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

Obviousman

This might ring a bell with some people here...

I was an administrator at a forum similar to this. The left-leaning people were always complaining that we were 'censoring' them. So did the right-leaning people. I assembled a team of moderators from the left, the right, the moderates, CT'ers, skeptics, etc.

All everyone did was fight amongst themselves.

So we updated the mod team with people who had proven to be fair & reasonable, sacked the other mods, updated the rules and told everyone: "These are the rules and they WILL be enforced without exception. You think you have been treated unfairly? Submit a complaint to the review team. Don't like the review decision? Don't let the door hit you on the **** on your way out".

There are still heated debates and disagreements but now everyone sticks to the rules. If they want to say something prohibited by the rules, they can go elsewhere and perhaps set up their own forum.

Edited by Obviousman
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
22 hours 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.  

What piece got taken down that shouldn't have?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
54 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

What piece got taken down that shouldn't have?

Yes, andthen - just one good example would do, to make this thread begin to have value....  Surely someone saved a copy, or are the ebil MIB just that good..

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
23 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

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

It kind of draws away from his case when his own posts are calling for a bunch of people to get dirt naps.

If comments like that are the ones getting deleted, it's not surprising, and very appropriate.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

What piece got taken down that shouldn't have?

I think you're missing the point here.  To answer your question, the complaint is that sites will remove content that is posted by Trump supporters or just those with a Conservative view point, while leaving posts that agree with the Left even though they clearly are more focused on aggression, threats, or are patently false.

It isn't "piece" BTW.  This goes on daily at Twitter and YouTube and the target always seems to be the Right.  As to your question of pieces taken down "that shouldn't have", this is the whole point.  There is no agreed upon standard for the decisions that are made.  It's basically at the discretion of employees or algorithms which seem to have a distinct penchant for slapping down one kind of content more than another.  Until these owners decide to make an effort to clarify policy and apply it evenly, they need to be pressured with real consequences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
26 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

It kind of draws away from his case when his own posts are calling for a bunch of people to get dirt naps.

If comments like that are the ones getting deleted, it's not surprising, and very appropriate.

Actual I am surprised it is allowed to happen on this forum. While I am glad that Saru did remove the comments, there are still threads throughout the political section where these comments have not been removed to my knowledge. I dont think this is a case where the Mod's dont care, but I think it happens so often that similar comments get missed. The reason I was glad that the comments were removed is because I dont want anyone to have problems, because they were angry and said things they really did not mean and I believe that those making the comments are not serious in the true sense. 

But yes, I certainly agree if people are making comments like the ones in question they should be get deleted and if the people making those comments feel like they have been censored, to bad so sad. Internet threats are being investigated these days, in every case where some one went on a mass shooting spree it was later determined that they had been using internet media to make their threats before they actually took act. So our Government has over the last two years started monitoring the internet for people making such comments, and sites that allow it to occur are also having problems with the Government Agencies. So yea your comments above are spot on, and I think situations like this should make us all reread our posts before we hit send.

Great Post and thank you.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Manwon Lender said:

Actual I am surprised it is allowed to happen on this forum. While I am glad that Saru did remove the comments, there are still threads throughout the political section where these comments have not been removed to my knowledge. I dont think this is a case where the Mod's dont care, but I think it happens so often that similar comments get missed. The reason I was glad that the comments were removed is because I dont want anyone to have problems, because they were angry and said things they really did not mean and I believe that those making the comments are not serious in the true sense. 

But yes, I certainly agree if people are making comments like the ones in question they should be get deleted and if the people making those comments feel like they have been censored, to bad so sad. Internet threats are being investigated these days, in every case where some one went on a mass shooting spree it was later determined that they had been using internet media to make their threats before they actually took act. So our Government has over the last two years started monitoring the internet for people making such comments, and sites that allow it to occur are also having problems with the Government Agencies. So yea your comments above are spot on, and I think situations like this should make us all reread our posts before we hit send.

Great Post and thank you.   

Well, it wasn't allowed. Someone snipped it. 

I was watching to see if anyone would. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
25 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I added this for some clarification;

https://www.alec.org/article/youtube-is-still-a-private-platform-prager-university/

They are not beholden to be fair to any one political party or affiliates.

That is a great article and it makes sense because it clearly demonstrates how these entities are viewed by the Supreme Court, and that pretty much ends this discussion effectively. I suspect that for all those who feel they are being censored unfairly, it's time to ban together and start a new platform where they can express their opinions and views freely. Outside of that they must deal with how certain subjects are viewed by these sites and if they cant handle it, it's best to boycott the sites that do not support their views. I think one of the reasons that the sites in question have so many problems with right-wing groups is because many of the major radical organizations are right-wing. Even the mass shooters over the last 2 to 3 years were right-wing extremists, so I think that in many cases right-wing organizations are treated in some ways not fairly is because it has become a case of guilt by association for all Right-wing organizations. 

