YouTube to ban 'hateful, and 'supremacist' videos

a reply to: DBCowboy

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

Speration between the two is what should be sought IMO. I don't advocate giving more power to either, but rather quarantining both and laying out acceptable common sense guidelines for them to be able to operate without impeding on citizen rights.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who would separate the two? Who would develop rules that they would obey?

You're asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

a reply to: DBCowboy

To be honest you're right.

In an ideal world, the citizens would stay informed and participant in the system they are supposed to be the rulers of. A populace that holds their employees accountable.

Instead we have lazy people who want things done for them, and stuff handed to them.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

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

The solution is to present the problem. If you agree, stop using their product.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You're asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

I'd love to have some foxes guard me, I'm thinking Charlize Theron (who definitely isn't a dude!), Emily Ratajkowski and the dragon chick from Game of Thrones.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

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

The solution is to present the problem. If you agree, stop using their product.

I believe that is the correct answer, and I can agree with you.

However, I think that the current environment could create a situation in the near future to do some real damage to our democracy. I think the latest "freedom of expression" for corporations creates the possibility of gray areas that could give too much power to specific entities and their interests. I don't think it's government overreach to say that corporations shouldn't have the ability to throw unlimited funds and efforts towards political campaigns. Moreover, I think the idea for profit businesses have the same rights as sentient beings in regards to their voice to our most powerful institution is silly at best.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

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

The solution is to present the problem. If you agree, stop using their product.

I believe that is the correct answer, and I can agree with you.

However, I think that the current environment could create a situation in the near future to do some real damage to our democracy. I think the latest "freedom of expression" for corporations creates the possibility of gray areas that could give too much power to specific entities and their interests. I don't think it's government overreach to say that corporations shouldn't have the ability to throw unlimited funds and efforts towards political campaigns. Moreover, I think the idea for profit businesses have the same rights as sentient beings in regards to their voice to our most powerful institution is silly at best.

It is overreach because corporations are in the private sector. They are run by folks like you and me and are subject to the same market forces. Any government restraints on them are ultimately put on all of us.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

The only "restraint" I suggested is not giving them the option to have their grimy little fingers in the pockets of our employees. Other than that, pretty much free reign, including their removal of perceived supremacist content from their platform.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I did say “under the guise of a private platform did I not ? I’m not entirely certain the definition of government is “forced”, although I can see your point. Where I’m coming from is the use of NGOs and public/private partnerships and the like ( such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation teaming up with Pearson-a private organization- and the federal government to impose a federal education standards system on the individual States by offering them money to incorporate the standards.

ith public-private partnerships. BPC defines P3s as an agreement between a public authority and private entity to share the risks and responsibilities of delivering a project. P3s can take a variety of forms along a spectrum of responsibility and risk-sharing, with greater or lesser private involvement in the project based on the negotiated agreement. O

bipartisanpolicy.org...
While it is not entirely the same, how do we know that the Facebook or YouTube platforms are not something of a contacting out of private entities ?

www.thenation.com...
Your move

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


When I am compelled to use the YouTube platform, which I use very infrequently as it is, then I'll have an issue with who or what gets posted there. I have much more important things to worry about in my life like what I'm going to drink after dinner tomorrow.

Reply to: Masonicus
So now this is about whether you have an issue with it? Sure you are not compelled to use Google or Facebook or twitter. What is the difference between a public/private partnership and a government monopoly or centralized government control ?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

So now this is about whether you have an issue with it?

For me it is, it's their damn company, let them run as they want and deal with the free market.

Sure you are not compelled to use Google or Facebook or twitter.

I don't have a Twitter account, the Facebook account I has nothing personal on it and I only use it to check on prospective employees and I rarely use Google. So, no, I'm not forced to use any of it because I don't want to use it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't have a Twitter account, the Facebook account I has nothing personal on it and I only use it to check on prospective employees and I rarely use Google.

I don't have a Facebook, will you still hire me?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you are using “force” as a determination of whether it is part of a government platform ? Common Core is what I referred to, and we still have private schools which are not government run entities. So while Common Core is typically used in State-run public schools, even public schools do not have to use the standards, unless of course they want government money. Meanwhile, Gates spent his money to promote the Standards and buy off the Governors Association and Teachers Unions. Microsoft teamed up with Pearson ( one of the Nation’s largest testing corporations ) to implement the Standards testing platform in the schools. Ironically, there’s an issue with homeschooled based accreditation if they do not adopt the Standards as well. So yah you can choose homeschooling but may not get into
Colleges without adopting the Standards.

Furthermore, Common Core Standards changes in educational expectations has also resulted in the SAT/ACT tests being re-written. If your homeschooler is planning on applying to colleges that require SAT testing for admissions, you will again need to incorporate CCS in your academic curriculum.

www.the-instillery.com...
Rosa Koire explained also the use of public-private partnerships in implementing UN Agenda 21 in her book, “Behind The Green Mask.”

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I don't have a Facebook, will you still hire me?

Only after I break out my F-Instagram account to check on yours.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
So you are using “force” as a determination of whether it is part of a government platform ?

Force, mandate, requirement, call it what you want.

I don't have to use anything and neither does anyone else when it comes to these platforms.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Shoot, you can apparently report people and get them banned just for showing clips of a topic that's offensive, so if you find commentators showing clips from Crowder and bashing him. You can report them for showing Crowder clips which have been deemed hateful. That commentator is now using hate material in YouTube's eyes.

This is what got one channel banned. They did a video criticizing a Sandy Hook conspiracy video, and the footage of the Sandy Hook conspiracy video got them demonetized.

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

And just in case anyone forgets Google's ex-CEO was a participant at Bilderberg meetings

a reply to: dug88


Are they going this year? If so they can hang with the Kush-in-law.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah looks like Eric Schmidt's going again he's a technical advisor for Alphabet(Google's parent company) now I guess.