YouTube Bans Sky News Australia for One Week Over Misinformation (bbc.co.uk) 288
"YouTube has barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for a week, saying it had breached rules on spreading Covid-19 misinformation," writes the BBC.
Long-time Slashdot reader Hope Thelps shares their report: YouTube issued a "strike" under its three-strike policy, the last of which means permanent removal. It did not point to specific items but said it opposed material that "could cause real-world harm".
The TV channel's digital editor said the decision was a disturbing attack on the ability to think freely. Sky News Australia is owned by a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and has 1.85 million YouTube subscribers. The ban could affect its revenue stream from Google.
A YouTube statement said it had "clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policies based on local and global health authority guidance". A spokesperson told the Guardian it "did not allow content that denies the existence of Covid-19" or which encouraged people "to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus". Neither has been proven to be effective against Covid.
Long-time Slashdot reader Hope Thelps shares their report: YouTube issued a "strike" under its three-strike policy, the last of which means permanent removal. It did not point to specific items but said it opposed material that "could cause real-world harm".
The TV channel's digital editor said the decision was a disturbing attack on the ability to think freely. Sky News Australia is owned by a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and has 1.85 million YouTube subscribers. The ban could affect its revenue stream from Google.
A YouTube statement said it had "clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policies based on local and global health authority guidance". A spokesperson told the Guardian it "did not allow content that denies the existence of Covid-19" or which encouraged people "to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus". Neither has been proven to be effective against Covid.
Good move (Score:5, Interesting)
Sky News AU is even crazier than Fox News and that takes some doing.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Informative)
"Sky News AU is even crazier than Fox News and that takes some doing."
Same guy, both owned by Murdoch, who BTW, was one of the first people to get vaccinated.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sky News AU is even crazier than Fox News and that takes some doing."
Same guy, both owned by Murdoch, who BTW, was one of the first people to get vaccinated.
Murdoch is the fucking antichrist. I don't know what his agenda is or why he does what he does, but his news networks with their spread of disinformation against climate change, liberal and democratic policies and politicians, FUD on Covid, blind, fanatical support of Trump and his army of conspiracy theorists... it's hard to quantify the damage he has done, but I can't think of another person who has done more damage to the western hemisphere than him, since the end of WW2.
His companies are in the business of poisoning peoples minds.
Re: Good move (Score:5, Informative)
They are not anti vaccine or anti virus
What their overall policies are is completely irrelevant. Sky News heavily promoted not only on their own site but also their You Tube channels video by shock-jock Alan Jones claiming *incorrectly* that the Delta strain is not a concern and even less of a problem than the seasonal flu. He compared these numbers from hospitalisations cherry picking hospital data from countries that have heavily vaccinated their populations between the outbreak of the Alpha / Beta strain and the Gamma strain. Sky News also ran this front and centre right in the week where Australian media was pushing a vaccine drive saying the opposite: Delta is dangerous and highly infectious. He then suggested to the public that the government officials should be sacked for saying Delta was dangerous. Even American's Politifact decided to weigh in on this Australian specific story.
That is vaccine misinformation.
They also "interviewed" Craig Kelly (an MP who needs to be shot in the face with a bucket of shit and then fired from his job) to give him a moment to say that *unvaccinated* people were less likely to be hospitalised than vaccinated people again misconstruing UK data. This lie was so egregious that international news agencies corrected the record in case someone locally saw this brain dead piece of Australian wisdom. Sky News Australia then backed this lie with "data" (actually just a dataless blog) from The Daily Expose, which is like The Daily Mail crossed with Breitbart, crossed with nutjobs who want to watch everyone die.
That is fucking dangerous vaccine misinformation.
I don't give a fuck what some company's stance is on anything. Publish those as "facts", call everyone else "mainstream liars", and you even if you're the fucking pope you deserve to be purged off Youtube.
Reference, and to be clear: This is me pointing to why Sky News just got blocked (just because Youtube *won't* say, doesn't mean they *can't* say) https://www.abc.net.au/mediawa... [abc.net.au] Search "Sky News". If you can't find the exact story including actual video clips I'll give you a hint: The title is "Dangerous and misleading".
so naturally there has ended up a strange multi pronged attack to silence them.
I just wonder which "Youtube expert" shared that conspiracy theory with you. Was it The Daily Expose? You know what? I support this multi-pronged approach of silencing this bullshit, and I also hope Slashdot moderators step in and undo whoever gave you a +1 interesting mod for your factually incorrect post.
