Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

YouTube blocks archive videos of Hitler


TigerBright19
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Guardian

'YouTube blocks history teachers uploading archive videos of Hitler.'

'Teachers trying to educate about fascism hit by service’s new policy on hate speech.  YouTube has blocked some British history teachers from its service for uploading archive material related to Adolf Hitler, saying they are breaching new guidelines banning the promotion of hate speech.'

'The video-sharing website announced on Wednesday that it would remove material glorifying the Nazis from its platform in an attempt to stop people being radicalized. In the process however, it also deleted videos uploaded to help educate future generations about the risks of fascism.'

'Scott Allsop, who owns the long-running revision website and teaches at an international school in Romania, had his channel featuring hundreds of historical clips on topics ranging from the Norman conquest to the cold war deleted for breaching the rules that ban hate speech.'

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-blocks-history-teachers-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet a "Is Donald Trump the most vile disgusting Nazi-like racist evil leader in history?" video would go up just fine. I noticed during the 2016 election if you made Trump meme's on some sites that was O.K. But you couldn't create Hillary meme's.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could get away with it if they framed it with an introduction and showed only small parts of the speech, along with an analysis of why it was harmful or what it did.  But the unedited speech can be used in harmful ways and shared in harmful ways.  And it's difficult to verify that it's from a real history teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with "hate speech" (a term I abhor) is  - who gets to define what constitutes "hate speech"?...

Seems to be only one side of the political spectrum that gets to define it...

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"both men said they had sympathy with what the site was trying to achieve and acknowledged that sometimes the archive fascist material they uploaded to YouTube was viewed by the modern-day far right.

“I have for a long time been unhappy with how my films have often been hijacked by neo-fascists through the comments section, but YouTube’s actions are far too indiscriminate,” said Jones-Nerzic. "

 "A YouTube spokesperson said the company used a combination of technology and people to enforce the guidelines, and encouraged individuals to provide context to clips uploaded for educational purposes rather than simply uploading raw material. They said Allsop and Jones-Nerzic’s material had been reinstated after an appeal."

 sounds to me like youtube just wants comments disabled for the videos so they can't be hijacked by those who would use them to spread hate speech and that uploaded videos say they are used in an educational context. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

They could get away with it if they framed it with an introduction and showed only small parts of the speech, along with an analysis of why it was harmful or what it did.  But the unedited speech can be used in harmful ways and shared in harmful ways.  And it's difficult to verify that it's from a real history teacher.

You could take most Hollywood films, splice them up and argue the clips could be "used in harmful ways". Any scenes depicting gun violence, or rape or terrorism fall under that category. Free speech means all speech - including Hitlers. Setting the bar as low as "could potentially be used in a harmful way" means scrubbing half the internet at least. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

b i t c h u t e . c o m is what YouTube used to be. Many of those who have been de-platformed have moved their content over there instead. Naturally, YouTube is trying to shut them down

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still get ads on YT trying to convince me to impeach Trump so there is no credibility with me as far as YT goes. They are not banning hate speech, they are just banning speech THEY hate.

Nothing noble or progressive about that.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Taun said:

Seems to be only one side of the political spectrum that gets to define it...

This has gone beyond politics. Banning and "de-personing" is now a tool of the establishment to control the narrative. All the banning and de-monitizing across the big social media platforms has been the prelude to shutting down any truth that threatens the establishment. War crimes, environmental damages, insider trading, corrupt officials....whatever needs to be kept under wraps is going to be wiped off the internet now in a collaborative effort. The banning of Alex Jones content across every platform within a day of each other is the template for how this will look going forward. They can wrap it up in a pretty bow and pretend this is for our own good but it's obvious what the end game is here. It took a few years but the people that once controlled all the news networks have also managed to wrestle control of the biggest content outlets online. Just follow the money trail to the beginnings of Facebook, Twitter, etc. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People appear to be blowing this slightly out of proportion.

It's an algorithm designed to combat the rampant hate speech and racism on Youtube. Youtube aren't singling out videos on an individual basis and this isn't a case of teachers being targeted. Unfortunately this will inevitably lead to legitimate videos being caught in its web, but I assume Youtube will have a system that allows people to appeal or otherwise combat unfortunate cases such as this one.

On a related note, Twitter opted not to use similar software due to the amount of Republican politicians they'd have to ban.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

I bet a "Is Donald Trump the most vile disgusting Nazi-like racist evil leader in history?" video would go up just fine. I noticed during the 2016 election if you made Trump meme's on some sites that was O.K. But you couldn't create Hillary meme's.

