It's far worse than that. You cannot quote actual epidemiologists that slightly cut against the mainstream narrative. Until Dr. Fauci or the WHO change the narrative to align with formerly-censored epidemiologists who were right all along.
Remember when the WHO claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at the same time that videos were being leaked showing the CCP dumping sand on highways and welding people into their homes? Yeah, trying to help people by showing how the WHO was wrong would get you banned under YouTube's new policy. Same with Fauci saying that masks don't work and you should definitely not use them.
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids? All expression isn't equal. They don't let you post child porn either. These things both cause about the same amount of damage.
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to thin
LIAR, LIAR pants on fire. This is not about Youtube censoring criminal content. This is about Youtube censoring content that is anti-establishment no matter how truthful, it is about Youtube censoring content that threatens the profits of their major advertisers, it is Youtube censoring content that goes against the insane egos of the executives as they crave greater power and profit and it is about censoring content to distort and corrupt democracy.
It is about the most slimey from of comment censorship. The flithy fuckers delete your comments 30 seconds after you post them, so you will not notice, for all sorts of words so for example they actively censored the following Muslim extremism, Jewish extremism but not Christian extremism that they left up (they probably have fixed it by now). When you post a comment on Youtube, don't forget to refresh the page 60 seconds latter to see if it has been deleted, really scummy behind the scenes censorship of the worst order. Really fucking evil shite and the fuckers gave themselves an award for it.
Censor criminal content sure, censor anything else and you are just evil fuckers seeking power and control, all as sick as fuck. Evil is as evil does and Google is just as evil as fuck now, decent people who work there should be deeply ashamed for the evil they assist.
This is about Youtube censoring content that is anti-establishment no matter how truthful, it is about
Yes, but they’re private, which means they should be able to discriminate against whoever they wish including gays, blacks, fat people, and ugly people.
Gosh, are you not for a corporations right to discriminate against whoever they please? How can you even call yourself a Democrat.
They should be, but are not without pressure from government, who threatens these trillion dollar internet companies with hundreds if billions in stock losses via section 230 changes, or outright breakup, if they don't censor harrassment. "Oh, did I mention, our political opponents' words are harrassment?"
Gosh, are you not for a corporations right to discriminate against whoever they please? How can you even call yourself a Democrat.
Thinking that a company that does this and then awards themselves a free expression award...what would you call yourself? Definitely not someone that value free expression, that's for sure.
If a company wants to censor on their platform, I mean, okay. But to then say that they value free expression is pretty highly hypocritical.
I hate mega-corporations and cancel culture as much as everyone else, but in the world where I live, YouTube is the go-to place for conspiracy nutters to spread bullshit and hateful messages. It's true that often the "algorithm" removes some video that shouldn't have been removed, but on the other hand, should YouTube's staff watch every single video that gets uploaded in order to check if it contain illegal, violent, deceitful or defamatory content, then the result would be even more censorship: because t
Yeah I can see that. 4 years of wild "Russian Conspiracy" theories plastered all over Youtube while Trump was in office. Conspiracy theories of systematic racism without proof (no this isn't referring to a few racist police encounters). Pay gap conspiracies that aren't comparing job positions, tenure, or experience - just a generic apples-to-oranges stat originating from a feminist journal which compares fields.
Crazy stuff all over Youtube. Kind of odd that they don't block all those theories coming from the left though. Why are these acceptable? Nobody knows except Youtube.
As a former engineer at a google datacenter in Iowa, I deeply regret working for that company. I thought it was awesome at the time (2012), but now I am extremely ashamed I supported a company like that. Just like I've turned down engineer jobs at FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc... Very few projects I take today, either in Multimedia production (videographer/editor/directly), or even IT (which I service my local area as the only one that does in my immediate 5 miles, and am very well loved and keep my prices low,
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to think it was racially motivated.)
That sounds terrible. I agree with you, btw. Instead of this “free speech” stuff, we should have a group of people who are good, sane, smart, and without flaws, and we should have them determine what people are and are not allowed to say. Of course, they should be rich, ain’t no poor tech CEOs, and not a lot of black ones either (wink wink).
What we need are affluent white members of the political class or executive (the only class free of corruption with no psychopaths) determine what the less affluent can say. Then, the children could be safe and we could all feel good about ourselves. We’d hate the right people this time, and we’d let them define a new vocabulary for us, which we’d use to help identify the THEMS from the USes. Anyone not thinking and talking like an US? Cancelled.
With the minor exceptions of slavery, the civil war, the kkk, eugenics, opposition to the civil rights act, Tammany Hall, DC, Chicago, and being 60% of all public figures found guilty of fraud... the Democrats have never steered us wrong yet.
You know, I think you’re on to something, and I think I like it!
Ah, yes, the historic revisionism of a “switch”. Like Robert “KKK” Byrd, right?
Man, the sad attempts at propaganda never cease with Leftists. Point out the history of their evils, and repetition of their behavior (now that illegal immigrants have become the new slave labor for their modern plantations), and they try to flip it as if Republicans were actually the party of slavery. “The labels switched, and actually the Democrats like black people now.“
Conservatives really hate when you point out that they are the force behind racism in America.
That's why I never stop doing it.