Again, low standards on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the last several years, the major network carried hysteria about Trump/Russian collusion, which was pretty much all proven to be untrue. The speakers who took the airwaves, suddenly changed their stories when in front of the court, and lying has a consequence. Do you change your belief in such networks after lying? Apparently not.
There are many such examples. The press that you are lauding is at
Re: (Score:2)
I want to be able to add entries to a KILLFILE, on youtube.
is there such a thing?
I want to see NO thumbnails, no nothing from a list of channels or producers.
I can block ads very well, but I want to block things I know would just aggrivate me and there's no reason to have to deal with NOISE. noise management was supposed to be a key goal of the web..
all the biden hate from sky news aus just is pathetic. I could tell just by the image thumbnails that they are a fox news related site.
so, any good content fi
Re: Good move (Score:2)
I miss killfiles too. Thing is that youtube et al have no financial incentive to help you filter.
Re: Good move (Score:2, Informative)
Freedom of the Press (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom of the Press belongs to he who owns the press.
Methinks Sky News needs to buy their own presses and stop using presses that belong to other people. If one is dependent on others allowing you to speak, then so shall ye be controlled. Deliberate unabashed use of Other People's Presses without a clear contract leads to being controlled by those Other People.
It also makes plainly obvious the total incompetence of Sky News when they complain of a situation of their own device.
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't work when a handful of tech giants monopolize the entire world's infrastructure to the point you would need to literally lay down your own fiber backbones and start up your own alternative DNS system just to get STARTED.
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
The closest thing to a traditional media monopoly there is.
This is not the little guy being oppressed by the big guy this is the former oppressor getting a taste of his own medicine.
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
What you should be considering is not whether or not Murdoch should be censored, or has the resources to personally bear being censored.
What you should be considering is whether, if Google is unafraid to censor him, there is anything that *you* - who almost certainly does not own a private media network - could do if they decided to censor you.
You may have a stake in this fight regardless of how much you despise Rupert Murdoch.
Re: (Score:2)
But just like when Stalin took on Hitler, that particular development was still a lot better than having both cooperate.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. This is over two billion little guys being oppressed by the big guy, by having their access to certain information (even if it might be wrong and harmful) cut off.
This is not quite right. The information is still there, and it's trivial to access it. A right to speak does not imply a right to be heard. In my home, I have complete authority over anyones speech and I can arbitrarily say to someone, "You can't say that here." and whether they like it or not they have to stop saying it or leave.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not the little guy being oppressed by the big guy ...
That's right. This is over two billion little guys being oppressed by the big guy, by having their access to certain information (even if it might be wrong and harmful) cut off.
Cut off [skynews.com]? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
His media empire has stirred political discourse in various countries for decades. And now they're upset for getting the same treatment that they've dished out for so long?
Yeah, absolutely no sympathies there. They can eat shit. What goes around comes around.
Re: (Score:2)
The day they stop doing the very same shit they're complaining about being done to them. My prediction is that it's the same day hell freezes over.
So they'll do what they always do, they'll use their network to push their own narrative and make their viewers believe that they're the good guys and that how google is treating them is some kind of unprecedented evil.
I mean sure, google certainly are not the good guys. They're not a friend. But at this point it's something like Hitler compl
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this voted down. Until the past year I've been taking up for google and YouTube saying, "Yes they have a lot of power, but they don't use it to stop speech or stop people from doing things. This, however has changed and I'm fearful of the power that these giants wield.
Yes, Rupert Murdoch has a lot of money and maybe he can create his own platform, but most people or organizations can't. Even if they could, do we really want more echo chambers where people are segregated into the platforms that agr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are pleading facts not in evidence. The so-called "tech giants" are neither "tech" nor "giant". They are merely handy crutches for the incompetent.
There is nothing which requires one to deal with your so-called "tech giants". They do not own the infrastructure nor do they control DNS.
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing which requires one to deal with your so-called "tech giants". They do not own the infrastructure nor do they control DNS.
This is such a polyanna view that I have to wonder if it isn't a sock account.
Google in fact owns a great deal of fiber, runs the most popular public DNS service, runs about 40% of all internet advertising network revenue, operates the most popular browser, and runs both the OS and -- more importantly -- the middleware of the most popular smartphone model.