While that may seem unfair, and I am not making a statement either way, it's just the way these sites deal with these problems and like the article linked says the Supreme Court ruling has been made, and it will be hard to ever change.

Take Care, thanks for your link to that article.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
42 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I added this for some clarification;

https://www.alec.org/article/youtube-is-still-a-private-platform-prager-university/

They are not beholden to be fair to any one political party or affiliates.

Hadn't you heard?  Laws can be changed and often are.  They can do the right thing or they can risk liability for the content they host.  Doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me, but hey, let them stand on their principles.  No one is demanding a free pass to post threats or to instigate violence.  Asking for a known standard by which sites can censor content and then demanding that it be enforced uniformly is not exactly coercive.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
22 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

Well, it wasn't allowed. Someone snipped it. 

I was watching to see if anyone would. 

Saru sniped it both in my response where I quoted it and in the post itself. I was also wondering if it would be removed, but in truth how may times have you seen other similar comments, they seem rather frequent to me. But, like I said throughout the Political Threads are plenty of other similar comments that have ben missed I suspect, the Mods here stay pretty busy cleaning things up, so they just cant catch all of those comments made. I think the only way those kind of comments can be removed more consistently is if the post is reported highlighting the comments made, I dont know of any other way to deal with the problem.

Take Care, and please understand I totally agree with you thoughts on this subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
29 minutes ago, and then said:

From the article:

Quote

The validity of the report was called into question given Project Veritas' history of pushing misinformation and propaganda. 

The group, founded by conspiracy theorist James O'Keefe, is known for its sting operations targeting mainstream media outlets and for its deceptive video editing practices.  

So we've moved from "How do you know what he's saying is accurate?" from the post earlier today to 'we have reason to believe what he's claiming is not accurate'.  I'd try moving that gearshift out of reverse...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 7/24/2020 at 6:58 PM, Obviousman said:

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.

Add to that that people who are still saying this is happening are just lying and refuse to show evidence of their claim.  It's a LIE.  It is not happening.  Those who have been detained either are held briefly for questioning - I guess that NEVER happens legally, huh?  Or those who are detained have enough evidence against them that they get arrested.  In those cases there will be an arrest record and their "due process" is respected.  I sometimes wonder if these legal exerts here have a clue what they're even wailing about.  Here's a hint- don't riot and attempt to burn things down and you won't have a problem with the cops.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
1 hour ago, and then said:

This is a bad site to use for an information source for the following  reasons listed below: Link to the information below:https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/#prettyPhoto

                                                                right06.png?ssl=1

                                                                                                         

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 35/180

I have no idea why people are still trying to argue this point, it really doesnt matter what Attorney General Bill Barr thinks or what  Rep Matt Gaetz thinks because the Supreme Court has all ready ruled on this issue and they found that a privately own organization can censor whatever they chose, so unless the Supreme Court ruling is over turned Zuckerberg can not be investigated for their Censorship Policies because of the Supreme Court Ruling.

So this is mute issue!!

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
2 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

It kind of draws away from his case when his own posts are calling for a bunch of people to get dirt naps.

If comments like that are the ones getting deleted, it's not surprising, and very appropriate.

And very ironic, some might even say hypocritical...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
1 hour ago, and then said:

I think you're missing the point here.

No, we're not.  You claimed something is happening, yet you can't provide an example of said happening, let alone a *good* example.

1 hour ago, and then said:

don't riot and attempt to burn things down and you won't have a problem with the cops

Oh dear.  Shall we post the videos that show that is 100% false?  Hint, google up "moms portland" and have a look at what happened the very first time they showed up... Teach a person to fish, they say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 hours ago, and then said:

I think you're missing the point here.  To answer your question, the complaint is that sites will remove content that is posted by Trump supporters or just those with a Conservative view point, while leaving posts that agree with the Left even though they clearly are more focused on aggression, threats, or are patently false.

It isn't "piece" BTW.  This goes on daily at Twitter and YouTube and the target always seems to be the Right.  As to your question of pieces taken down "that shouldn't have", this is the whole point.  There is no agreed upon standard for the decisions that are made.  It's basically at the discretion of employees or algorithms which seem to have a distinct penchant for slapping down one kind of content more than another.  Until these owners decide to make an effort to clarify policy and apply it evenly, they need to be pressured with real consequences.