Meanwhile in my organization a club of "anti-racists" have started up, who spend their time spreading propaganda on why people should be differently based on race. 7M racists in California actually voted to roll back the clock on state discrimination based on race [wikipedia.org].
We are probably not worse off for that, but when naming a singular symbol of free expression, the criteria should be pretty selective. *Especially* if you are deciding to pat yourself on the back with the 'award'.
So one, ideally the extent to which the person is responsible is restricting speech should hurt their chances. So there's things like this and also some reports of inhibiting people trying to get directly funded without youtube getting a cut. It may be a fine thing and even responsible thing to cur
On Thursday, YouTube creator Molly Burke presented Wojcicki with the accolade
Wait . . . WTF does this even mean? YouTube creator? Did Molly Burke create YouTube? Or is she just some random bimbo who puts stupid videos on YouTube?
Oh well, whatever. The whole thing is quite hilarious. These companies aren't even trying to cover up their corruption any more.
They constantly shadow ban on political grounds too. You see a lot of smaller center-right content creators suffer through that. It's nothing too extreme. I'd say it's what the mainstream was maybe a decade ago.
I've seen way more extreme channels on the left side - even advocating violence sometimes stays unsuppressed while channels like the LiberalHivemind are shadowbanned (he does clickbait titles but content isn't anything too crazy).
Yeah.. I'm pretty appalled at the state of YouTube, and as a separate issues, also "the left".
In my head, I support dictionary liberalism. I'm not a conservative except on core principles, and that just means I change slower--not that I don't change.
But lately, I've had an awful lot of conversations with friends that ended in arguments because they espoused judging people just for their party associations and not their individual actions.
I want to clarify because I said "the left" and promptly railed against judging by party . What I was attempting to express, clumsily, was that these friends of mine individually identify themselves as part of this label, "the left", and see themselves in opposition to "the right".
It's the whole notion of "this lizard is less evil than that lizard" despite the lizards being identical except in outward coloration. That's the part that really gets under my skin. People aren't the labels we apply to them or ev
Nothing of itself was foundational principles of Western societies.
FTFY, rat bastard son of a bitch who should die in a fire after being drown twice after having live fire ants poured into your dickhole with a funnel. Eat shit you transphobic dung beetle.I hate you intolerant namecallers. Asshole.
Did anyone else think it strange that/. didn't cover Youtube's test balloon of hiding the dislike count near the end of last month?
Old and new media are both desperate to pass off a manufactured/astroturfed popularity, and we've seen major upticks in this kind of thing over the last few years, both in politics and entertainment.
Manipulating RT critic reviews [slashdot.org] worked for Last Jedi, at least for a single weekend until the user reviews showed up and no one trusted the critic score anymore.
Manipulating RT user reviews worked for Captain Marvel, and now few people trust the user score either.
What's left? Most of what people still trust (e.g. word-of-mouth from folks they know, or reviews from trusted Youtubers) can't be gamed the same way, definitely not as effectively.
Covered what now? YouTube has let users hide the like/dislike count on their videos for quite some time. The option is available to any user who uploads a video. I just checked, and it's still there.
So I watched this video, they mentioned YouTube was (spooky theremin noises) "experimenting with hiding dislikes." and not much else. Apparently, I'm supposed to care because of some Marvel movie and Star Wars?
It wasn't reported on Slashdot because it's not news. YouTube has let uploaders hide the dislike count on their videos for a long time. If it's part of some plot to (more theremin noises) manufacture consent, they're giving equal latitude for any user on their platform to do it.
The only time you hide the ratio and disable comments is when you have something to hide yourself. There is no reason to do it.
But but but some videos attract tro- The responsibility to call bullshit outweighs this. But but but some videos are controve- Any subject that is "too sensitive to discuss" MUST be discussed. But but but some people have harassment campai- There are no harassment campaigns, this is an excuse made up by thieves, liars, and scammers. But but but some videos are watched by chi- Google is fre
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who applauded this "virtual ceremony", even virtually. It reads like a stark exercise in navel-gazing. The most popular content on the site also tends to be navel-gazing, so maybe they thought it'd fit, or something. As far as it having anything to do with "liberty", no. Not any more than any other cheesy ad.
1) after watching laowhy86's series on china in which he lived there 10 years, and had to flee, and got blacklisted by corporate sponsors, youtube's algorithm recommended a video of fugitive chinese billionaire "gao wengui" saying the ccp leadership is a criminal enterprise. Seems youtube's algorithm isn't kissing up to the CCP like most corporations. 2) I then searched youtube for "gau wengui" and was immediately asked to sign in. Maybe coincidence, maybe not. 3) One day after mentioning (near a smartphone)
This tube is your tube, this tube is my tube
Watch what you watch, dude
Or up the bum with no lube.
From Pewdiepie to the false flag hoaxes
This tube was made for you and me.
YouTube gives its CEO an award for doing something that she's not doing at all?
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
Unless you're drinking from YouTube's own koolaid you're almost certainly going to be relegated to the bottom of the search results -- and demonetized, and given a few bogus community strikes as well.
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
You do know that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder are on there, right? Obviously people are allowed to say a wide range of unsupported poorly thought out garbage associated with free speech.
