YouTube's war on conspiracy videos continues

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Short answer: No, there isn't.

Because those who are doing it certainly would document and self-report, right?  Don't be ridiculous.  This isn't about crying because Zuckerberg doesn't agree with me.  It's about being damned angry because he and Dorsey think they have the right to dictate WHO gets to speak at all.  If you're okay with that situation then I think if the tables were turned you just might disagree.  Or, to be more realistic of the Left, try to use violent intimidation.  Pushing speech you don't care for out of the public square only leaves it to fester in the dark.

[+and-then]

On 7/24/2020 at 12:12 AM, jaylemurph said:

Yep. That Leftist ban on free speech. It's why you're never allowed to post anything here.

--Jaylemurph

Last I checked, this isn't YT, FB or Twitter.  But nice dodge.  

[+and-then]

On 7/24/2020 at 10:32 AM, Emma_Acid said:

If the far Right want a social media platform they can ban liberals from, they need to found their own.

Yeah, that shouldn't be too difficult.  The owners of the others are billionaires but I'm sure they wouldn't attempt to create obstacles.   I know you aren't naive, so try not to sound ridiculous.  As to banning speech we don't like?  It's never been an issue at this level.  OTOH, all the platforms seem to have one commonality.   Care to guess?  People who suppress a thing are fearful of it.  Considering the exception I included for actual threats of violence or even clear instigation of same, it seems to me like the Left just has a problem with their message having ANY potential competition.

[Saru]

9 hours ago, and then said:

You kind of made my point.  That is increasingly and UNDENIABLY what many platforms are doing to those on the Right already. 

...

Many who hold similar views are being shadow banned or just cut loose with no explanation and the numbers of them give the lie to the idea that they all committed some serious infraction. 

But where is this happening ? To who ? If it's undeniable, it should be very easy to back this up.

I refer to my earlier question:

Quote

This is a claim that keeps coming up and is being used as a justification for suggesting changes to the laws governing social media platforms, but apart from Trump complaining after one of his Tweets was flagged, is there any actual evidence of right-wing views being suppressed in favor of left-wing views on social media ?

Where is the data ? How would such a thing even be quantified in a way sufficiently meaningful to determine such a trend one way or the other ?

Repeatedly stating that this alleged suppression of the right is happening doesn't make it true.

I'd like to understand the basis of this claim.

[ChrLzs]

On 7/23/2020 at 7:08 PM, and then said:

Conservatives are regularly shadow banned, demonitized or outright banned for differences of opinion.  No one on the Left would stand for that kind of treatment yet they routinely suppress opinions they disagree with.

Like Saru, I'd ask you to name names.  Or you can withdraw the claim, of course.

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 7/25/2020 at 2:24 AM, and then said:

These "peaceful protesters" have been assaulting a Federal facility for many nights and they have tried to set it on fire.  If these agents/officers did nothing, the crowd will keep escalating until someone dies.  If the officers leave the building to push them back, they are assaulted with bricks, lasers,paint,one guy even got shot with a pellet rifle.  Those who are picked up and carried away are either questioned and released or they are arrested.  Detaining suspects is NOT denial of "due process".  Those who have been arrested will be tried the same way the law works for everyone else.

The lies that you guys are repeating may well lead to seriously widespread, deadly violence.  Violence that NONE of us want or need.  This Orange Man Bad insanity is about to burn this country down and no one is going to escape the consequences.  

*snip*

You know one of these days your violence crap is going to catch up with you. Someone is going to report you comments to the Federal Authorities, because your comments are becoming terrorist threats, or even at times sedition. With all the violence our country has experienced over the last three years, with mass shooting rampages, Violence directed at minorities, and the LGBT community along with many other Violent threats, your comments could easily get all your weapons confiscated, because it seems your threats are getting darker and more defined. If I were you I would think closely about what I am saying to you, also please I realize this is not a threat it is advise and nothing more. In the future please leave the violence you promote out of these threads, because many people including myself are getting of your comments and the Conspiracy theories you and friends promote.

Take Care and good luck.

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Like Saru, I'd ask you to name names.  Or you can withdraw the claim, of course.