 

So Twitter will remove Trump supporting or conservative content, will they?  A super quick search reveal that user like Candace Owens, Mia Love and Andrew Bolt still have content that's readable.  Searching for "monarchist" shows there are a few accounts that support the Monarchy in Commonwealth realms.  You can't get much more Right than that; afterall, what is the origin of Left/Right?  

I'll admit, I can't find Stefan Molyneaux's content that supports his assertion that "Islam Is Antithetical To Western Civilization".  I know I'd be interested in his take on what's happening to the Uyghurs. 

David Icke was allegedly banned for promoting the COVID-19/5G CT.  I'm not losing sleep over this; but, wonder how harmful this could be.  However, the anti-vaxxer BS continues to drain research funding away from needed research for, say, AML.  He was banned from entering Australia after lobbying by the Anti Defamation Commission.  IMO this unreasonably impinged on freedom-of-speech.  But, are the ADC on the Left?

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors was removed from publication and essentially forced into the public domain as a result of a court case.  The Terrorist Handbook was in the public domain; but, in the 21st century became illegal.

Trump's tweet about mail-in ballots was flagged as non-factual.  His own government departments couldn't produce anything to support his tweet.  Even though he was "running his mouth" via some "stream of conciousness" maybe some are concerned what effect it may have.

David Icke lizard people is the only example, I've listed, that can't reasonably be held to affect society.  The other's give rise to concern.

Am I still missing the point?  Am I cherry picking?  You're the one concerned about which information might disappear, but you can never truly delete something off the internet.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Ducky, should I be concerned about how much you know on all these topics..?  Wow.. :D 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
34 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Ducky, should I be concerned about how much you know on all these topics..?  Wow.. :D 

I've read reviews of Lincoln the movie by historians.  They say it's a good movie, although not entirely accurate; but, if it inspires someone to read further, then that's a great thing.  In fact, the movie Hidalgo kind of set me on the path to this site.  The story about the Hitman's Manual was made into a movie staring Timothy Hutton and Forest Whitaker.  There is a great line that gives an explanation for why you will see a single shoe on the road while driving.

The Terrorist's Handbook was an example, in the nineties, of what was available on the internet.  It was not so much having the information, but putting it into practice that was the crime.  That changed when the WTC attacks.

I got hold of Icke's The Biggest Secret by mistake.  I didn't read any further than the first mention of reptilians.  I don't know how anyone else could - to discover there may be some possibly antisemitic content in it.  They're the one's to worry about.  They may have trouble crossing the street.

Or are you worried that I follow Bolt on Twitter?  :lol:

:ph34r:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free99

Well being able to upload conspiracy videos is one thing. But having them shoved in you’re face is another. 
Put them all under one channel and leave them there let people decide what they want to watch. 
Trust me I would rather see that then be surfing Netflix and see a channel called Black Lives Matter. I mean come on it’s every human life matters. Now Netflix has went racist with this crap! It’s sad to see them jump so quickly on the racist wagon with things. Now I hate Netflix and as a family we have decided not to subscribe to anything like Netflix.

Got off track there sorry!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I was OK up until I read:

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Or are you worried that I follow Bolt on Twitter?  :lol:

:ph34r:

Aaargh!!!!!   The ambulance is on it's way - just trust the men in white coats.... :D 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And very ironic, some might even say hypocritical...

In multiple ways, here's his post from less than a week ago on a thread about prayer on the skepticism vs spirituality forum:

Quote

I do believe in God and I don't believe He would refuse to hear the prayers of others just because you don't believe.  I really believe it all comes down to our ability to feel and to express selfless love for our fellow travelers here.

Can't say what he 'feels' but 'selfless love for our fellow travelers' is about the opposite of what I think he's expressing over on these forums.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
19 hours ago, and then said:

Hadn't you heard?  Laws can be changed and often are.  They can do the right thing or they can risk liability for the content they host.  Doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me, but hey, let them stand on their principles.  No one is demanding a free pass to post threats or to instigate violence.  Asking for a known standard by which sites can censor content and then demanding that it be enforced uniformly is not exactly coercive.

Well yes, I understand how laws work.  Risk what liability? For clarification, have we shifted the target to FB now? FB is a privately  owned company, like YouTube. There are agreements to you having an account it does cover content by individuals posting. .It just takes time to actually read them before clicking "I agree".

Neither company has to allow any content that they as private company don't agree with or aligns with their users agreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

In multiple ways, here's his post from less than a week ago on a thread about prayer on the skepticism vs spirituality forum:

Can't say what he 'feels' but 'selfless love for our fellow travelers' is about the opposite of what I think he's expressing over on these forums.  

Is he christian?

If so, you can't really blame the loathsome hypocrisy common to 99% of the religion on him personally. It just makes him (humanly) weak.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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.