You just named a demonetized person, a Jew who is constantly attacked with death threats by anti-semites ON YOUTUBE that are never removed, and a Liberal.
He says so. He says liberal things. He has liberal ideas. Pretty sure hes a liberal unless you provide some sort of evidence besides your snide bullshit pretend disbelief.
Which ideas are "alt-right"? The only one that stands out is his view on gender politics, but he is still respectful of trans people even if he doesn't believe in declarative genders, and respecting others' ideas is a staple trait of a liberal.
Jordan Peterson is typically described as a conservative.
From what I recall from listening to him he is conservative-leaning, and some of his views are solidly conservative, but he does have some liberal views as well.
I think this WP except says it pretty well, though:
Peterson has characterized himself politically as a "classic British liberal",[17][97][98] and as a "traditionalist".[99] He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing.[72] Yoram Hazony wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "[t]h
Oh come on stop being a wanker. I think this award is as stupid as the next person (it's just astonishingly stupid) but seriously stop being a wanker. You're claiming a lack of free speech because youtube is no longer PAYING the person for their speech.
Apparently conservatives think that Youtube not only owes them a soapbox, but also a salary. Whatever happened to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Oh yeah, that only applies to poor people.
Apparently conservatives think that Youtube not only owes them a soapbox, but also a salary. Whatever happened to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Oh yeah, that only applies to poor people.
None of the listed people seem to be hurting for a buck, and none of them seem to be dependent on Youtube for their livelihood. I think the argument, though, is that if Youtube has a system by which creators can make money off their work AND they (per the article, albeit indirectly) declare themselves a place where freedom of expression can thrive, then the logical consequence is that the monetization system should apply equally to those who have popular views, and those who do not.
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
You do know that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder are on there, right? Obviously people are allowed to say a wide range of unsupported poorly thought out garbage associated with free speech.
Yes, I agree. There are plenty of people promoting violence in the streets and pushing Woke over the edge of Cancel Culture, promoting narcissistic ignorance and dangerous anti-science because feelings are more important than facts.
The difference between them and Shapiro, Peterson, and Crowder, is they aren't fucking banned or demonetized.
(Yes, Crowder has endured bans before, so I wouldn't say he walks around with impunity on that platform.)
But those guys like Dennis Prager (the same as the ones you mentioned) are on the naughty list (restricted) which may mean people can't seem hardly or if ever.
It sure doesn't make sense. And this story is just two stories down from "MI5 Warns of Spies Using LinkedIn To Trick Staff Into Spilling Secrets." I guess some people think LI is safe and clean.
It's not even hard to argue that Hitler actually does have a good chance of getting a Nobel Peace Prize, when you consider that his goal was to have a war to end all wars (intent is for peace in Europe) and he was actually successful as it took 50 years from ending of WW2 to the next large scale war on European continent, and even that one was peanuts compared to WW2 (outcome is peace in Europe).
With both intent and outcome being this peaceful, how could you not give him a Nobel Peace Prize?
And that's something that modern marxist left is exceptionally good at,
You seem weirdly up to speed on what the three remaining actual Marxists are up to. Unless of course "Maxrist" is the new "SJW", i.e. a shorthand for "shit I hate".
or example mindset of MLK of judging people by their character rather than their skin colour is racist in today's left's view.
No it isn't. The thing they view as racist is ignoring a few hundred yeas of structural racism (which still hasn't gone). Idiots interpret that as "rac
Marxists are people who believe in Marxist ideology, that people are fundamentally to be described by their status as oppressors or oppressed rather than any other category.
And thank you for confirming that it is indeed reframing that you engage in, such as pretending that Marxist invention of "structural racism" has anything to do with racism, rather than being a simple the reframing of the old Marxist view that "workers are oppressed by the owners and have false consciousness in the West that they're not
Marxists are people who believe in Marxist ideology, that people are fundamentally to be described by their status as oppressors or oppressed rather than any other category.
WHICH marxist ideology? Because Marx himself spoke specifically of the capitalist (owners) and the proletariat (producers) not a generalised conception of oppressor and oppressed. So clearly you're speaking about one of the many many variants, so would you mind telling me which?
And thank you for confirming that it is indeed reframing tha
>Because Marx himself spoke specifically of the capitalist (owners) and the proletariat (producers) not a generalised conception of oppressor and oppressed.
And Lenin specifically spoke only about the workers and not the peasants until 1920s. You appear to be trying to make a point and failing miserably.
>And as for structural racism, this is actual racism, and actually does exist, unless you think it's natural justice that, say, black offenders get harsher sentences.
More violent crime? Apply more violence in similar crime?
Thing is black people get harsher sentences for the same crimes. What you seem be saying that because you think black people in general commit more violent crime then it's OK for an individual to get a harsher sentence simply because they're black.
Because that is what happens. So either you're denying well established facts or you're advocating for black people to be treated more harshly.
Yes, she is the most undeserving person in the world to receive such an award. Who are the idiots who gave her this award? They should be drawn & quartered.
I watch a lot of YouTube so I'm well aware of how much stuff will get you demonetized, but even with all the restrictions YouTube has it's about 100x more permissive than sites like Twitter, so I'm ok with it.
