Politicians Can Break Our Content Rules, YouTube CEO Says (politico.com) 102
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said this week that content by politicians would stay up on the video-sharing website even if it violates the company's standards, echoing a position staked out by Facebook this week. From a report: "When you have a political officer that is making information that is really important for their constituents to see, or for other global leaders to see, that is content that we would leave up because we think it's important for other people to see," Wojcicki told an audience at The Atlantic Festival this morning. Wojcicki said the news media is likely to cover controversial content regardless of whether it's taken down, giving context to understand it. YouTube is owned by Google. A YouTube spokesperson later told POLITICO that politicians are not treated differently than other users and must abide by its community guidelines. The company grants exemptions to some political speech if the company considers it to be educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic in nature.
Political Officer? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this, Russia?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Putinstan, memo gets you.
Don't worry (Score:2)
He slipped on his tea
Re: (Score:3)
'No it's USA, with its rampant corruption.
Re:Political Officer? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this, Russia?
Might as well be ...actually, it's no surprise that in a plutocracy, politicians would have the full support of the non-democratic corporations that own them. If the politicians do as they're told, their campaigns are well funded.
Re: (Score:1)
Not only are they well funded, they are not censored to oblivion. They are talking more than just paying off corrupt politicians with caimpagn donations, they are talking attacking those politicians opponents and censoring them, allowing attacks upon them and blocking any rebuttal, making them look like they are hiding from the public and the totally disingenous and entirely fabricated attacks upon them.
Active corruption of Democracy by YouTube, obey Googles laws of face attack and censorship, right in you
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, YouTube takes YOU down!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say the same thing. The last time I heard the term political officer was during the Soviet era. Just goes to show you how close to Animal Farm we have become.
Everyone is equal --- some are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a technical term in US Civics that refers to certain elected or appointed officials.
People with political science degrees will be expected to understand that this phrasing means it doesn't automatically apply to political candidates.
It would normally be rephrased for mass media consumption, but this is slashdot. You're expected to know a few words.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
False. HRC & the DNC commissioned it through their lawyers, who commissioned Fusion GPS to dig/make up dirt on Trump, who went out to Christopher Steele, a former, disgraced British spy deeply connected with Russia.
You're simply claiming the clown tried to sell similar shit elsewhere, and that even the Republicans who were desperate to stop Trump from hijacking their party knew he was so full of shit that they didn't bite.
Regarding the British government being blackmailed, that's a new one to me. I do
Re: (Score:2)
They should be putting up a sane candidate and a decent platform to beat him!
There's a decent selection of candidates in the DNC running right now.
Re: (Score:1)
What either party needs is someone who is Centrist, who u
Re: Damn that awful Trump! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which research did not involve a British citizen using his contacts in Moscow to obtain (fake) dirt.
Now this time Fusion GPS did send Steele to Moscow to use his contacts there. Says right here [wikipedia.org], that Steele was only hired by the Fusion GPS in June of 2016, whereas the Washington Free Beacon stopped paying th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the Steele dossier was ordered and paid for by the Democratic Party and their candidates, and only by them. Prior to the dossier, a conservative news website (The Washington Free Beacon) had also commissioned Fusion GPS to do some other research on Trump that didn't involve Steele or Russia. Whoever shopped the dossier to the press deliberately conflated the two in order to deceive people about its origins and funding. Clearly it worked, given how many people still believe that Republicans were behind i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Partly true. Steele was hired while funding was under republican control but didn't start billing until it switched hands. You can use that to support whichever narrative helps you sleep at night.
But we're still left with the fact that Steele's work product only saw the light of day, was shipped, under DNC/HRC payments. That under never-Trump Republican payments the content was not delivered and may not have even existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but if republicans hadn't originally ordered it, it definitely would have never existed. This is a pointless argument.
Its not clear republicans ever ordered anything involving a former MI6 operative using sources in Russia, ie Steele. All we know for sure is they ordered opposition research.
Is not pointless in that we know DNC/HRC paid for Russian meddling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's clear is that republicans initiated / funded the research and attached Michael Steele to it. Later the research team pitched it to DNC, who convinced themselves it was ok to continue funding it. Who initiated it matters. Ask Felicity Huffman.
And it wasn't the Republicans according to your own statement above. You said Steele was hired while republican were still involved but did not bill until DNC/HRC. Hence he did *no work* for the republicans, only for DNC/HRC. Seeking Russian dirt was entirely democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
You said Steele was hired while republican were still involved but did not bill until DNC/HRC. Hence he did *no work* for the republicans, only for DNC/HRC. Seeking Russian dirt was entirely democrats.
And you got that timing wrong as corrected above. Republicans left in May, Steele brought on board in June.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not. I do not dispute that the checks to Michael Steele started under democrats. But had their guy not dropped out, they would have started under republicans which would have been a nothing burger because that's status fucking quo..
