Deleted

Kind of funny regarding Carlos Mazza and Stephen Crowder. VOX made a video about FOX that they controlled the media and because of that other media report on what they report on or something like that.

Even if FOX has their bias as everyone does. Media should report the news and not try to tell people what to think and push the same story over and over again until people belive their view.

Maybe thats why they are suffering now and if Im not mistaken FOX is one of the most watched network.

I dont agree with refusing service for someones religion or sexual preference etc. But the thing is, if they do that there is somewhere else you can go and others will know about what they did and can choose not to shop there.

But when we have these multi billion companies that have great influence in our society. That have pretty much built a service that are ment for all and have taken money from their users, and then choose to censor certain users and use vauge terms in order to ban them, then thats wrong. Didnt facebook like ban/censor CrossFit thats not even political just because they put up stuff about some diet.

"Lispy sprite", doing a stereotypical 90s gay man voice, he claimed that he's being given a pass as a journalist solely because he's gay, called him a "little queer" when he got mad when reacting to a clip, "eating chip, chip, chip away; just like dicks", "Mr. Gay-Vox", "Even his fast hand movements are gay", "Oh, so you are just an angry little queer", "Gay Mexican guy" (not even a Mexican guy, just Latino).

It's just picking and choosing right now. You've seen the compilation. You've seen his full podcasts/radio shows. You know that he tenses up and gets mad. I only picked out the spots where he was just that. If the dude gets frustrated and starts calling people "sprites", emphasizing that he's gay over and over again... it's not like the word "gay" is offensive. It's the context. The dude used it as an insult. Being calm and not calling him a sprite and then being mad and calling him a sprite... I mean, the correlation's more than obvious here.

Other than that, I really appreciate your contribution because I agree with you on a lot except I'd have to disagree with you as well because YouTube's own blog post clearly states these actions are to stop "hate", not because of copyright infringement.

That's not the Adpocalypse though, first of all. The Adpocalypse is the event where advertisers pulled out of controversial content and therefore the CPM lowered drastically (Around 90% for many).
The "unsuitable for advertisers" tag isn't common for anyone anymore, especially since October of 2018.

But personally, yeah, don't spread hate. Sargon saying that black people are just inferior and they can't help it got him demonetized while saying that black on black crime in America is abnormally high wasn't demonetized. It all comes down to what you say and how you say it. You can also get demonetized with seemingly inoffensive videos solely because of how you actually handled it.

Again, it to a small extent is biased against conservatives, but not enough to claim censorship in my eyes.

I am biased too because I worked for YouTube out of college in 2011. I sat 20 feet away from both Stephen Chen and Chad Hurley, the founders of YouTube. They were so up their own asses with smugness and faux moral and technorati superiority it was clear to me then, as it is now, what bias is favored most at companies like YouTube and the like.

Nah, that's all fair and good. Especially since you recognize your own bias. Though personally, I don't see how being smug and an asshole constitutes as a left-leaning political bias that has led them to purposefully kill off literally half of the political spectrum. That's just a huge leap in my eyes.

I appreciate your points though. Shit like this can and often should be discussed. As long as both sides remain chill and respectful, it can lead nowhere other than in positive directions.

it was clear to me then, as it is now

lucky you.

that said, the vast majority of what you're writing here is plainly wrong.
weirdly, you've worked for the YouTube, sat 20 feet away from Hurley and, yet, you know zero.

you're not biased, you're wrong.

plus, as we're on the SteamGifts, i've blacklisted you cause of your comments on the LGBT thread.
and this one here only shows i've seen it right: you'll never ever have the chance at playing my games, i'm sorry.

Content ID flagged

FTFY

"If you don't let me do whatever I want, then you're CENSORING me!!!!"

Ah, I think I understand now how you've used the term "free speech" in its literal form, not exactly as a reference to the First Amendment.

And yes, I agree - There is no harm in questioning and discussing Youtube's behaviour. I've seen many Youtubers suffer the consequences of harsher guidelines for monetization, which is a shame seeing as many of these Youtubers are the reason Youtube is even such a popular platform...

I believe that once the platform is big enough it should lose all protections of free speech

Unlikely to happen, in my opinion. That would strip the companies owning the services of their rights in an effort to accommodate the user of said services - I can't see that happening any time soon. Facebook isn't a necessity for communication, neither is Youtube, and none of these platforms owe the users anything. If they decide that you can't post about apples, really, there's not much you can do as an end user but comply if you want to use the service, regardless of how "big" the company is.

The alternative option is simply not to use the service - If everyone who disagreed with these social media platforms would quit them, then it's likely that the company behind it would take action in changing their guidelines. The fact that people continue to use Facebook after all the crap they've pulled just shows how the end user really doesn't care all that much about privacy, censorship, security, etc... and still enjoy using the platform regardless.

"Or if they prefer to moderate their content, they should lose all safe harbour protections and be fully responsible for all content hosted on them."

So much this. Intervention is a tacit assumption of responsibility.

lately havent watched much youtubers at all.
Just listening to music on it. But thats the thing - I dont listen to pop music at all on youtube. Only to rock music or metal. Lately Ive been listening to The Dead South. So I have no idea from where Im getting Mendes ads.
Maybe I havent accepted personalized ads on youtube. Maybe I should check that out, but then they basically are recording my search history and youtube watch history :D

I have ad block on PC, but mostly Ive been using my tablet or phone for youtube and have no idea how to block ads on it. I could live with it if the ads would have some variety.. but as I said - its basically Shawn Mendes all the time.

I use it on PC (with steamgifts whitelisted of course :D) but havent really thought about how to set something like that up on tablet or phone (if its even possible)

Ublock Origin obsoletes Adblock Plus.

