YouTube to remove Election Fraud videos

[Michelle]

They suppressed the reports on Hunter Biden because they said it hadn't been "verified". Half the crap they let people spew about Trump hasn't been verified and in fact was debunked.

[ChrLzs]

44 minutes ago, Michelle said:

They suppressed the reports on Hunter Biden because they said it hadn't been "verified". Half the crap they let people spew about Trump hasn't been verified and in fact was debunked.

Just as well, you never give specifics....  You do realise that you just conceded that the other "half the crap" HAS been verified...?    
ah - it takes a special kind......

 

[Michelle]

15 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Just as well, you never give specifics....  You do realise that you just conceded that the other "half the crap" HAS been verified...?    
ah - it takes a special kind......

 

In your haste to make what you think is a snappy insult I don't think you read that correctly. But, then again, you have made taking things out of context into an art.

[ChrLzs]

Here's what you said, Michelle.

"Half the crap they let people spew about Trump hasn't been verified and in fact was debunked."

The context doesn't change anything in that.. so next time, think before posting and maybe get a grownup to check it first.

[Michelle]

6 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

The context doesn't change anything in that.. so next time, think before posting and maybe get a grownup to check it first.

There won't be a next time I respond to you. I don't come here to have people vent the frustrations of their pathetic lives on me.

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, Michelle said:

There won't be a next time I respond to you.

Yes, I already know from the last time you told me that.

[Mirzam]

"@Google owned @YouTube officially announcing free speech no longer allowed," he tweeted in response to YouTube's announcement. "If you have concerns about election integrity, you must sit down and shut up. Repeal Section 230 and break these companies up."

This tweet mentioned in the Politico article is a perfect example of how big politics is suddenly emphasizing section 230 for their own personal gain. Censorship has been an issue throughout all of history. It includes people of all status. Not just popular conservatives. It includes banning books and other forms of art. Section 230 has been in question since its creation but now it's gaining traction through big name media outlets because the Republican party is taking a particular approach to it.

This unfortunately divides people further by separating those who disagree with particular parts of how section 230 is addressed by assigning them to the Republican party, and in turn discrediting them or allowing them to be labeled and targeted.

People have been censored, banned, or chosen to leave for a variety of reasons. This could range from hacking, trolling, obscene art, appearance, gender, age, poor grammar, misunderstandings, race, disability, occupation, artistic visions, bad jokes, income, and so on... There have always been, and will continue to be lawsuits for discrimination and harassment although policies may state that it is illegal. Violations of the law are common place.

I believe that Section 230 should be ammended, but not completely removed. The extreme approach of vetoing it should not be the only consideration, and where they are perfectly aware of this, the option of ammending / changing the section will most likely not receive a lot of coverage. Completely removing it would make platforms completely liable for any content posted, and they could be hit with lawsuits regarding posts that they didnt even view or have the time to view. Section 230 applies the first ammendment of free speech to platforms so that regulation is not hovering over every post.

Unfortunately, there has been an abuse of power where Section 230 permits criminals to exploit the service for personal profit, and such behavior has sometimes been encouraged by some platforms (not all) so that they can psychologically manipulate consumers to spending more time on the platform, change their beliefs, and then market products and profit from their time spent on the platform. It has enabled terrorist recruitment and discriminatory housing along with trolling that some platforms encourage to make money. Such cases can backfire, and discredit the platform.

Such an example is Twitter. Another problem that Fb and Tw have is of course privacy. Section 230 along with data policy can allow mods to read your personal messages and use them against you on the platform to make you feel insecure and keep scrolling or searching without being liable. They can access your personal files if you allow the website access to post pictures or videos, and they can sell those personal files to whomever they wish. Others and the mods can then use these against you to envoke particular feelings, thereby creating more profit or an elimination of particular individuals from particular industries, ethnicities, age, and so forth. They can get real close and personal, and they are not considered liable for it. Thats not right in my opinion. I avoid these situations because I disagree with that sort of treatment, but when I opted out of the fb ads section and tweaked my marketing profile, I still received horrible ads. Some of them were suggesting hurting myself. You can look up many cases where these platforms and other news stations, and people committing crimes on a platform, have been sued.

In short... Dont veto it but there does need to be a way to combat the ego behind the corrupt idea that they can get away with anything they want because they are not liable.

Edited December 10, 2020 by smanthaonvaca

[Imaginarynumber1]

On 12/9/2020 at 5:00 PM, spartan max2 said:

Yah. Private corporations deciding what we can and can't see. What could go wrong.

 

 

 

Like all private corporations have always done? Since forever?

[+and-then]

On 12/9/2020 at 5:49 PM, Michelle said:

They suppressed the reports on Hunter Biden because they said it hadn't been "verified". Half the crap they let people spew about Trump hasn't been verified and in fact was debunked.

Suddenly, some of them have apparently gotten religion concerning Hunter's little peccadillos.  Seems they stumbled onto a trail of Federal investigations related to his dealings with China and others.  There's even some rumors that his uncle, Joe's brother, is being scrutinized as well.  These fools seem to actually believe they can control reality with their algorithms and biases. 

The folks at Rumble and Parler  are well on their way to breakout growth as Conservatives collectively give YT,FB and Twitter a rousing  middle finger salute.  I've even seen a couple of articles about the potential "nefarious" activities on "Far Right" places like Parler.   We are in a full on, take no prisoners information war.  Those in the Legacy media are a dying breed and the new Digital Oligarchs are facing their first significant push back, ever.  I think Zuckerberg and Dorsey are in for a fight over 230 reform/repeal and the more heavy handed they become as censors of political speech, the more energy they'll give to the up and comers.  

 

[Mirzam]

On 12/10/2020 at 11:59 PM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Like all private corporations have always done? Since forever?

Not exactly. It has existed for a long time, but a lot start small and eventually get big enough to have gag laws and government regulation. Some never do that.

[Mirzam]

18 hours ago, and then said:

Suddenly, some of them have apparently gotten religion concerning Hunter's little peccadillos.  Seems they stumbled onto a trail of Federal investigations related to his dealings with China and others.  There's even some rumors that his uncle, Joe's brother, is being scrutinized as well.  These fools seem to actually believe they can control reality with their algorithms and biases. 

The folks at Rumble and Parler  are well on their way to breakout growth as Conservatives collectively give YT,FB and Twitter a rousing  middle finger salute.  I've even seen a couple of articles about the potential "nefarious" activities on "Far Right" places like Parler.   We are in a full on, take no prisoners information war.  Those in the Legacy media are a dying breed and the new Digital Oligarchs are facing their first significant push back, ever.  I think Zuckerberg and Dorsey are in for a fight over 230 reform/repeal and the more heavy handed they become as censors of political speech, the more energy they'll give to the up and comers.  

 

Rumble I have not looked in to, but Parler I peeked at and it seemed to have a lot of conservatives, independents, republicans, and people who were just curious about the new service. I didnt see any far right action in the short time I had spent on it, but it has a lot of republican funding so I can't say how quickly the service has grown in terms of # of accounts made since I left. Could also be spam and bot attacks from opposition. Tw has those but they increased their security in acct creation so its harder to create them now.

Tw arguement is for free and open internet. Not a bad arguement but they dont support privacy. Also censoring is not exactly defending free speech so its a bit hypocritical. Jd and bitcoin confuses me a bit. Bitcoin can be privacy oriented but perhaps he is taking an investor or progressive currency approach.

Edited December 12, 2020 by smanthaonvaca