Dont waste your time, he has lost touch with reality and he is so full of hate he is going to self destruct, Like you I am dam tired of his bull crap and that of his supporters. I wish no one an harm, but him and many of the others are delusional there is no telling what they will do next. I just hope when Trump loses in November that none of them hurt themselves or that matter anyone else.

Take Care man

[ian hacktorp]

5 hours ago, Saru said:

Repeatedly stating that this alleged suppression of the right is happening doesn't make it true.

The converse of this statement, obviously, also applies.

There are quite a number of very recent articles and reports available concerning the banning by Twitter of pro-Trump groups on their platform that you can easily find, if you truly have an interest.  But that appears not to be the case.

I find that odd.

[Saru]

30 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

The converse of this statement, obviously, also applies.

I have never claimed that it isn't happening, I am simply asking why people think that it is and/or why they believe such actions are politically motivated.

30 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

There are quite a number of very recent articles and reports available concerning the banning by Twitter of pro-Trump groups on their platform that you can easily find

The banning of Twitter accounts in itself is not conclusive evidence of the suppression of right-wing opinions in favor of the left.

One has to disregard the official reasons for such bans and inject political motivations in order to make it such.

30 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

if you truly have an interest.  But that appears not to be the case.

How so ?

Any law changes implemented in response to such issues have the potential to affect this forum as well.

[ian hacktorp]

4 minutes ago, Saru said:

I have never stated that it isn't happening, I am simply asking why people think that it is and/or why they believe such actions are politically motivated.

The banning of Twitter accounts in itself is not evidence of the suppression of right-wing opinions in favor of the left.

One has to disregard the official reasons for such bans and inject political motivations in order to make it such.

How so ?

I should think one would have to stand in complete denial of the very obvious and extreme polarization along political lines of society at large in order to claim banning of certain political groups on social media platforms is somehow not politically motivated.  The power to influence public opinion by large, massively popular platforms, would also, strangely, have to be denied.

Official "reasons" for bans need not be disregarded, but rather should be analyzed for their credibility vis-a-vis the effect their bans have on their subscribers.

I'm reminded of that scene in the Monte Python film:  "A SCRATCH?  Your arm's off!"  "No it isn't!"

Can both claims be 'correct'?  I'm not so sure...

[Saru]

4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

banning of certain political groups on social media platforms

The banning of which political group(s) in particular do you consider most damning in this regard ?

[ian hacktorp]

3 minutes ago, Saru said:

The banning of which political group(s) in particular do you consider most damning in this regard ?

I'm not sure I'd use the word "damning", but the banning of pro-Trump groups appears to be the most obvious politically-motivated censorship.

It is also much-discussed that most, if not all, of the largest social media companies as well as tech firms like Google have become places where leftist employees dominate company culture and have effectively driven out everyone else.

Does any of this constitute "conclusive evidence"?  In a polarized world, everything is subjective...

[Saru]

6 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I'm not sure I'd use the word "damning", but the banning of pro-Trump groups appears to be the most obvious politically-motivated censorship.

It is also much-discussed that most, if not all, of the largest social media companies as well as tech firms like Google have become places where leftist employees dominate company culture and have effectively driven out everyone else.

Does any of this constitute "conclusive evidence"?  In a polarized world, everything is subjective...

What I will say is that we've had issues here with Google stamping down on "conspiratorial content" - similar to the topic of this thread, except instead of on YouTube it's in the Google search results. Sites like this one have been 'suppressed' to an extent, I suppose you could say, on that basis.

I wouldn't assume that it's inherently political on Google's part, however, more a case of keeping their advertisers / commercial partners happy (who may or may not be driven by political affiliations themselves - so who knows).

That is also a factor that is likely to influence the actions of Twitter and Facebook.

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 hours ago, Saru said:

The banning of which political group(s) in particular do you consider most damning in this regard ?

Thanks for editing out andthens comments about the violence that he is constantly posting about that is coming or that he wishes he could do to those he views as threats. You did him a favor, but I don't know if he will or can understand that. Most likely he will see it censorship which he claims is out of control, I hope he understands the true purpose of what you did, because it was the right thing to do.