I'm sure it depends on what corporation owns the website and what propaganda they are supporting.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone could do really well if they created a start-up video streaming service like YouTube that had less strict rules.  I can't imagine what the size of the loan to start that company would be at this point though.  HUGE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I still get ads on YT trying to convince me to impeach Trump so there is no credibility with me as far as YT goes. They are not banning hate speech, they are just banning speech THEY hate.

Nothing noble or progressive about that.

Ads are targeted based on your own viewing history and cookie information. The type of ads you see are almost never chosen by the website you're visiting.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Someone could do really well if they created a start-up video streaming service like YouTube that had less strict rules.  I can't imagine what the size of the loan to start that company would be at this point though.  HUGE.

There are loads of them. Dailymotion, Livestream and others are far less strict when it comes to rules. The problem is that Youtube now basically has a monopoly. 

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Ads are targeted based on your own viewing history and cookie information. The type of ads you see are almost never chosen by the website you're visiting.

LOL. Given that I watch animal rescue tales and New Age videos of channelers and New World spirituality in my current research, I don't buy that in this case. The impeach Trump drek is just an opportunistic barfly, IMO. YouTube has to ban it all or none of it to be "fair and balanced". That is not really their intent.

Mind you, maybe they assume only liberals like animals. That is probably exactly it.

But, the ad should not even be there if they are all worried over how nobody can make up their own minds and needs to be protected from bad ideas. They are attacking a lot of spirituality channels and even the cold case and horror genre.

Got to keep revenue up, no matter what so demonetize everything to keep it for themselves. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i watch car and airplane videos, and i get plenty of impeach trump garbage on you tube. so i too call bull crap on website is not choosing adds 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the endless march to censorship continues.

I don't even care to explain to people why this is a bad thing anymore. They won't listen.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone remembers Louder with Chrowder on YouTube, he does the "Change my mind" series.

You have all probably seen the memes. It is where he sets up a table on college campuses with a controversial statement and says change my mind. Then people have discussions with him.

 

Well he is demonitized now by YouTube because having open polite discussions is wrong. 

 

Anyone who claims they can't see biased in how these increases in censorship are being implemented  are lieing to themselves.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

LOL. Given that I watch animal rescue tales and New Age videos of channelers and New World spirituality in my current research, I don't buy that in this case. The impeach Trump drek is just an opportunistic barfly, IMO. YouTube has to ban it all or none of it to be "fair and balanced". That is not really their intent.

Mind you, maybe they assume only liberals like animals. That is probably exactly it.

But, the ad should not even be there if they are all worried over how nobody can make up their own minds and needs to be protected from bad ideas. They are attacking a lot of spirituality channels and even the cold case and horror genre.

Got to keep revenue up, no matter what so demonetize everything to keep it for themselves. 

No, that demographic you describe of what you watch on youtube puts you in the "liberal" category.  That is why you are seeing those ads.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to YouTube blocks archive videos of Hitler
3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, that demographic you describe of what you watch on youtube puts you in the "liberal" category.  That is why you are seeing those ads.

I laughed out loud to read this, then thought about it. Thought back over my decades now in the non-mainstream religious world and the politics and ideology of my fellows. 

The Dems made a bad miscalculation when they assumed the country all loved Killary because they did. They are making another one now with their persistent belief that right = abortion hating evangelicals, skin heads and the Illiterati. 

But, that is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:  I was trying to think of something pithy to say but there really is nothing you can say. Just :rolleyes: 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I laughed out loud to read this, then thought about it. Thought back over my decades now in the non-mainstream religious world and the politics and ideology of my fellows. 

The Dems made a bad miscalculation when they assumed the country all loved Killary because they did. They are making another one now with their persistent belief that right = abortion hating evangelicals, skin heads and the Illiterati. 

But, that is ok.

Yep.  I am interested in a lot of the same stuff as you but I am not a liberal or a conservative, nor do I belong to the democratic or republican party.  We need balance and they are not it.  In my opinion, the leaders of the democratic party and the leaders of the republican party decide who will win before any election ever starts.  The rest is all for show and the dems chose hillary over bernie because there was a possibility that bernie would have beat donald.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Given that I watch animal rescue tales and New Age videos of channelers and New World spirituality in my current research,

I mostly watch planes, cars and trains. What I mostly get offered are ads for lingerie and particularly outsize lingerie. And Mature Women who Always Say Yes.  Make up your own mind about that. :unsure: 

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and quite often Muslim Dating. :mellow: 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.