The days where all you needed was some space at your local ISP to host a webpage are gone. If Google wanted to G-Line you from the internet and put its full weight behind it to knock you off the web to all but the most committed, it could.
Re: (Score:2)
They own a TV network, so don't feel too bad.
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't work when a handful of tech giants monopolize the entire world's infrastructure to the point you would need to literally lay down your own fiber backbones and start up your own alternative DNS system just to get STARTED.
It's not just that, though. Sky News could almost certainly host their own videos on their own infrastructure, if they wanted to.
The problem is that what Facebook and Google control are the major ways people find content. If you want to post a video to the Internet that other people will ever find, you use YouTube. Because that's where people go to find video content.
If you want to post a news story in such a way that people can share it with their friends and family, you use Facebook. Because that's the way the majority of people share things these days. If you don't play Facebook's games, your content doesn't get "promoted" on people's timelines.
And, really, that's what section 230 needs to be updated to address. When it was written it kind of assumed people could just go elsewhere, that having content taken off a single website didn't mean you were effectively removed from the Internet. But thanks to large tech monopolies on very specific areas of the Internet, that's no longer really true. For some people, Facebook is the Internet. They start at Facebook and they only ever see content that's been posted to Facebook.
For others, Google is. If you can't find it via Google, if it's not available via a Google search or a YouTube search, it might as well not exist.
And that's the problem. Sure, you can always go off and host your own stuff on the Internet, but does it really matter if no one is ever going to be able to find it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The problem is that what Facebook and Google control are the major ways people find content. If you want to post a video to the Internet that other people will ever find, you use YouTube. Because that's where people go to find video content."
"people" do not go to YouTube to find video content. "people" go to YouTube to find YouTube content.
"If you want to post a news story in such a way that people can share it with their friends and family, you use Facebook. Because that's the way the majority of people
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Minority of people? WTF cave did you crawl out of?
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose *some* people only get their news by searching in Youtube, but that's guaranteed to be a bubble. Youtube does NOT give you news you need to know, it just figures out videos you may want to watch based upon your past viewing history. If you watch a lot of shitty conspiracy videos, then that's all you ever see. Anyone with half a brain, regardless of political stances, knows that you get news elsewhere.
If you want Fox style news, then head over to Fox, or Aussie Sky. You don't need Youtube for t
Re: (Score:2)
And, really, that's what section 230 needs to be updated to address.
Noting that this story is about events in Australia and Section 230 is a US law, but I think the EU and Australia have similar laws based on or inspired by the US Communications Decency Act and Section 230. Don't know how similar though.
Re: (Score:2)
And, really, that's what section 230 needs to be updated to address. When it was written it kind of assumed people could just go elsewhere, that having content taken off a single website didn't mean you were effectively removed from the Internet.
Kind of curious what you think the solution would be in this case. Should youtube be held liable for misinformation posted by skynews or should youtube not be allowed to moderate their platform?
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:4, Interesting)
When it was written it kind of assumed people could just go elsewhere
I'm confused. When does Facebook or Youtube prevent you going elsewhere? You're making up fantasies for your Section 230 argument. How do you think morons get their news on Facebook? Someone actually needs to go to a news site and post a link. That's kind of the entire point of a social network.
Does this link give you Google or Youtube's 404 page? http://www.skynews.com.au/ [skynews.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
you have no clue what S230 is about (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha ha ha.
Conservatives worked tirelessly over the decades to make it almost impossible to take action over anti-trust issues, and now it's biting them in the ass. I can hear the world's smallest violin playing for them right now.
Maybe the righgtwing media needs to take their own advice and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Nobody's holding a gun to their heads and stopping them from creating their own global inter-networking system.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fiscal conservatives were all about free markets, promoting business interests, reducing government spending, and so forth.
Well... your statement is *technically* correct, but it ignores their motivations.
Those "fiscal conservatives" are all about making things good and easy for corporations and "the rich" (groups that they mostly belong to themselves), usually at the expense of everyone else, with the stated, but insincere, belief that helping those corporations and "the rich" may, eventually, also help other people -- that they don't really care about. The reality is that those direct beneficiaries of fiscal conservative p
Re: (Score:2)
True, but that side of the party regardless is quite underrepresented in the modern Trump party, which is focusing much more heavily on the working class which was the classical Democrat base in the past. Witness Trump's revival of trade tariffs, used early in the 20th century by Republicans who later dropped that idea because it did not work out so well and was opposed to their growing free trade focus. Ie, the wealthy corporations want free trade, it's good for making money. Opposed to free trade were
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's still an open question if they really care about the working class, or just their votes -- to keep themselves in power. Certainly, Trump himself doesn't really seem to care about those people, or really anyone but himself. He does enjoy fleecing them out of their money though. The Republican party (in general) seems more about scaring people into voting for them and staying in power than offering any real solutions that may help the working class -- or, really, anyone not rich.