Take Care

Edited July 27, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Saru said:

What I will say is that we've had issues here with Google stamping down on "conspiratorial content" - similar to the topic of this thread, except instead of on YouTube it's in the Google search results. Sites like this one have been 'suppressed' to an extent, I suppose you could say, on that basis.

The issue for me is that there is no agreed upon, truly objective standard for these judgments because these platforms are considered to be privately held.  No one I know wants to cripple our ability to freely exchange ideas.  Who decides what is "conspiratorial"?  The short answer is that the owners make that call.  Since all human beings have a bias based on their world view and since all of these platforms are owned and controlled by one overarching ideology, the censorship is clearly occurring to one group and far less, if at all, to the other.  If you are demanding I give you statistics on this, I can't all I have is anecdotal evidence from the internet.  

I'd think that having a discussion in Congress about the issue, possibly even an investigation, would be beneficial for all.  

[ChrLzs]

35 minutes ago, and then said:

The issue for me is that there is no agreed upon, truly objective standard for these judgments because these platforms are considered to be privately held.

Doesn't that simple fact guarantee at least some diversity and freedom of opinion?  It would be better if it was totally controlled, would it?

Quote

No one I know wants to cripple our ability to freely exchange ideas.

Except you, apparently.  Stop whining about not getting a fair hearing, and try to realise that:
1. You might be wrong.
2. You might not be getting the reception you want because you are presenting your case poorly.

If you (politely) put up a good case, and that case is backed up in reality by what is happening, why would there be a problem?

Quote

Who decides what is "conspiratorial"?

The reader.  The voter.  Hopefully using some semblance of discretion and intelligence.  Hopefully by listening to all viewpoints. Hopefully not restricting their inputs to only the sites/sources that they love.  Hopefully knowing how to, and applying that knowledge to get as close to the truth as possible.

Quote

The short answer is that the owners make that call.

And of course they have every right to.

Quote

Since all human beings have a bias based on their world view and since all of these platforms are owned and controlled by one overarching ideology, the censorship is clearly occurring to one group and far less, if at all, to the other.

What?  Seriously, do you know how paranoid that sounds?

Quote

If you are demanding I give you statistics on this, I can't all I have is anecdotal evidence from the internet.

Which you have utterly failed to do.  The plural of anecdote is not data, let alone knowledge, let alone wisdom.  And we are not demanding statistics, just evidence - what 'ideology' is censoring you, and how?  Be careful how you answer, given some rather ironic recent happenings..

Quote

I'd think that having a discussion in Congress about the issue, possibly even an investigation, would be beneficial for all.  

Do present the specific things that you want investigated and why.  Otherwise, I guess you'll just keep flopping out these handwaves - aren't your arms tired?

Edited July 27, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Grim Reaper 6]

15 minutes ago, and then said:

The issue for me is that there is no agreed upon, truly objective standard for these judgments because these platforms are considered to be privately held.  No one I know wants to cripple our ability to freely exchange ideas.  Who decides what is "conspiratorial"?  The short answer is that the owners make that call.  Since all human beings have a bias based on their world view and since all of these platforms are owned and controlled by one overarching ideology, the censorship is clearly occurring to one group and far less, if at all, to the other.  If you are demanding I give you statistics on this, I can't all I have is anecdotal evidence from the internet.  

I'd think that having a discussion in Congress about the issue, possibly even an investigation, would be beneficial for all.  

Who decides if something is a Conspiracy Theory or not in simply, if something isn't fact based but repeated over and over again it is a Conspiracy Theory. Yes the owners do make that call based upon the facts presented on the subject, and the site owners have every right within the law to ban that content, so what's your argument?

No one Demanded that you should you give statistics, only that you show proof you comments are fact based. You say well you can't do that because the anecdotal evidence is from the internet, we'll post your anecdotal evidences or links to it. You have been making these claims along with other Trump supporters for sometime, at least try and prove your point with some form of fact based data.

You see by not being able to post factual information, like almost all supporters of President Trump do how can what you say be taken seriously and not viewed as Conspiracy Theory. This is exactly why owners of the sites you feel are bias ban such content, and in reality because there is no proof, they have every right to do so.