I did not. I do not dispute that the checks to Michael Steele started under democrats. But had their guy not dropped out, they would have started under republicans which would have been a nothing burger because that's status fucking quo..
Its not just the checks. His firm was not hired until after the Republicans left, he did not work on he dossier until after the Republicans left. The status quo was the Republican contract to do opposition research from public sources, only the DNC/HRC took things beyond that and went to Russians for info.
;-)
Had the Republican not dropped out they would have been part of the dossier too. --- man talk about feeding oneself BS so you can sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
The above contradicts Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], which says, Steele was hired by Fusion GPS only in June 2016, whereas Washington Free Beacon ended their funding in Spring — when Trump "emerged as the probable Republican candidate".
And then here [wikipedia.org] it adds, that his "report" was given to the FBI — not to Fusion GPS, who could've, theoretically, given it to WFB — only in July.
Wow, splitting hairs to the micr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Funny!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Repub involvement ended before Steele (Score:2)
Partly true. Steele was hired while funding was under republican control but didn't start billing until it switched hands. You can use that to support whichever narrative helps you sleep at night.
Nope. You got the timing wrong. The Republicans ended involvement in May, Steel was not subcontracted until June. "In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016. In June 2016, Fusion
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016. In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. "
"Subcontracted" meaning it was the decision of the researchers initially contracted by republicans and not the DNC itself. They pitched continuing republican dirty tricks to the DNC and the DNC took the bait. It's clear to me that there's enough blame to go around but if you don't want to see that I can't force you to.
And now you also get the DNC timeline wrong. Read above, the DNC/HRC hired Fusion in April. The Republicans left in May. Steele was subcontract in June. The DNC/NRC were using Fusion two months before Steele was subcontracted.
Your accusation of Republicans being involved in go to Russia for dirt on Trump is purely your imagination and contrary to the evidence. Only the DNC/HRC went to Russian.
"All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work
Re: (Score:2)
and it was paid to Axios
What ? Axios is a news publisher. Do you mean Fusion GPS ?
If you can't even get that part right, why do you think your stuff is even near factual ? Your 3 points are basically Fake news.
Re: (Score:1)
Oppo research is perfectly fine, if you pay for it with your own money. Taking favors is (a) receiving a kind of campaign contribution and (b) means you owe someone something.
Taking favors from a foreign government means you owe something to that government.
Extorting favors from a foreign government with money appropriated by Congress is all of the above, plus breaking your oath of office.
Re: (Score:2)
No such extortion has taken place since 2017. Now, in 2015 — yeah, the then Vice President did that [nytimes.com], and kept bragging about it in 2018 [wsj.com].
Just like they can make robo-calls (Score:3)
You gotta wonder, who is serving who nowdays?
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what law they pass against robo-calls, they always exempt themselves.
Robocalls? They tried that once over here, loooong ago, like back in the 60s or 70s. The response was an angry crowd with torches and pitchforks. They never tired robocalling again.
Re: (Score:2)
I get why politicians really do need to get away with things that ordinary advertisers cannot, because democracy doesn't work if they don't get their message to their constituents (so their constituents know not to vote for them).
But robo-call machines are not legimate participants in the democratic process. It's just that simple.
YouTube is a publisher. (Score:3)
They exert editorial control.
At this point, yank their status as a platform.
Hold them responsible for anything illegal posted to YT.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, here's goes: YouTube, I hereby with all the power invested in me officially, categorically, and unequivocally yank your status as a platform.
There, that ought to do it. Get back to me if they disobey.
Re: (Score:2)
*Facepalm*
Not YOU.
The US government.
Re: (Score:2)
*Facepalm* Not YOU. The US government.
So you want the government to revoke the rights of the platform that is giving them special privilege? I'd say you must be new here, but you're in the 4 digit club.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, these businesses are given the option to be a platform, and thus, not responsible for the content of anything posted on their service.
OR they can be a publisher and editorialize the content on their service.
THEY CANNOT BE BOTH.
The protections are written in such a way that they are mutually exclusive.
So, it's Profits over rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they will allow content from "special" folks because it will help their ad revenue. So, if you get elected to some high profile office, you can now post whatever you like to draw attention you yourself and because folks want to see it, we will allows it, even if it violates our rules. We get the clicks, and the profit and maybe some subscribers too...
Yea, nothing seems wrong with this.. Not one thing.. (/sarc)
Re:So, it's Profits over rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
These new rules are shortsighted. They're just opening up a new loophole to be exploited.
Now KKK grandwizards, nazis, and people the likes of Alex Jones can just run for public office and they'll be exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, you can't claim to be a public politician AND keep internet anonymity.
Legal liability will still exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know for sure, but as far as I know it's not illegal in the US to declare that you think Hitler was a really swell guy and that he either didn't kill the Jews and that it's all a huge Jewish conspiracy or that you agree with the idea anyway so you can as well admit that he did it.