A lot of stuff will get you demonetized, but you'll still be allowed to keep your account and uploaded videos in most cases.
I watch a lot of YouTube so I'm well aware of how much stuff will get you demonetized, but even with all the restrictions YouTube has it's about 100x more permissive than sites like Twitter, so I'm ok with it.
A lot of stuff will get you demonetized, but you'll still be allowed to keep your account and uploaded videos in most cases.
You dismiss demonetization as if it's nothing.
For the beggars on YT desperately trying to make a click-buck, this is akin to walking up to the beggar on the street corner, and taking their money and cup away. Quite a few out there, rely on that income. And were able to rely on that income for years. Up until YT, like many others, got Woke. (which I'm certain will be the next word that triggers demonetization)
And comparing Shit to Shitter to make me feel better about Shit, ain't working. Still stinks.
I thought it was convenient that Youtube pulled its bait and switch after they had reached the critical mass to become a vertical monopoly. There is probably a lesson in there about letting corporations get too big or too influential. Probably.
The silver lining is that leaves a niche open for another platform to grow that isn't so ideologically driven and isn't striving to make itself just another outlet for cable television and the politically correct. One can hope that it doesn't get strangled in the crib
Just like the Old Media Award shows. In years past you didn't expect heathen viewers to nominate the Glitterati for Acadamy Awards, did you? Of course not. So obviously the Anointed are going to award their fellow Anointed online as well, because otherwise it's all heathens.
As an alternative to YouTube's censorship, try Odysee.com. [odysee.com] It's a friendly site with normal content. A lot is duplicated from YouTube, so you can watch your favorites without feeding the beast. It lacks the weirdo content that some of the other YouTube alternatives are overrun with. Give it a try!
Bitchute started well, but is full of ghoulish content that frightens normies away. Odysee.com doesn't have that plastered all over the front page.
With all human cesspools, the key words here are started well.
Unfortunately, we as a society have fallen off a cliff when it comes to defining "normal". It used to be normal to argue that women should not be forced to compete against men in sports. It used to be normal to argue that toddlers should not be trying to define and choose a gender before they even hit kindergarten. Hell, it used to be normal to argue, and have a healthy discussion on any topic.
Now, normal will get you cancelled, demonetized, o
...China is set to award its president the acclaimed title "Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms," which they just made up, for his outstanding handling of "undemocratic" feelings among the Uighur population.
That'll be the best award ceremony since The First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
Sadly, among the mainstream social platforms, YouTube actually is the most egalitarian and liberal in the original sense, meaning they censor the least. I wouldn't give an award for that very very low bar, but it's worth noting.
Susan says EXACTLY what she thinks of independent content creators @1:59 [youtu.be]:
We think about ourselves as a platform for next generation of media companies to be able to create content and distribute it to the world...
YouTube:Look at how great we are at Free Expression! We even got an award from ourselves! Viewers:You just going to ignore theList of Demonetization Words [google.com] Also:Hypocrites, much Susan? [wikipedia.org] So how is that "Free Expression" working out for the people that were "de-platformed" such as Alex Jones, David
I notice when "free speech platforms" like Youtube grant notorious religious advocacy groups like the ADL "trusted flagger" status for the purpose of censorship.
It's really hard not to notice every four years the candidates for the job of "leader of the free world" go and bow and prostrate themselves before a panel of this tiny but extremely influential minority.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Really does seem like something Voltaire would say
The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it.
- Brian Kernighan
lol (Score:4, Informative)
as this happens. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember when the WHO claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at the same time that videos were being leaked showing the CCP dumping sand on highways and welding people into their homes? Yeah, trying to help people by showing how the WHO was wrong would get you banned under YouTube's new policy. Same with Fauci saying that masks don't work and you should definitely not use them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Remember when the WHO claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission
https://twitter.com/WHO/status... [twitter.com]
Do you remember when Fauci said 2-masks were just common sense?
Re: (Score:3)
China lied, people died. Chinese man in suit says: "Tell only lies, tell only lies".
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids? All expression isn't equal. They don't let you post child porn either. These things both cause about the same amount of damage.
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to thin
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
LIAR, LIAR pants on fire. This is not about Youtube censoring criminal content. This is about Youtube censoring content that is anti-establishment no matter how truthful, it is about Youtube censoring content that threatens the profits of their major advertisers, it is Youtube censoring content that goes against the insane egos of the executives as they crave greater power and profit and it is about censoring content to distort and corrupt democracy.
It is about the most slimey from of comment censorship. The flithy fuckers delete your comments 30 seconds after you post them, so you will not notice, for all sorts of words so for example they actively censored the following Muslim extremism, Jewish extremism but not Christian extremism that they left up (they probably have fixed it by now). When you post a comment on Youtube, don't forget to refresh the page 60 seconds latter to see if it has been deleted, really scummy behind the scenes censorship of the worst order. Really fucking evil shite and the fuckers gave themselves an award for it.
Censor criminal content sure, censor anything else and you are just evil fuckers seeking power and control, all as sick as fuck. Evil is as evil does and Google is just as evil as fuck now, decent people who work there should be deeply ashamed for the evil they assist.
