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 -
UM-Bot

YouTube's war on conspiracy videos continues

142 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

cerberusxp
On 3/4/2020 at 10:55 AM, WanderingFool0 said:

I don't believe they will. If a government wants to go against free speech, it first goes after those that the majority won't defend, than using those cases they set case law and precedence to curtail free speech for other groups.

Now, though youtube is a private company and therefore sole deciders of the data content they provide, I would say like those governments they are going after the most vocal and the least likely to be defended first and later they will continue to prune their data tree, until it only contains content that agrees with the company and possibly the states opinion and directive.

In any case, it opens the doors for their competition and I don't think anyone should stay on youtube.

Operation Mockingbird never ended only now it is being run by rogue agents. People in Hollywood admit that many of the movies scripts were changed by the Clowns in America to further a clandestine agenda. NWO!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
4 hours ago, cerberusxp said:

So we have the Big tech Conspirators quashing truth calling it a conspiracy when they are like NAZI book burners!

Why shut down those doing actual journalism uncovering conspiracy to keep you PROGRAMMED.

Sure there are a lot of crap on you tube too but Redpill78 and Spaceshot 76 do their best to vet information.

Dan Bongino waits 24 to 48 hours when the MSM comes out with some Orange man bad stuff and 9 times out of 10 it is all lies and contrived B.S..

Remember a lie travels around the earth many times before the truth comes out been that way for generations.

Watch the last Table of Titans video those guys get messed with by the algorithms and flat out blocking because they said something refer to data that's true and the masters of content don't like it.

Why doesn't the CT community pool their resources to host their own video content website like YouTube?

Conspirators? I find that hard to believe. If that's really the case then why wouldn't the evil government just pay medical intuitions to have studies to show and categorize CTs as dangerous mentally ill people that need to be institutionalized (imprisoned)? Then with that backed finding where's the federal, state and local laws to put all those "crazies" in jail to protect the public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
49 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Why doesn't the CT community pool their resources to host their own video content website like YouTube?

Because then they couldn't claim that they were being persecuted. Also it would limit their recruiting pool.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TellLieVision
On 3/4/2020 at 2:01 AM, Only_ said:

 

I think there's a pretty good case to be made that this is a form of censorship. And that isnt good for the internet. From what I read, they are basically reducing the recommendations of conspiracy videos offered to viewers. So they are - albeit indirectly - censoring conspiracy content.

 

Is there a way to ger round it? It's getting more and more difficut to find videos on conspiracy theories.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Candor
On 7/10/2020 at 10:19 PM, TellLieVision said:

 

Is there a way to ger round it? It's getting more and more difficut to find videos on conspiracy theories.

I find most of them on bit chute (it wouldn't let me spell it in 1 word). That is where I found "The Boston Unbombing", you sure would never find that on Youtube. I gave up Youtube a long time ago. 

Edited by Candor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 3/19/2020 at 9:41 AM, Emma_Acid said:

YouTube can show whatever they and their shareholders want. People don't seem to really understand what "censorship" and "freedom of speech" really mean. They are not about YouTube, Twitter or Facebook content.

A valid argument can be made that these social media platforms have become an essential part of the nation's speech.  I think section 230 needs to be revisted.  The intent of that law was never about allowing one political party to dominate the public square by means of owning the medium.  People on the Left can do damned near anything and never be called out.  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.  They need to be regulated like public utilities.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth

I know youtube banned David Icke not too long ago, but of course he has his own site, and I believe he was created his own video hosting page. People forget YouTube is a privilege and you agree to the terms of service to use their site. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
20 hours ago, and then said:

No one on the Left would stand for that kind of treatment yet they routinely suppress opinions they disagree with.  They need to be regulated like public utilities.

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

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 7/23/2020 at 10:08 AM, and then said:

A valid argument can be made that these social media platforms have become an essential part of the nation's speech.  I think section 230 needs to be revisted.  The intent of that law was never about allowing one political party to dominate the public square by means of owning the medium.