Witness Trump's revival of trade tariffs ...
Ya, but, those
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, Youtube doesn't own the internet. Or even the fiber. Google might own some fiber, but it's most certainly not an internet monopoly in that sense. Social media is still relatively minor in the big scheme of things, especially when it comes to news. All the major news outlets stand on their own and do not rely on youtube or facebook or social media. The news that shows up in those places is just advertising for the main news sites. (or in the case of Fox and Sky, news creators)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't work when a handful of tech giants monopolize the entire world's infrastructure to the point you would need to literally lay down your own fiber backbones and start up your own alternative DNS system just to get STARTED.
You're defending the world's biggest news empire compared to a website that hosts videos. And the thought that you need an alternative DNS to get started sort of shows that you have no idea how DNS or the internet is run:
Hint: So far no one, not major governments, not tech giants have been able to keep anyone off the internet. At best they've managed to no do business with people they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Sky news just ran into a crowded theatre and shouted fire, they literally told lies that will literally get people killed if those people believe what they said and didn't act to protect themselves because of those ;lies.
So buying their own presses is irrelevant, they shouldn't be spreading lies so dangerous that people can die if they believe those lies.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Covid is a libral hoax" but "Trump saved us all with the vaccine" that they won't take because it's really a liberal plot
Yep, either way gets clicks. It doesn't *have* to make any sense. It just needs to get clicks.
And just think ... (Score:2)
Will they have the guts for Faux News? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems like a double standard... or does Russia have huge investments and can influence exceptions for their propaganda?
This is all private business... Yeah, I have the right to "speak" part your software in my software, not pay you a cent for it, and claim I wrote it all while squatting on your land. It's my right!
Safe Search? (Score:3)
They already do it on the search engine for "mature" content. Perhaps YouTube needs a similar thing for misinformation?
I still don't think they'd want a bunch of neo-Nazis posting hate speech. But if you want to post misinformation about COVID, elections, or evolution then maybe you get a different URL with some kind of sticker or banner proclaiming the info might be wonky.
It's still problematic, but so is banning videos, and letting dangerous misinformation flourish can be even worse.
Just curious (Score:2)
I read in TFA "In one 12 July broadcast with MP Craig Kelly, both men claimed Delta was not as dangerous as the original and vaccines would not help." Indeed saying that doesn't help.
Was the youtube account banned for that or other disinformation ? Can Aussie slashdotter provide more examples ?
Re:Just curious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot ethically allow a lethal disease to spread unchecked, and so these vaccinations that greatly reduce lethality are vital before other restrictions can be relaxed.
There is no ethical duty to protect people from themselves.
I am completely comfortable with letting the virus spread unchecked unless doing so would overwhelm local medical systems. Many months have gone by with huge numbers of vaccination slots going unfilled to the point where entire vaccination sites have packed up due to lack of demand.
Anyone who wanted to get vaccinated has had more than ample opportunity to do so AND for the required time to have elapsed to become fully vaccinated.
Think freely? (Score:2)
Then why isn't Sky News or the Fox tabloid covering the potential rape story about Tucker Carlson? I've heard he supposedly raped a woman in the 90s. Why isn't that being looked into?
Or the out of wedlock child Senator Lindsey Graham supposedly has?
One line stands out (Score:3)
"The ban could affect its revenue stream from Google."
Google (and others like Facebook) in Australia were recently forced into a revenue sharing deal with NewsCorp, for the use of news headlines and article summaries.
This is payback, justified by the "misinformation" tag. Let the games begin. Facecbook, twitter, et al will now feel a bit braver about suspending NewsCorp accounts.
Consequences for YouTube if it's wrong? (Score:3)
Thought experiment:
YouTube bans something.
Later its found out that the ban was inappropriate because actually the something was correct.
Will YouTube then be liable for the damage caused? How much did Sky News loose with a week's ban ?