In other words, what legal liability?
Re: (Score:2)
Child Porn for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Officer means you were elected or appointed by somebody elected. It excludes mere candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
These new rules are shortsighted. They're just opening up a new loophole to be exploited.
Now KKK grandwizards, nazis, and people the likes of Alex Jones can just run for public office and they'll be exempt.
Well, the KKK was an official arm of the DNC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is smart, if I owned these companies as a shareholder I would be pleased. In fact you can see the stupidity of having some low level SJW pull down someones channel like say Devin Nunes and next thing your compliance expense went through the roof. (Not to mention being sued.)
Just call this smart business.
Funny thing is you wonder wh
Re: (Score:2)
Errr... This is surprising how? YouTube is not a non-profit entity, it exists to generate profits.
Or are you suggesting that YouTube ought to be somehow socialized?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is high enough in politics he's above the law.
Please don't tell me that this was news to you in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the headline is wrong. It even says so in the summary.
They will let anyone put up material that breaks their rules but has a strong public interest angle. That's always been the case.
The headline is just bad journalism, nothing more than clickbait.
they know not what they do (Score:2)
So, let me get the theory here... (Score:2)
If a politician decided to express his great admiration for Pol Pot, or NAMBLA, you want that suppressed to fear of "triggering" someone or violating "community standards"? Community standards that are extraordinarily slanted as far as politics goes?
Comments from a politician, good/bad/illegal/immoral, are the very definition of "in the public interest". You should *want* that to come out, that's valuable information.
Powerful stay powerful (Score:3)
What the fuck? (Score:1)
Whoa, something is amiss here (Score:3)
So then why is it YouTube repeatedly pulled my ads last year when I ran for delegate in Maryland citing a secret content policy that they refused to share? I have tapes of the calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't want it?
Re: (Score:2)
They said "can". It is a mistake to think that this means that if one politician can do it, others will be allowed to do it as well.
That is politicians... liberty for me, but not for thee! It's written all over the laws on the books!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, there is this thing called 'Time'
The Past, 'Then' is different then The Present 'Now'
Things that were true 'Then' are not always true 'Now'
Re: (Score:2)
I have tapes of the calls.
Are they on YouTube?
Seriously though, if not YT then Soundcloud will take them.
All animals are equal... (Score:5, Insightful)
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others - George Orwell
Re: (Score:2)
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others - George Orwell
"God created Man, but Sam Colt made all Men equal."
-- no one knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say exactly this.
Caste Systems (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see that no matter what they will remain in place no matter which nation you live in.
The people whining about inequality like caste system the most which is why they always judge people by their race, age, gender, religion, and political affiliations.
Re: (Score:2)
Now apply this same rule to everyone (Score:1)
I'll bet money (Score:3)
I'll bet real money that their exemptions only apply to politicians who they agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies agree with money. They'll allow anything at all up if it generates advertising revenue.
Greed is not partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies agree with money. They'll allow anything at all up if it generates advertising revenue.
Greed is not partisan.
If that were true they wouldnt be alienating and censoring a full half of their potential audiences and customers. This has nothing to do with money which is just fiat currency at this point and everything to do with power.
Figth Back (Score:2)
Mark their videos as inappropriate, make DMCA notices against their videos, there are lots you can do to them to make them spin their wheels.
It's Dumb (Score:2)
I have lost what little respect i have for these companies.
If you can't send a message that doesn't adhere to basic standards of decency then you should go somewhere else.
Especially people in a position of power, especially policy makers and extremely influential people.
Re: (Score:2)
The fun bit is that these people are essentially who is supposed to set the rules, who should actually be some sort of role model since they represent what we, the people, elect to govern us.
And exactly these people should now be above the law.
Is it me or is this kinda ironic? Not that it would be anything new, mind you, but so far I think it's never been said this bluntly that laws don't apply to those making them.
Check it out, Joe, hah! (Score:2)
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
Time to found a party (Score:2)
I guess this means now that if you're a content creator on YouTube and want to navigate their increasingly insane rules, all you have to do is found a party.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube Alternatives (Score:1)
Wow... (Score:2)
So not only laws but rules don't apply to everyone equally.
What bullshit.
Well... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything for friends,
taxes, laws, rules for everyone else...
"We need to reward our friends...and punish our enemies."
"If they bring a knife, we bring a gun."
~B. Obama
Now imagine if Trump or any respected figure on the right said something like that.
"The ends justify the means!" -- Every socialist, communist, and fascist ever.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
too busy bitching about the other to notice their own hypocrisy!
Standard fare for pretty much everyone these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who voted for Trump already knew he was a bull in a china shop and would offend the hell out of those on the Left and scare the bejeezus out of RINOs and 'establishment' Republicans. That was sort of the point for many of his voters as they were tired of being either ignored or called racists and deplorables by people that were elected to represent them while being silenced, censored, and their voices marginalized on Le