They love the free market. They need to put their money up, and let it decide their fate.

Again, they can learn how to code. PayPal didn't materialize out of thin air.

That sounds more like they were lax in moderation out of necesity than something they did as a policy or mission of the company.
I don't watch much political stuff in youtube, I mostly see it as a source of entertaiment, and me not being from the US means that whatever political nonsense is going over there/youtube is engaging on only reaches me in an indirect way.

I actually rely on their algorithm pretty heavily since it's the main way I find new music, I wouldn't have found some of my favorite stuff otherwise because I stopped listening to radio almost a decade ago.

A site of purported neutrality enforcing its own views and influencing content, while proponents of conservative capitalism are outraged at private censorship.

Hate speech and racism are ilegal on most countries. You have the "right" of saying whatever you want, but if you scream BOMB! in an airport, you'll get into trouble.

Btw, Sargon dixit:

“I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of niggers, just so you know. You act like white niggers. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.”

“Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your faggots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a nigger, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me.”

it doesnt mean all speech
give isis and kukluxklan free speach...
you cant say what you want
you cant say that some1 is a thief when he isnt
you can sat you want to kill some1 or you wish some1 was killed
you cant say you like raping women or kids
you cant say all muslims must be eliminated
etc
why it is so hard to understand by some ppl
your freedom ends when you violate someelses freedom

The clear and obvious difference is intent.

Athletes that dope due so to be better at their sport, to win over others.

Trans athletes that undergo hormone therapy do so to address their gender dysphoria, not to gain a competitive edge.

I had a male friend at school who had a hormone deficiency that stunted his growth, so he was given hormones as a treatment and as a result he became huge. Would you segregate him because he too underwent hormone therapy?

And as far as someone undergoing hormone replacement therapy "just to win"... Ignoring that it's much easier and cheaper just to dope, this is a ridiculous statement which doesn't consider exactly what it means to undergo such therapy.

I'm going to venture a guess that you're male. How much money would it take for you to agree to dress as a woman, grow breasts, and cut off your penis? $1,000? $10,000. Seriously think about that question, and what dollar amount would convince you to do that. I'm going to guess that no amount of money would convince you to undergo such an operation, because you feel secure in your body and it is a part of your identity. So please imagine how insecure and uncomfortable trans people feel with their bodies that they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars - and subject themselves to criticism, discrimination and stigma - to undergo such a procedure.

ha! someone who actually understands how free speech works. I feel like I just saw a Mew

my politics tend toward the ideals of libertarianism, but I find that libertarianism in the ron paul mold is idealistic and impractical. as a side note, libertarianism is very close to liberalism, but try telling your average libertarian that

The reason being, that while I'm all for free markets, I believe free markets need a strong regulator. The problem with unbridled capitalism is that often the party with the deepest pockets wins. For example, Rockefeller became rich in oil. Whenever a new supplier arose, he'd try to buy them out. If they refused, he'd undercut their prices, running at a loss until the competition was forced out of business, then he'd jack the prices back up.

Agreed.

Before they used that excuse, advertisers and YT were making plenty of money and the content creators were well compensated. It is like a woke downward spiral happened years ago due to some major change of policy.

Engaging in the replies to such pieces of content, whether in disagreement to someone elses reply or in a tribalistic 'me too' to the message of a video, it serves to construct a loose echo-chamber structure even when an individual had no intention of becoming trapped in one.

Yeah, exactly. And youtube is also pretty good at pushing you towards extremes. The more extreme videos do tend to have higher "engagement", and if you're already have a predisposition to believe one thing, say that workers should get paid better and big business takes advantage of its work force, and so youtube will keep pushing more and more videos that are leaning towards this. Far from everyone will be pushed to an extreme, but simply due to how youtube's algorithm seem to work, and the echo-chamber you're getting trapped in, it's not unlikely that a fare amount of the videos you get recommended will be about how the proletariat should rise up and overthrow their evil capitalist overlords! (Intentionally picked a slightly silly example).

The only problem with 'censorship' arises when a social media platform takes a stronger stance towards one flavour of rule infraction than to another. It is worth considering that such large websites are undoubtedly moderated by multiple individuals, who will have their own value judgements sneaking into actions taken, and that an automated response system is likely in place (and abuseable by mass-reporting), but big companies are notorious for their tone-deafness.

Youtube is mostly interested in protecting themselves from any harm, so they're not really taking a stance for or against anything, as much as they're trying to prevent advertisers from leaving them. And while yes, youtube has moderators, what usually happens is that videos gets flagged by their bots as unsuitable for monetization. It's not known exactly how youtube's bot works, heck not even google knows how it works (machine learning, isn't it wonderful), but it's looking for things that might be "bad". Things like aggressive language, mentions of violence, weapons, warfare, sex and so on, or images that might include things that advertisers don't like. You might have made a really good history video about WW2, but the algorithm does not know that, it just sees swastikas and notices that you're talking about war & killing and "oops" your video gets demonetized (quite a lot of educational history focused channels have suffered from this). A human would easily be able to tell that these videos are good, but the bots only look for specific patterns, and don't understand the context.
The more extreme end of the political spectrum is also pretty notorious for using a more aggressive tone. So obviously youtube's algorithms don't like their videos.

Usually when Youtube's moderators step in, it's because someone has done something bad enough for it to get a lot of attention. If you run a big youtube channel and you dox someone, that might be bad enough for youtube's moderators to step in and manually remove your video (and maybe your channel). But this is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. Most of the time when people complain about unfair treatment, it's because the bots flag their videos, or the videos of someone they like.