YouTube to ban 'hateful, and 'supremacist' videos

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I am on a roll today. I reported [with proper reasoning] a few islamic videos that are allowed to be up.

The reason is that it is offensive [to me as an Atheist]

They pretend to tell the truth, when in fact religious belief can not be proven - so it's merely a theory bit pedalled as truth, which is totally against their T&Cs

It is harmful as people mentally ill people [especially paranoid or suffering from anxiety] will be affected by their statement that Hell is real and only their god can save you.

When going into their forum, I noticed that their new sticky purge post doesn't let you comment. So I reported their own post to them as hateful [which it totally is against a lot of decent people].

It would be great if others could report lefty violence videos and other hateful religious stuff too. I am not finished yet. But maybe, if enough people do it and we can show that they pick and mix who can be targeted, maybe one day we can start a class action against discrimination!

More on this.

Here is some more tweets from Maza, the Vox "journalist" who whined and started this all. Notice how he is celebrating insulting white people, and again calling for violence against people he doesn't like.

twitter.com...

Now see how Maza is shocked to see that it turns out by calling for censorship, people he likes are also being censored, and he is upset about it.

twitter.com...

Lastly, look at how youtube admits Crowder did not violate their toc. SO basically they are admitting that they just are pandering to this left wing vox person and punishing crowder even though he didn't break their terms of service.
twitter.com...

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
It's a t-shirt, but because it says something you do not like, you don't see what the problem with censorship is.

Hey my returning friend, I asked you a question back on page four. Pretty sure you didn't miss it.

a reply to: dug88

Aw, does that mean no more "we wuz kangs" videos, no more Nation of Islam, or Black Hebrews? Surely an exception could be made... can we just classify all the black supremacy videos as satire or something? I think most of the views are from people who view it in that way, so technically its Probably true.

What if you claim your people are chosen by God before all others? Is that "supremacy"?

Or do they just mean like, supporting the President of the United States and telling the truth about crime statistics, immigration facts and other "supremacy" of that type?

a reply to: 3n19m470

Don't know if you read my one woman crusade above, but I am the heck reporting all of those videos you are talking about. If we don't we can't highlight their hypocrisy.
Report and state your reasons, they give you 500 letters.
We need to start to do something.

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
Youtube and google are becoming left wing extremist trash. I'm starting to use other services and I hope many others do as well. We don't need one brand of politics being shoved down our throats. I'd feel the same if it was right wing crap.

I watch my Soph videos on Bitchute.com now, it works just as good.

I try to avoid Linking to wikipedia, but because they have no ads and so the only way they make a penny is through donation, I still use them for personal research. I just refrain from donating.

I ditched Google as a search engine, but still have my account.

But little by little we will whittle away at their platforms. We already know Leftist organizations are artificially propped up by their wealthy backers so they are already not as powerful as they seem. They've been caught fudging the numbers to make it seem like they have more support from more people. As many as 1/3 of Facebook and Twitter accounts are faked to increase their ability to attract premier advertisers, so they can say "Put your ad on Facebook and this (inflated, falsified) number of people will see it!"

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're asking a lot.

I've noticed a general theme of "this is bad" without a solution to the "problem".

Ironically we're all supposed to trust large corporations, and get the government to reduce regulation to let business flourish, and trust them to self regulate.

If the free market doesn't correct this, it will get a lot worse eventually, but at that point YouTube will be small potatoes.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Ironically we're all supposed to trust large corporations, and get the government to reduce regulation to let business flourish, and trust them to self regulate.

The answer is never more government.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Supposedly this all started when Steven crowder started making videos about a vox fellow and vox wanted crowder banned for harassment for calling him a "queer little Mexican guy"

So YouTube went on a purge of everything and now Crowder can't make any money off his videos but isn't banned.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Ironically we're all supposed to trust large corporations, and get the government to reduce regulation to let business flourish, and trust them to self regulate.

The answer is never more government.

The problem is the government is already involved. we know they are influencing these social media companies.

We know they held large hearings on a few trolls using these platforms and how that was an attack on the country.

Even as someone who cheers for smaller government, at some point we have to recognize that these corporations have the potential to become stronger than any government.

They are acting ideologically and ion concert with each other, so when on platform bans someone, often all do simultaneously, then payment processors and banks follow up many times and ban these people.

I don't know what the answer is. I suggest a sort of internet bill of rights that says people may not be kicked off of these platforms for ideological reasons.

In addition, laws already on the books should be applied against these companies. So if youtube and the rest are now acting as publishers and not platforms, they should be held accountable for the material they publish. And if they are ideologically favoring one party, they should have to process that as a campaign contribution and be heled to those laws as well.

a reply to: JDmOKI

Good

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Ironically we're all supposed to trust large corporations, and get the government to reduce regulation to let business flourish, and trust them to self regulate.

The answer is never more government.

That's a bit of an ambiguous statement in today's times though. Since our government became more susceptible to influence via the market place, I think it would be fair for a libertarian stance to focus on "the answer is never the equity of power/liberty being transferred from the people to large entities".

Either way, while this specific instance may not be the smoke that leads to fire, I have little doubt that we'll see that day come soon.

I suppose my overall question in this thread is people are presenting a problem, but what is their solution?

originally posted by: Grambler
Even as someone who cheers for smaller government, at some point we have to recognize that these corporations have the potential to become stronger than any government.

The same thing was said about US Steel until US Steel broke itself up, it's not even the largest steel producer operating in the US let alone the world.

The free market dynamics always sort these things out. I don't trust government intervention ever.

a reply to: Grambler

The problem is the government is already involved. we know they are influencing these social media companies.

My guess is the relationship is more symbiotic in nature.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The free market dynamics always sort these things out. I don't trust government intervention ever.

I'm not totally with you on that, but am for the most part.

I think the inverse is just as important though, I don't trust single entity intervention on government to the same degree.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I suppose my overall question in this thread is people are presenting a problem, but what is their solution?

It certainly sounds like 'more government' too me.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Why, the Ministry of Truth of course !
1984

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I suppose my overall question in this thread is people are presenting a problem, but what is their solution?

It certainly sounds like 'more government' too me.

Well what would be new ? A government answer to a government platform in the guise of private enterprise ?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Ironically we're all supposed to trust large corporations, and get the government to reduce regulation to let business flourish, and trust them to self regulate.

The answer is never more government.

That's a bit of an ambiguous statement in today's times though. Since our government became more susceptible to influence via the market place, I think it would be fair for a libertarian stance to focus on "the answer is never the equity of power/liberty being transferred from the people to large entities".

Either way, while this specific instance may not be the smoke that leads to fire, I have little doubt that we'll see that day come soon.

I suppose my overall question in this thread is people are presenting a problem, but what is their solution?

There isn't a good solution.

Government is biased and corrupt, big businesses are biased and corrupt.

Looking for solutions from biased and corrupt entities is a fools errand.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Well what would be new ? A government answer to a government platform in the guise of private enterprise ?

It isn't a government platform since I'm not forced to use the platform. If people don't like YouTube stop using it or make a competing version.