One political party doesn't "own the medium". The founders and shareholders of Twitter banning far right accounts does not mean that the Democrats own the platform. If the far Right want a social media platform they can ban liberals from, they need to found their own.

Quote

People on the Left can do damned near anything and never be called out.  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.  

You're kidding right? The print and broadcast media in the UK and the States has been absolutely dominated by aggressive right wing politics for decades now. During the Brexit debate, the majority of British newspapers were virtual mouthpieces for the Leave section of the Government and their sponsors. So don't say we "wouldn't stand for it", we've been standing for it for years.

If conservatives (and by that I'm sure you mean those closer to the far Right) are being "banned", maybe you need to look at what they're saying compared to what the people who aren't being banned are saying? As in, the actual content, not just the political stance. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
22 hours ago, Scholar4Truth said:

I know youtube banned David Icke not too long ago, but of course he has his own site, and I believe he was created his own video hosting page. People forget YouTube is a privilege and you agree to the terms of service to use their site. 

They're a service. If there was a billboard company who refused to host a message they deemed offensive or harmful, that's their right. But I guess And Then wants billboards to be considered utilities too?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
22 hours ago, Scholar4Truth said:

I know youtube banned David Icke not too long ago, but of course he has his own site, and I believe he was created his own video hosting page. People forget YouTube is a privilege and you agree to the terms of service to use their site

The Decency in Communications act was passed when the internet was in its infancy.  This act protected the platforms against liability for content that they hosted.  Today, we are FAR from its infancy and these platforms- Twitter and Facebook among them - have become a 21st century town hall where Americans go for news and political speech.  They are no longer fulfilling their responsibilities to all the people.   Zuckerberg and Dorsey have become insanely wealthy for their efforts but they have begun implementing censorship on political views they disagree with.  Section 230 of that previously mentioned Act needs to be tweaked such that these platforms carry ALL legal speech or they need to be forcibly regulated like a utility.

They have an insurmountable monopoly and if they refuse to level the field and allow all speech, then they need to be held liable for all content just like publishers.

Edited by and then
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

So they've reduced how much they recommend bs content.  

I say they shouldn't recommend it at all. Lol. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
16 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

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

--Jaylemurph

Yes poor old @and then never gets to post his opinion on anything. Censorship gone mad. :whistle: 

Some times it might be a good idea to see what happens outside you echo chamber, so perhaps its not such a bad idea to limit recommendations afterall ? 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Yes poor old @and then never gets to post his opinion on anything. Censorship gone mad. :whistle: 

Some times it might be a good idea to see what happens outside you echo chamber, so perhaps its not such a bad idea to limit recommendations afterall ? 

It's just astounding that THIS is what people think is censorship...and folks being pulled off the street in unmarked vans with no due process...well apparently they have no problem with that at all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
37 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

It's just astounding that THIS is what people think is censorship...and folks being pulled off the street in unmarked vans with no due process...well apparently they have no problem with that at all.

FWIW, I have never met anyone who thinks that is OK, and I have never read a post here that suggests the poster would be OK with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

So they've reduced how much they recommend bs content.  

I say they shouldn't recommend it at all. Lol. 

With the exception of removing incitement to violence against individuals or groups, I don't think these platforms should legally be able to censor ANYTHING.  If they continue on this path, those who disagree with the Left will be silenced totally and history is pretty clear about what happens when you push ideas underground to fester.  Those who own these platforms have no business censoring any speech.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 7/25/2020 at 12:18 AM, GlitterRose said:

and folks being pulled off the street in unmarked vans with no due process.

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*

Edited by Saru
See rule 3n.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
7 hours ago, and then said:

With the exception of removing incitement to violence against individuals or groups, I don't think these platforms should legally be able to censor ANYTHING.  If they continue on this path, those who disagree with the Left will be silenced totally and history is pretty clear about what happens when you push ideas underground to fester.  Those who own these platforms have no business censoring any speech.