Re: (Score:1)
This is about Youtube censoring content that is anti-establishment no matter how truthful, it is about
Yes, but they’re private, which means they should be able to discriminate against whoever they wish including gays, blacks, fat people, and ugly people.
Gosh, are you not for a corporations right to discriminate against whoever they please? How can you even call yourself a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be, but are not without pressure from government, who threatens these trillion dollar internet companies with hundreds if billions in stock losses via section 230 changes, or outright breakup, if they don't censor harrassment. "Oh, did I mention, our political opponents' words are harrassment?"
"Yes, sir." -- Google, Apple, Twitter, facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, are you not for a corporations right to discriminate against whoever they please? How can you even call yourself a Democrat.
Thinking that a company that does this and then awards themselves a free expression award...what would you call yourself? Definitely not someone that value free expression, that's for sure.
If a company wants to censor on their platform, I mean, okay. But to then say that they value free expression is pretty highly hypocritical.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I can see that. 4 years of wild "Russian Conspiracy" theories plastered all over Youtube while Trump was in office. Conspiracy theories of systematic racism without proof (no this isn't referring to a few racist police encounters). Pay gap conspiracies that aren't comparing job positions, tenure, or experience - just a generic apples-to-oranges stat originating from a feminist journal which compares fields.
Crazy stuff all over Youtube. Kind of odd that they don't block all those theories coming from the left though. Why are these acceptable? Nobody knows except Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Their rhetoric is reduced to a simple rulebook saying whether things are "with-us" or "against-us".
It's an entirely right-wing matter.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
Re: lol (Score:2)
Just let's users moderate. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
As a former engineer at a google datacenter in Iowa, I deeply regret working for that company. I thought it was awesome at the time (2012), but now I am extremely ashamed I supported a company like that. Just like I've turned down engineer jobs at FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc... Very few projects I take today, either in Multimedia production (videographer/editor/directly), or even IT (which I service my local area as the only one that does in my immediate 5 miles, and am very well loved and keep my prices low,
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids?
You have the right to state your opinion that these videos should be censored.
But you should not receive a "freedom of expression" award for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids?
You have the right to state your opinion that these videos should be censored.
But you should not receive a "freedom of expression" award for doing so.
I’m damn sure that’s EXACTLY what they’re about.
I mean, I don’t think a “progressives” would resort to histrionics.
By the way, why did they watch a video about such a topic in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All expression isn't equal.
Sure it is.
Some is just more equal than others.
Re:lol (Score:5, Funny)
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to think it was racially motivated.)
That sounds terrible. I agree with you, btw. Instead of this “free speech” stuff, we should have a group of people who are good, sane, smart, and without flaws, and we should have them determine what people are and are not allowed to say. Of course, they should be rich, ain’t no poor tech CEOs, and not a lot of black ones either (wink wink).
What we need are affluent white members of the political class or executive (the only class free of corruption with no psychopaths) determine what the less affluent can say. Then, the children could be safe and we could all feel good about ourselves. We’d hate the right people this time, and we’d let them define a new vocabulary for us, which we’d use to help identify the THEMS from the USes. Anyone not thinking and talking like an US? Cancelled.
With the minor exceptions of slavery, the civil war, the kkk, eugenics, opposition to the civil rights act, Tammany Hall, DC, Chicago, and being 60% of all public figures found guilty of fraud ... the Democrats have never steered us wrong yet.
You know, I think you’re on to something, and I think I like it!
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes, the historic revisionism of a “switch”. Like Robert “KKK” Byrd, right?
Man, the sad attempts at propaganda never cease with Leftists. Point out the history of their evils, and repetition of their behavior (now that illegal immigrants have become the new slave labor for their modern plantations), and they try to flip it as if Republicans were actually the party of slavery. “The labels switched, and actually the Democrats like black people now.“
They even come with
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives really hate when you point out that they are the force behind racism in America.
That's why I never stop doing it.
Meanwhile in my organization a club of "anti-racists" have started up, who spend their time spreading propaganda on why people should be differently based on race. 7M racists in California actually voted to roll back the clock on state discrimination based on race [wikipedia.org].
We just got done seeing an executive for CNN, one of Youtube's "authoritative sources" and the Democrat's unofficial mouthpiece, inadvertently admit on camera that the entire "whites against asians" narrative was fabricated. [youtu.be]
Tell me more about how
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
The citation is in the post I was replying to. If there's something that was made up, that's where you'll want to look.
Re: (Score:2)
We are probably not worse off for that, but when naming a singular symbol of free expression, the criteria should be pretty selective. *Especially* if you are deciding to pat yourself on the back with the 'award'.
So one, ideally the extent to which the person is responsible is restricting speech should hurt their chances. So there's things like this and also some reports of inhibiting people trying to get directly funded without youtube getting a cut. It may be a fine thing and even responsible thing to cur
Re: (Score:0)
On Thursday, YouTube creator Molly Burke presented Wojcicki with the accolade
Wait . . . WTF does this even mean? YouTube creator? Did Molly Burke create YouTube? Or is she just some random bimbo who puts stupid videos on YouTube?
Oh well, whatever. The whole thing is quite hilarious. These companies aren't even trying to cover up their corruption any more.