Oh and by the way, Saru did you a big favor by cleaning up your post were you were ranting about all the violence that is coming if Trump Supports don't get their way. Along with your comments about hunting down people to give them a dirt nap, you are starting to lose it. But, you should thank Saru for having your back and deleting those comments, those comments which you speak frequently can cause you some personal problems you apparently don't even see coming.

Taken Care

[XenoFish]

May Saint Alex of Jones protect us in this trying time.

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, XenoFish said:

May Saint Alex of Jones protect us in this trying time.

I've been spending more time lately listening to a YT channel of a guy who's been a Left leaning type for many years who has been going through a red-pill event.  He talks all the time about people he knows who are suspended or banned for speech that is in NO WAY like Alex Jones.  Those who demand proof that media or social media sites are disproportionately targeting speech they disagree with, FROM those same media sources or social media sites, are behaving irrationally, IMO.

If there is some other source that could independently confirm or deny this trend, I don't know of it.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

He talks all the time about people he knows who are suspended or banned for speech that is in NO WAY like Alex Jones.

How do you know what he's saying is accurate?

2 minutes ago, and then said:

Those who demand proof that media or social media sites are disproportionately targeting speech they disagree with, FROM those same media sources or social media sites, are behaving irrationally, IMO.

Not 'proof', evidence is fine, and evidence is a huge factor in what makes claims rational or not.  It's definitely questionably rational to just believe something you hear on youtube, let alone that it's totally inconsistent with your overall point which is that there is a bunch of misinformation on social media.  You're not applying the same reasoning and standards to the things you agree with vs the things you don't agree with, and double standards is pretty much the definition of 'illogical'.  

[XenoFish]

11 minutes ago, and then said:

I've been spending more time lately listening to a YT channel of a guy who's been a Left leaning type for many years who has been going through a red-pill event.  He talks all the time about people he knows who are suspended or banned for speech that is in NO WAY like Alex Jones.  Those who demand proof that media or social media sites are disproportionately targeting speech they disagree with, FROM those same media sources or social media sites, are behaving irrationally, IMO.

If there is some other source that could independently confirm or deny this trend, I don't know of it.

My comment was meant as a joke.... 

A little bit of humor in here.

[jaylemurph]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

How do you know what he's saying is accurate?

Because he says what AT wants to hear. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Kismit]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

How do you know what he's saying is accurate?

Not 'proof', evidence is fine, and evidence is a huge factor in what makes claims rational or not.  It's definitely questionably rational to just believe something you hear on youtube, let alone that it's totally inconsistent with your overall point which is that there is a bunch of misinformation on social media.  You're not applying the same reasoning and standards to the things you agree with vs the things you don't agree with, and double standards is pretty much the definition of 'illogical'.  

Possibly the mere existence of videos claiming right-wing is being targeted is evidence that intact it isn't.  

Or maybe it's just videos with right-wing opinions in them and not the videos which claim to be able to substantiate the bias.

YouTube should get on top of that. It's a glaringly large loophole in the cover up.

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, XenoFish said:

My comment was meant as a joke.... 

A little bit of humor in here.

Actually, I twigged to that after I posted.  The rest of what I said, I stand by, though.  If Trump manages to be re-elected and the Left don't try to burn the country down, I hope the Congress revisits Section 230.  There shouldn't be a huge resistance to tweaking the language such that there is an agreed upon standard for suspending or banning anyone based on political opinions.  There is a danger anytime Congress gets a chance to take more power at the expense of all of us but for those on the Right, the censorship is here now, so we don't have as much to lose as the Left who control the dissemination of political speech to their benefit.  

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Kismit said:

Or maybe it's just videos with right-wing opinions in them and not the videos which claim to be able to substantiate the bias.

If you actually want to judge the evidence he cites for yourself:

 

Yeah... it actually IS a thing.  Again, I'd post the evidence of what's happening but that would require those doing the banning and censoring to document their actions and have an honest member of media report on it.  Dorsey and Zuckerberg need to get ahead of the curve or they may just find themselves being treated like publishers.