Don't the platform owners have any rights ?

There is a list of undesirable content a mile long that nobody would want on any platform, should platform owners be forced to host such material against their will ? 

Do we really want a system where a comment that "disagrees with the left" must not be touched, no matter how offensive or inappropriate, for fear of legal reprisal ?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
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*

So now you think it's anyone who protests and anyone who reports news, and anyone who dares to say they don't like what the president is doing should get a "dirt nap?"

Again, that's not the America I grew up in. 

Freedom of the press, right to assembly, due process...these are fundamental aspects of America. 

And that has nothing to do with platform owners instituting rules. They don't owe it to anyone to be a mouthpiece for every crackpot. 

And again...if people are doing illegal things, then the actual police arrest them in accordance with the rules. 

You don't have unmarked vehicles with unidentified men just grabbing people off the streets...in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
7 hours ago, Saru said:

Don't the platform owners have any rights ?

Doesn't that depend upon who the platform owners are?

If the platform owners of youtube and twitter are largely Chinese, for example, are they protected (and regulated) by US free speech rights if their massive influence is aggressively used to sway or suppress public opinion within the US?  Or are they immune?

We already have a "system" where comments that "disagree with the right" are mostly untouched...yet some fear what might happen to the left if their platforms were regulated to prevent one-sided, heavy-handed censoring of either side.

It's a complicated issue that won't be solved by simplistic rhetoric and black/white mischaracterizations.

To answer your question, yes, platform owners have the right to operate legally...according to the laws of each country in which they operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
23 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

We already have a "system" where comments that "disagree with the right" are mostly untouched...

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
3 minutes ago, Saru said:

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 ?

Certainly the current twitter banning of "dangerous" accounts is being described as nothing short of a bloodbath.  We can pretend we don't see it, but, like pretending protests in US cities are all "peaceful", or that human trafficking is a conspiracy theory, objective analysis shows otherwise.  The data is out there...choosing to see it is an individual choice.

As to your last question, you're quite correct that it would be a hopeless mess to try to "steer" any trends one way or the other...and become ridiculously politicized.

The only solution is to legislate a "hands off" rule for all major platforms (which have become as ubiquitous as public utilities), or have government take them over and run them as public utilities.

Communication on social media has become as essential to the public as water and electricity.  If either of those utilities were in private hands and certain ideological groups were "canceled" because of their views, how would that play out?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
12 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

The only solution is to legislate a "hands off" rule for all major platforms (which have become as ubiquitous as public utilities)

I certainly agree that companies like Google have way too much power - however we also have to be careful about implementing laws to restrict what these companies can do based on perceived political biases, because that's a very subjective basis on which to take action.

Quote

or have government take them over and run them as public utilities.

Handing direct control of the majority of the world's social media services over to the government sounds like the worst possible scenario for anyone concerned about freedom of speech and political neutrality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
5 hours ago, Saru said:

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 ?

Short answer: No, there isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
13 hours ago, Saru said:

Do we really want a system where a comment that "disagrees with the left" must not be touched, no matter how offensive or inappropriate, for fear of legal reprisal ?

You kind of made my point.  That is increasingly and UNDENIABLY what many platforms are doing to those on the Right already.  When all of these platforms are controlled by individuals who are in ideological lockstep, at a minimum, they should apply their standards of what is "offensive or inappropriate" based on something other than their personal politics and again, that clearly isn't the case.  They are activists and they are using the power they have to shape events through censorship.  They need to voluntarily engage with those who provide content and find some level of consensus where all can be heard, or they need to face real penalties.

All I want is the right to be a part of the critical discussions that are going on.  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.  This isn't a subtle campaign that they're up to.  They're powerful AND arrogant and they need to be held accountable for  censorship of ONE type of political speech.

I'm obviously not including threats of violence or attempts to instigate such.  That isn't even a tiny fraction of what Twitter and You Tube or FB are doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.