Wow! Employee of the month (Score:2)
Gee, I hope she gets a raise, maybe her own bathroom stall.
Re: (Score:0)
Gee, I hope taco gets a perfunctory schism, maybe pizza own pussy fart cis privilege
There, I fixed it for YOU. Racist.
YouTube is so petty (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they're pretending they're a bastion of free speech.
LMFAO.
Re: (Score:1)
They constantly shadow ban on political grounds too. You see a lot of smaller center-right content creators suffer through that. It's nothing too extreme. I'd say it's what the mainstream was maybe a decade ago.
I've seen way more extreme channels on the left side - even advocating violence sometimes stays unsuppressed while channels like the LiberalHivemind are shadowbanned (he does clickbait titles but content isn't anything too crazy).
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah.. I'm pretty appalled at the state of YouTube, and as a separate issues, also "the left".
In my head, I support dictionary liberalism. I'm not a conservative except on core principles, and that just means I change slower--not that I don't change.
But lately, I've had an awful lot of conversations with friends that ended in arguments because they espoused judging people just for their party associations and not their individual actions.
Re: (Score:0)
I want to clarify because I said "the left" and promptly railed against judging by party . What I was attempting to express, clumsily, was that these friends of mine individually identify themselves as part of this label, "the left", and see themselves in opposition to "the right".
It's the whole notion of "this lizard is less evil than that lizard" despite the lizards being identical except in outward coloration. That's the part that really gets under my skin. People aren't the labels we apply to them or ev
Re: (Score:2)
foundational principles of Western societies from free-speech to meritocracy as a goal.
Neither of those are foundational principles of Western societies.
Re: (Score:0)
Nothing of itself was foundational principles of Western societies.
FTFY, rat bastard son of a bitch who should die in a fire after being drown twice after having live fire ants poured into your dickhole with a funnel. Eat shit you transphobic dung beetle.I hate you intolerant namecallers. Asshole.
Re: (Score:0)
That it’s banned content creators if whose even mention alternative video streaming services.
Now pretending itself a bastion of free speech.
FTFY
They Can "Hide", But They Can't Hide (Score:4, Informative)
Old and new media are both desperate to pass off a manufactured/astroturfed popularity, and we've seen major upticks in this kind of thing over the last few years, both in politics and entertainment.
Manipulating RT critic reviews [slashdot.org] worked for Last Jedi, at least for a single weekend until the user reviews showed up and no one trusted the critic score anymore.
Manipulating RT user reviews worked for Captain Marvel, and now few people trust the user score either.
What's left? Most of what people still trust (e.g. word-of-mouth from folks they know, or reviews from trusted Youtubers) can't be gamed the same way, definitely not as effectively.
Now that Kathleen Kennedy has demonstrated she's still perfectly able and willing to damage Star Wars (and arguably other IPs) even after creative control's been stripped from her [youtube.com], anything that publically embarrasses her [youtube.com] or demonstrates the unpopularity of her politics (i.e. anything that gives the public a voice) must also be reworked . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Covered what now? YouTube has let users hide the like/dislike count on their videos for quite some time. The option is available to any user who uploads a video. I just checked, and it's still there.
The only channel I've seen actually use it is a Japanese vlog about ducks. [youtube.com]
Exactly What I'm Talking About (Score:3)
Covered what now? YouTube has let users hide the like/dislike count on their videos for quite some time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
See? You're not even aware of what Youtube was doing, probably because Slashdot didn't cover it. Google "dislike count" for the articles.
Re: (Score:2)
So I watched this video, they mentioned YouTube was (spooky theremin noises) "experimenting with hiding dislikes." and not much else. Apparently, I'm supposed to care because of some Marvel movie and Star Wars?
It wasn't reported on Slashdot because it's not news. YouTube has let uploaders hide the dislike count on their videos for a long time. If it's part of some plot to (more theremin noises) manufacture consent, they're giving equal latitude for any user on their platform to do it.
With all of the valid r
Re: (Score:2)
You dont even know the basic facts. Provably. You even admit it.
Re: (Score:3)
The only time you hide the ratio and disable comments is when you have something to hide yourself. There is no reason to do it.
But but but some videos attract tro-
The responsibility to call bullshit outweighs this.
But but but some videos are controve-
Any subject that is "too sensitive to discuss" MUST be discussed.
But but but some people have harassment campai-
There are no harassment campaigns, this is an excuse made up by thieves, liars, and scammers.
But but but some videos are watched by chi-
Google is fre
I feel like I've seen this before somewhere.. (Score:5, Insightful)
“So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause."
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think that quote was rather fake, but now I guess it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who applauded this "virtual ceremony", even virtually. It reads like a stark exercise in navel-gazing. The most popular content on the site also tends to be navel-gazing, so maybe they thought it'd fit, or something. As far as it having anything to do with "liberty", no. Not any more than any other cheesy ad.
Orwell was a genius (Score:1, Troll)
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Big Tech is Free Speech
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is OurTube.
3 weird things about youtube recently (Score:0)
1) after watching laowhy86's series on china in which he lived there 10 years, and had to flee, and got blacklisted by corporate sponsors, youtube's algorithm recommended a video of fugitive chinese billionaire "gao wengui" saying the ccp leadership is a criminal enterprise. Seems youtube's algorithm isn't kissing up to the CCP like most corporations.
