It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Youtube Censoring Legal?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Youtube copyright laws
What's Legal YouTube: Fair Use Vs Copyright Laws. The most common YouTube Video copyright infringement involves using songs without permission of the copyright holder that cannot be claimed as "Fair Use". ... Besides the removal of the video and suspension of the account, penalties for such actions can be extreme.Dec 1, 2015
What's Legal YouTube: Fair Use Vs Copyright Laws | Videomaker.com
www.videomaker.com...



So how do they keep getting away with the removal of certain view points and still remain in business givin that the only way they are legal in the first place is by allowing all viewpoints.



YouTube blocking occurs for a variety of reasons including:[3] Limiting public exposure to content that may ignite social or political unrest; Preventing criticism of a ruler, government, government officials, religion, or religious leaders; Violations of national laws, including: Copyright and intellectual property protection laws; Violations of hate speech, ethics, or morality-based laws; and National security legislation. Preventing access to videos judged to be inappropriate for youth; Businesses, schools, government agencies, and other private institutions often block social media sites, including YouTube, due to bandwidth limitations and the site’s inevitable potential for distraction.[3]


wiki

Is this the year we lost the internet?



Censorship of LGBT content in Restricted Mode In March 2017, the "Restricted Mode" feature was criticized by YouTube's LGBT community for unfairly filtering videos that discuss issues of human sexuality and sexual and gender identity, even when there is no explicit references to sexual intercourse or otherwise inappropriate content for children.[16][6][17] Rapper Mykki Blanco told The Guardian that such restrictions are used to make LGBT vloggers feel "policed and demeaned" and "sends a clear homophobic message that the fact that my video displays unapologetic queer imagery means it's slapped with an 'age restriction', while other cis, overly sexualised heteronormative work" remain uncensored.[17] Musicians Tegan and Sara similarly argued that LGBT people "shouldn't be restricted", after acknowledging that the mode had censored several of their music videos.[18]


Did anyone see where freedom went? I know it was here at one point cause someone told me.






posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   


So how do they keep getting away with the removal of certain view points


Define "get away with"...

Censorship is only illegal when a government does it... corporations have carte blanche in regards to what is said on their platforms... as well as private business should be allowed to, in theory, discriminate as they see fit.

That being said the acceptability from the public on "justifiable discrimination" is heavily left leaning. We all know the story of the "christian baker and the gay wedding". I HIGHLY doubt it would have gone the same way if it was the story of "the Klan meeting and the black caterer."



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
YouTube is a business. They don't have to allow for freedom of speech in order to be operating legally. Their house, their rules.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: hombero
YouTube is a business. They don't have to allow for freedom of speech in order to be operating legally. Their house, their rules.


not from what i have gathered

since they allow copyrighted material they can not censor viewpoints but they can censor according to their fair use agreement.

they are operating where none other operate in terms of the law.

now since certain view points are being censored they are just one court ruling away from closing the doors.

that is why they quickly reinstate any accounts censored in this manner if the public takes notice..then recensor



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

youtube is not operating under the same laws that other companies do



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

Given the social medias are effectively public utilities, whom just so happen to have extremely cozy relationships with government, and it's all user generated content they're making g money hand over fist with, perhaps it's time to overhaul they're censor-ability laws etc.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Lots of people do not understand the First.

And most tube users only care about the issue if it is their material being removed so it doesn't affect the site.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
no other site on the internet can use copyrighted content



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
YOUTUBE can SUCK IT! I was at $80.94 revenue when they stopped revenue sharing for my caliber of a contributor. I need $100 in revenue to get paid though google. And now they are censoring video's en masse. Eff YOUTUBE!

The people need a better alternative to YOUTUBE!



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
?

How would it not be legal?

Its their website. Their rules. They can be as petty and arbitrary as they want to be.

Im assuming you are asking a philosophical question that I can't quite flesh out...



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

they allow copyrighted material and that removes them from many laws that other companies such as ats has to follow

it gets deeper than that and i am not the best to explain such but they are operating beyond the law with special permission from the gov. under the assumption that they will not censor viewpoints but they are only allowed to censor according to their fair use agreement and not according to ideologies.

if this ever makes into court they will loose



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Lots of people do not understand the First.

And most tube users only care about the issue if it is their material being removed so it doesn't affect the site.


So much this. When did schools stop teaching civics classes? For crying out loud people, the First Amendment says government shall not abridge free speech. It says nothing about businesses, whatever their business encompasses. As was said, Google's house, Google's rules. No different than here on ATS: break the rules, pay the price.

And any website can quote copyrighted content as long as it qualifies under "fair use." Happens all the time here.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

It's legal. They get away with it because people keep visiting anyways.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
There was a big lawsuit that set a good precedent for content creators in the last year between Matt Hoss Zone and H3H3 Productions, which effectively protected a lot of content creators on Youtube under fair use rules.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   
in other words they can say this video or that broke their fair use agreement but they can not totally censor due to ideologies.

such as stating "we removed your video because it was conservative". That would be illegal for them

they have to use reasons covered under their fair use agreement but when certain members begin have all videos removed it shows they are breaking the law if said content was not violating fairuse



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: howtonhawky

It's legal. They get away with it because people keep visiting anyways.


not legal to censor based on viewpoints



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
thehill



The lawsuit claims that Google and YouTube had told PragerU that the restricted videos were found by content reviewers to be “inappropriate” for young audiences. The conservative site denied that the videos were improper or violated any of YouTube’s policies, and said in the filing that the explanation is “an obvious pretext to justify illegally discriminating against PragerU because of its conservative political perspective and identity.”



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Like I keep saying we need an internet Bill of Rights for the U.S.A. specifically. Freedom of speech should be guaranteed online on any platform if you are a US American citizen or a verified IP address within the U.S.A. This would also include private social media platforms. Just my two cents.
edit on 12-3-2018 by WarPig1939 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

I think you have been mislead or misunderstood. Do you have a link to a good source for what you are claiming?

Privately owned, they make the rules, you live with them if you want to use their site. It is that simple.

You could end the debate by simply providing good sources explaining what you are saying.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

that article from the hill just above so far is the best and yes i am working on more content to explain better but do not expect anything to posted persuade any one either way.

as far as info it will take a bit cause....

google


eta the links in the op also show this but you have to read between the lines.

ask yourself the question of how does youtube get away with the copy right infringement if not all infringement is educational.

think about all the movies and such posted on you tube

it is legal for them and them alone
edit on 12-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join