Ha, silly thought!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it kills millions, starts civil wars, and gets Adolfs elected?
Re: Freedom means the freedom to say 2+2=4 (Score:3, Insightful)
Adolfs tend to ban speech immediately upon election.
And the way they get elected (assuming they actually take the ballot box as opposed to ammo box approach) is usually by stigmatizing those opposed to them and their ideas out of the socially acceptable boundaries.
Best to let them speak so that their bullshit is on display for all, rather than just the sanitized veneer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Best to let them speak so that their bullshit is on display for all
That only works when people believe "it's" bullshit rather than believe "the" bullshit. Trump and the 6th of Jan has demonstrated quite conclusively simply letting people speak does not let sanity prevail. Mind you given your username I think this point may be lost on you.
Re: Freedom means the freedom to say 2+2=4 (Score:2)
If people believe bullshit, force feeding them your own propaganda instead isn't an adequate bandaid. The real problem is lack of critical thinking and it happened a long time ago.
And the only thing a censorship regime will do is allow the next unscrupulous powerhungy cunt who gets into power force feed his shit down everyone's throat.
All negatives and no benefits. Unless you're the one in charge of the banhammer. Then you're sitting pretty.
Re: Freedom means the freedom to say 2+2=4 (Score:2, Insightful)
This has historically been the difference between European politics and American and Canadian politics: in the New World, government promises to enable people to prosper through their own efforts, while in Europe it's often about figuring out whom to blame for whatever is wrong in your life.
Often it was the Jews, sometimes it was landowners or wealthy people in general, but it was always the idea that your problems are someone else's fault, so let's go get them.
Here, this never happened to the same level a
Re: Freedom means the freedom to say 2+2=4 (Score:3)
Cupcake, these days the only people pushing theocracy *are* the woke. They lead many powerful institutions and very conspicuously believe that entitles them to preach to their employees and their customers how they should behave and what they should think.
You may be confused because no supreme deity is in the mix, and I'll grant you that perhaps calling it a religion may be a stretch for that reason, but in form it's isomorphic to the late Renaissance Catholic church selling tickets to heaven.
Re:Freedom means the freedom to say 2+2=4 (Score:5, Insightful)
There has always been limits to free speech, it has never been an absolute. This is why we have slander and libel laws. Now you could say that those aren't political ideas, but I would counter by saying that community health issues also should not be political either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There has always been limits to free speech, it has never been an absolute. This is why we have slander and libel laws. Now you could say that those aren't political ideas, but I would counter by saying that community health issues also should not be political either.
Freedom of speech *IS* absolute. The problem here is your definition completely misses the point of what freedom of speech actually is.
Imagine being put on trial for asking (free speech) a teller to empty their cash draw.
When you are caught and put on trial what you will be charged with is not communicating the wrong thoughts and ideas. It will be for robbing the frisking bank.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with a grant to use the act of literally speaking to facilitate whatever activity ones little
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of Speech IS NOT ABSOLUTE so long as trademarks and copyrights exist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Quote: "... to allow all speech ..."
Why on Earth, Hell or Heaven SHOULD anyone in their right mind ALLOW SUCH MONSTRUOSITY?
Haven't you EVER hear of UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS?
Art. 1: "All human beings are ... equal in dignity and rights ..."
That FORBIDS any speech of xenophobia. So any racist ("n*ggers this or that") speech is A CRIME, any homophobic ("LGBTI doesn't have the right to marry or adopt") speech is A CRIME.
That is set in stone in the Art. 2 "Everyone is entitled to all the rights an
Re: Freedom means the freedom to say 2+2=4 (Score:2)
Governments are established among men to secure their rights.
Governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
International agreements among unelected bodies such as the UN do not check those boxes. While these institutions may occasionally stumble onto true and honorable principles, they have no force of law or legitimacy.
Your interpretation of the UDHR could reasonably extend to CRT land where any objective measure of human performance that hands out a low score is an act of hate speec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that the "fire in a theater" thing is not just a myth, but it comes from a judge who publicly supported nazi eugenics style forced sterilizations, right?
>For example, if you have a decent audience, you shouldn't be permitted to quote outlier doctors without pointing out that they are outliers. And doctors should also lose their medical license for not pointing it out if interviewed, or even jailed if they do it repeatedly.