2) I then searched youtube for "gau wengui" and was immediately asked to sign in. Maybe coincidence, maybe not.
3) One day after mentioning (near a smartphone)
With apologies to Woody Guthrie (Score:3)
This tube is your tube, this tube is my tube
Watch what you watch, dude
Or up the bum with no lube.
From Pewdiepie to the false flag hoaxes
This tube was made for you and me.
Don't be too hard on Molly Burke (Score:2)
I'm sure she just didn't see the hypocrisy in the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
She just saw which side her bread was buttered on, and decided it was in her best interest to do a bit more buttering up herself.
Re: Don't be too hard on Molly Burke (Score:4, Interesting)
No...she's blind. They literally picked a blind person to atest to the moral character of YouTube.
Seen worse (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You think that's bad? They gave the Prize to some other dude just because he didn't eat dinner.
WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me? Did I read this correctly?
YouTube gives its CEO an award for doing something that she's not doing at all?
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
Unless you're drinking from YouTube's own koolaid you're almost certainly going to be relegated to the bottom of the search results -- and demonetized, and given a few bogus community strikes as well.
This is like giving Hitler the Nobel Peace prize.
Unbelievable!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
You do know that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder are on there, right? Obviously people are allowed to say a wide range of unsupported poorly thought out garbage associated with free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which ideas are "alt-right"? The only one that stands out is his view on gender politics, but he is still respectful of trans people even if he doesn't believe in declarative genders, and respecting others' ideas is a staple trait of a liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Jordan Peterson is typically described as a conservative.
From what I recall from listening to him he is conservative-leaning, and some of his views are solidly conservative, but he does have some liberal views as well.
I think this WP except says it pretty well, though:
Re: (Score:2)
You just named a demonetized person,
Oh come on stop being a wanker. I think this award is as stupid as the next person (it's just astonishingly stupid) but seriously stop being a wanker. You're claiming a lack of free speech because youtube is no longer PAYING the person for their speech.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently conservatives think that Youtube not only owes them a soapbox, but also a salary. Whatever happened to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Oh yeah, that only applies to poor people.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently conservatives think that Youtube not only owes them a soapbox, but also a salary. Whatever happened to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Oh yeah, that only applies to poor people.
None of the listed people seem to be hurting for a buck, and none of them seem to be dependent on Youtube for their livelihood. I think the argument, though, is that if Youtube has a system by which creators can make money off their work AND they (per the article, albeit indirectly) declare themselves a place where freedom of expression can thrive, then the logical consequence is that the monetization system should apply equally to those who have popular views, and those who do not.
There's a difference betw
Re: (Score:0)
those have too much visibility to be easily banned without a good excuse as cover
the small ones do not and do get shadow banned for comparable content
Re: (Score:0)
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
You do know that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder are on there, right? Obviously people are allowed to say a wide range of unsupported poorly thought out garbage associated with free speech.
Yes, I agree. There are plenty of people promoting violence in the streets and pushing Woke over the edge of Cancel Culture, promoting narcissistic ignorance and dangerous anti-science because feelings are more important than facts.
The difference between them and Shapiro, Peterson, and Crowder, is they aren't fucking banned or demonetized.
(Yes, Crowder has endured bans before, so I wouldn't say he walks around with impunity on that platform.)
Re: (Score:2)
promoting narcissistic ignorance and dangerous anti-science because feelings are more important than facts.
The difference between them and Shapiro, Peterson, and Crowder, is they aren't fucking banned or demonetized.
So, no difference between them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not even hard to argue that Hitler actually does have a good chance of getting a Nobel Peace Prize, when you consider that his goal was to have a war to end all wars (intent is for peace in Europe) and he was actually successful as it took 50 years from ending of WW2 to the next large scale war on European continent, and even that one was peanuts compared to WW2 (outcome is peace in Europe).
With both intent and outcome being this peaceful, how could you not give him a Nobel Peace Prize?
See, it's all ab
Re: (Score:3)
And that's something that modern marxist left is exceptionally good at,
You seem weirdly up to speed on what the three remaining actual Marxists are up to. Unless of course "Maxrist" is the new "SJW", i.e. a shorthand for "shit I hate".
or example mindset of MLK of judging people by their character rather than their skin colour is racist in today's left's view.
No it isn't. The thing they view as racist is ignoring a few hundred yeas of structural racism (which still hasn't gone). Idiots interpret that as "rac
Re: (Score:1)
Marxists are people who believe in Marxist ideology, that people are fundamentally to be described by their status as oppressors or oppressed rather than any other category.
And thank you for confirming that it is indeed reframing that you engage in, such as pretending that Marxist invention of "structural racism" has anything to do with racism, rather than being a simple the reframing of the old Marxist view that "workers are oppressed by the owners and have false consciousness in the West that they're not
Re: (Score:2)
Marxists are people who believe in Marxist ideology, that people are fundamentally to be described by their status as oppressors or oppressed rather than any other category.
WHICH marxist ideology? Because Marx himself spoke specifically of the capitalist (owners) and the proletariat (producers) not a generalised conception of oppressor and oppressed. So clearly you're speaking about one of the many many variants, so would you mind telling me which?
