from Maza’s View. Of course it doesn’t matter that he is being mocked and ridiculed for his political opinions. Or that Crowder has never once advocated for him to be attacked. And it also doesn’t matter that Maza’s people are going after and flagging non hate speech content. They have gone so far as to attack change my mind segments where regular people debate topics

YouTube may allow hate speech if it’s part of a larger argument. Yikes.

 

[remington50]

I’m really curious how people feel about an organization that is about “free speech” trying to limit it simply because they don’t like the views expressed.

 

[Sparta]

YouTube has been pulling a lot of content lately, I wouldn't consider it a platform for free speech. Twitter and facebook are no better though.

 

[johnflesh]

I don't know much about Crowder or the creators removed, demonetized, but I can tell you that Youtube is starting to head into a different direction. It will cater to more professional content and creators vs. podcasters (as an example) no matter how many subscriptions these channels have. Google (who owns Youtube) controls every single aspect of finding and viewing content, to the advertising around it, the rank in search listings all the way to the payouts for revenues.

What we as people (and in some cases content creators) are doing wrong is relying on 1 company to provide us the means, space and the incentive to post and watch content. And when it doesn't go as planned, we complain endlessly.

Why do we rely so heavily on a single company, software, or solution to create things?
The same can be said of medical software/hardware, graphic programs, content platform(s), communications, social media.

The internet is for information, knowledge but let me give you an example of how it's been railroaded by companies like Google:
When you search the word 'progressive' in Google what do you get?

What you should get is the standardized definition of the word, then information that expands from that point.
But what you actually get is ads for a company called Progressive.

Google is just one big ad - and we are the product offered to companies.

Think about it for a bit.

 

[johnflesh]

I’m really curious how people feel about an organization that is about “free speech” trying to limit it simply because they don’t like the views expressed.

Youtube has never once claimed to be about free speech. Not once.

In fact, if you read their posting guidelines you will see there is so many rules - from what you say, to what you do, to who is on the video, to content owned by others, to kids appearing in the videos, and now even certain cuss words will get you a de-listed rating.

 

[caffeine]

I don't know much about Crowder or the creators removed, demonetized, but I can tell you that Youtube is starting to head into a different direction. It will cater to more professional content and creators vs. podcasters (as an example) no matter how many subscriptions these channels have. Google (who owns Youtube) controls every single aspect of finding and viewing content, to the advertising around it, the rank in search listings all the way to the payouts for revenues.

What we as people (and in some cases content creators) are doing wrong is relying on 1 company to provide us the means, space and the incentive to post and watch content. And when it doesn't go as planned, we complain endlessly.

Why do we rely so heavily on a single company, software, or solution to create things?
The same can be said of medical software/hardware, graphic programs, content platform(s), communications, social media.

The internet is for information, knowledge but let me give you an example of how it's been railroaded by companies like Google:
When you search the word 'progressive' in Google what do you get?

What you should get is the standardized definition of the word, then information that expands from that point.
But what you actually get is ads for a company called Progressive.

Google is just one big ad - and we are the product offered to companies.

Think about it for a bit.

Agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you're a bit off regarding search results. Firstly, because what I get and what you get are always going to be different - Google is not some standardised index that any one can look up in the same way. If I search for 'Progressive' using this phone, in Chrome, via my data package, the top result is a nonprofit organisation helping people with substance abuse problems.

Now, as for what the top result should be, you think the dictionary definition of the word, but that seems an odd choice to me. If I wanted a dictionary definition, I'd be using a dictionary, not a search engine.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you're a bit off regarding search results. Firstly, because what I get and what you get are always going to be different - Google is not some standardised index that any one can look up in the same way. If I search for 'Progressive' using this phone, in Chrome, via my data package, the top result is a nonprofit organisation helping people with substance abuse problems.

Now, as for what the top result should be, you think the dictionary definition of the word, but that seems an odd choice to me. If I wanted a dictionary definition, I'd be using a dictionary, not a search engine.

You aren't in the US. Pretty much the entire first page of results that I just got were for the Progressive Insurance Company.

 

[caffeine]

You aren't in the US. Pretty much the entire first page of results that I just got were for the Progressive Insurance Company.

I am now on my home laptop on firefox; and here the front page of results is dominated by the insurance company. The non-profit gets in third place; but this shows up beneath the 'top' news stories that are also about the insurance company.

The video results are mostly about learning the progressive verb aspect in English. I thought I spoke English pretty fluently, but I don't even know what that is.

ABE: Well that's interesting - when I switched to a US IP address I get actual paid ads at the top, which didn't show up with a Czech IP. Twice as many through Chrome as through Firefox as well. Both browsers showed the Progressive Magazine's site on the first page of results with US IP though.

 

[The Man]

YouTube and Google are hardly defenders of free speech lol

Last year, for instance, they pulled down content of Russian opposition activists from YouTube, by demand of Putin's censors: Google pulls Russian opposition leader's YouTube advert ahead of vote - Reuters

I get that they must comply with local laws over there if they want to keep doing business in that country, but, still...