And who decides? You? The state? You've just described the USSR, China,
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube isn't beholden to the court system, but it is a part of the establishment.
https://www.techtransparencypr... [techtransp...roject.org]
We just need to enforce the existing laws (Score:2)
I don't think we're going to see that though. The right wing in all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. They do not exercise editorial control over legitimate speech.
They are a business entity out to make money from the incompetent proles who beg to use their facilities.
If you want to use MY PROPERTY then you will damn well follow MY RULES.
If you do not like it, fuck off and acquire your own property to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moral compass my ass. They're doing exactly the bare minimum needed to avoid fines and unwanted regulatory intervention by legislators, while taking exactly zero steps to move away from a business model that derives revenue entirely from engagement, regardless of content. Until such a time that the cost of spreading misinformation exceeds what they bring in in engagement revenue, they will not take any steps to solve anything.
This morning I saw this YouTube banner about how they are taking misinformation se
Re:Repeal Section 230 (Score:5, Funny)
It literally is wrong. You have the entire medical community in agreeance. The number of people who disagree are sitting in the noise floor with conspiracy theories and sticking spoons to their head.
https://www.fox19.com/2021/06/... [fox19.com]
Let's not forget about the demon sperm "doctor" Stella Immanuel https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
The spoon doctor still has a valid medical license. I don't even know how that's fucking possible.
Re: (Score:3)
I had to go look up the article, and it's a real WTF moment:
There are indeed problems associated with hav
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I notice many comments on YouTube getting shadow-banned. Anything that mentions certain topics even when you're just being open about all sides of a subject and trying to have an open debate. They're totally silencing any open discussion at all.
You can't have a world where only one side of a debate is heard but that's exactly what Google and others are doing.
You might say "well open your own platform" but the problem with that is the barrier to visibility in the market is enormous. For example, try running
More like fake news bullshit you fell for (Score:2)
https://www.logically.ai/factc... [logically.ai]
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean how a lot of established news orgs have gone so political that they will just lie.
There is a problem factual and we'll recorded, one side proposes a solution. Free speech and open sharing of ideas would be fine for an honest debate on other solution or the stance doing anything will make it worse.
But what is happening is when there is a problem, the other side will just say that problem is a lie and doesn't exist. This is not free sharing of ideas and speech. It is just misinformation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there is also one side that heavily publicizes other things that they think are problems, but that aren't very well supported by science, and more importantly, are considered to be lies/nonexistent by the other side, which doesn't know when to believe what anymore, so just goes with their gut/faith. This situation has been around for a long time now, and sadly both sides are trained to expect it and have entrenched themselves in ridiculous positions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now here is the thing. Should Fox News be forced to run coverage from MSNBC? That sound crazy doesn't it?
Sky News is using YouTube's infrastructure to stream its videos. They have no right to its usage, beyond what YouTube allows for in it's terms of service. If Sky News doesn't like it, they can stream it from their website like they do right now!
Nobody is being censored here. You can still watch Sky News Australia no problem. Just not on YouTube.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Informative)
If I SWAT you is it also a thought crime? I mean I didn't kill your family directly right?
and noncompliance with the official narrative.
Sky News actively said you're more likely to die of Delta if you have been vaccinated, and called the Delta variant less dangerous than the flu and the least dangerous of the COVID variants so far.
Fuck you for defending that shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sky News actively said you're more likely to die of Delta if you have been vaccinated
The problem is that we don't know if that's what they said, or if they said something factually correct that's been misrepresented that way to prevent a counter-narrative happening.
It's no different to here, where posting simple facts with references from Government publications gets you modded down while a host of people screaming that you're a liar get modded up because they're supporting the popular narrative.
Given Sky have referenced a number of different videos that have been removed it's curious that
Re: (Score:3)
Don't "we". You don't speak for me. I know exactly what they said because I watched the video
Yes, but I don't trust you to accurately inform us of its content. I'll let you decide whether that's due to my assessment of your ability to understand it, or because I consider you unreliable.
Recordings of it continue to be available
I notice you didn't link any of them. But why 'it' when several videos have been banned by Youtube?
Why do you actively support someone lying at the expense of lives of others?
Now look at you. Claiming I'm actively supporting someone for doing something I don't even know whether they've done it even though I'm not even supporting them anyway. And you wonder why I can't trust your reports of w
Re: (Score:3)
When did YouTube become a "news org?"
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Funny)
Thankfully there is a God and this , how shall we say, anthropomorphic not-so-white noise will receive its due.