And thank you for confirming that it is indeed reframing tha
Re: (Score:2)
>Because Marx himself spoke specifically of the capitalist (owners) and the proletariat (producers) not a generalised conception of oppressor and oppressed.
And Lenin specifically spoke only about the workers and not the peasants until 1920s. You appear to be trying to make a point and failing miserably.
>And as for structural racism, this is actual racism, and actually does exist, unless you think it's natural justice that, say, black offenders get harsher sentences.
Does your chosen "oppressed group":
M
Re: (Score:2)
Does your chosen "oppressed group":
More violent crime?
Apply more violence in similar crime?
Thing is black people get harsher sentences for the same crimes. What you seem be saying that because you think black people in general commit more violent crime then it's OK for an individual to get a harsher sentence simply because they're black.
Because that is what happens. So either you're denying well established facts or you're advocating for black people to be treated more harshly.
Then of course you accuse me o
Re: (Score:2)
Free Expression .. except when it doesn't fit [wikipedia.org] our corporate narrative! /s
Here's the free-speech gang (Score:0)
YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple, Amazon, et al with their like-minded free speech medal winners [snopes.com]
Susan W: The most undeserving person (Score:3)
And in other news, (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2)
A lot of stuff will get you demonetized, but you'll still be allowed to keep your account and uploaded videos in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I watch a lot of YouTube so I'm well aware of how much stuff will get you demonetized, but even with all the restrictions YouTube has it's about 100x more permissive than sites like Twitter, so I'm ok with it. A lot of stuff will get you demonetized, but you'll still be allowed to keep your account and uploaded videos in most cases.
You dismiss demonetization as if it's nothing.
For the beggars on YT desperately trying to make a click-buck, this is akin to walking up to the beggar on the street corner, and taking their money and cup away. Quite a few out there, rely on that income. And were able to rely on that income for years. Up until YT, like many others, got Woke. (which I'm certain will be the next word that triggers demonetization)
And comparing Shit to Shitter to make me feel better about Shit, ain't working. Still stinks.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was convenient that Youtube pulled its bait and switch after they had reached the critical mass to become a vertical monopoly. There is probably a lesson in there about letting corporations get too big or too influential. Probably.
The silver lining is that leaves a niche open for another platform to grow that isn't so ideologically driven and isn't striving to make itself just another outlet for cable television and the politically correct. One can hope that it doesn't get strangled in the crib
If this wasn't so pathetic and unfunny... (Score:2)
I might even laugh.
The New Media Award Shows (Score:2)
Just like the Old Media Award shows. In years past you didn't expect heathen viewers to nominate the Glitterati for Acadamy Awards, did you? Of course not. So obviously the Anointed are going to award their fellow Anointed online as well, because otherwise it's all heathens.
So there is no one level headed at Youtube (Score:2)
about as meaningful as all of (Score:2)
YouTube alternative (Score:0)
Re: YouTube alternative (Score:1)
Weirdo content?
You're the weirdo, goosestepper. Stay in your safe space and jerk in a circle.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitchute started well, but is full of ghoulish content that frightens normies away. Odysee.com doesn't have that plastered all over the front page.
With all human cesspools, the key words here are started well.
Unfortunately, we as a society have fallen off a cliff when it comes to defining "normal". It used to be normal to argue that women should not be forced to compete against men in sports. It used to be normal to argue that toddlers should not be trying to define and choose a gender before they even hit kindergarten. Hell, it used to be normal to argue, and have a healthy discussion on any topic.
Now, normal will get you cancelled, demonetized, o
Most literal non-literal circle-jerk... (Score:2)
Just like the "communities" YT creates. ;)
Which one of you will be first... (Score:2)
to file a DMCA take down request on the video? Let's see how free expression is when it gets automatically approved.
They laughing in your face (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:2)
...China is set to award its president the acclaimed title "Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms," which they just made up, for his outstanding handling of "undemocratic" feelings among the Uighur population.
That'll be the best award ceremony since The First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
Sadly... (Score:2)
Sadly, among the mainstream social platforms, YouTube actually is the most egalitarian and liberal in the original sense, meaning they censor the least. I wouldn't give an award for that very very low bar, but it's worth noting.
Meaningless Bullshit Award (Score:2)
Susan says EXACTLY what she thinks of independent content creators @1:59 [youtu.be]:
YouTube: Look at how great we are at Free Expression! We even got an award from ourselves!
Viewers: You just going to ignore the List of Demonetization Words [google.com]
Also: Hypocrites, much Susan? [wikipedia.org] So how is that "Free Expression" working out for the people that were "de-platformed" such as Alex Jones, David
these guys silence A LOT of voices (Score:2)
They are trying to get people away from the indie stuff as well. Lesser known bands. Smaller budget films.
YouTube wants to steer you toward the stuff IT likes. Not the stuff you like.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice when "free speech platforms" like Youtube grant notorious religious advocacy groups like the ADL "trusted flagger" status for the purpose of censorship.
It's really hard not to notice every four years the candidates for the job of "leader of the free world" go and bow and prostrate themselves before a panel of this tiny but extremely influential minority.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Really does seem like something Voltaire would say