Care to give a date?
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Funny)
You could just have said 2033, you would have looked slightly less barking that way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is better reading than the Onion!
Today Australia, tomorrow the world! (Score:3)
This site here has become a fetid cesspool, infested with professional downvoters and other, more voluble thought shepherds. Thankfully there is a God and this , how shall we say, anthropomorphic not-so-white noise will receive its due.
I can't really decide if that deserves requoting against trolls with censor mods, but can't you at least remember to dump the troll's Subject? Or maybe even nod to the story?
My Subject? My reaction to years of YouTube. This is going the wrong way. Australia should ban YouTube. Followed by the rest of the world banning it. If ever a dominant quasi-monopoly deserved to be put out of business... Well, I really can't imagine a more deserving one. You don't agree? Second best persuasion would be to suggest you r
Re: (Score:2)
Look up Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.
And Dr. Anthony Cardillo, Dr. Mohammud Alam, and then ask why a definitive study, as these doctors recommended, was not done for the most seriously ill COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Not all patients, not as a universal treatment, but for those facing the respirator, which was not an effective treatment regime last year.
Me? I just want the on-point studies. Not the young, or those with minimal symptoms. Indeed, if 80%+ of patients forced onto respirators died anyways, not much
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people so desperate for these old cheap drugs to do something? If you get the vaccine you won't need these drugs. We have batches of vaccines expiring because people don't want them. Do conservatives really believe that millions of doctors and researchers are all in on this conspiracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people so desperate for these old cheap drugs to do something? If you get the vaccine you won't need these drugs.
About a thousand fully vaccinated people have died thus far from covid in the US alone. Vaccines are not foolproof. Effective treatments are still important regardless of vaccine efficacy or uptake.
Do conservatives really believe that millions of doctors and researchers are all in on this conspiracy?
There is absolutely a conspiracy. Funding for properly designed large scale trials does not grow on trees. Trials are preferentially funded by those with a substantial financial stake in outcomes.
Thankfully there are presently many dozens of ongoing Ivermectin studies. Hopefully we will soon have more defini
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want to take the vaccines if you are healthy?
Because when you are sick the vaccines wont help. You get vaccinated BEFORE you are subjected to the disease that will make you sick.
And newsflash, they don't work right away either. The entire purpose of a vaccine is to let your own body build a defense against the disease. So you got to let your body work and fight off the vaccine which is much less dangerous than the disease.
There are already enough data to show that the benefit risk ratio of covid vaccines is < 1 if you are under 35.
I call BS on this but since you want to be so enlightened, why not show us the studies, please? What risks are they looking at? And
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is stopping this global television network from broadcasting their own content.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is stopping this global television network from broadcasting their own content.
I think granting unchecked power to corporations to censor whatever speech they feel like is dangerous to society. I believe government has a role in protecting citizens from corporate tyranny along the lines of Marsh v. AL.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that there are equivalent studies on hydroxychloroquine, but in a petri dish ivermectin is effective against COVID. According to the analysis I read the problem is the concentrations used are not possible in even nearly healthy humans...and probably not in mammals of any sort. At those doses ivermectin itself becomes a fairly effective poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are the right constantly pushing drugs that aren't proven to work and probably don't? Do you look for ways to be wrong?
Why not talk about stuff that is scientifically proven like dexamethasone?
Re: (Score:3)
How is this related to left or right. Did you even look at the link? The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that ivermectin is effective. NIH are convinced enough to start a large controlled study. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government is too stupid to pull this off.
Disagree, I'd say that unlike Russia, they're not reckless enough to try something so dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Democrats. Democrats are not and never have been left. They're just another party of asshole right wingers but with delusions of moral superiority. [youtube.com]
When AOC is calling for censorship and platform bans, that makes her right wing, not left wing. Just as Ron Paul wouldn't have been a libertarian if he had won the presidency in 2008 and promptly called for the confiscation of guns and private property.
Re: (Score:2)
Quackery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"You can't cut out half your userbase and expect to survive"
Only if they have a competitor, which they don't . And if you do try to start one, say by using AWS, they will shortly lock you out. You want advertisers? Haha, they will be boycotted and scared to death immediately via a leftist-organized campaign. You want to sell stuff? Haha, they will pressure Visa and Mastercard to lock you out. Oh, you'll just take checks then? They will pressure Chase or JPM to summarily close your accounts.