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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Do we really need to politicize everything? The number of gaming channels they have been shut down due to DMCA violations is like 100-1 if not 1000-1 compared to political channels.

But InfoWars gets their first strike and all of a sudden this is a targeted offense on YouTube's part to take down Right Wing channels.

Go watch a monetized gaming channel that's been around for a while. Most will leave the music muted because they don't know if it is copyrighted.




posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

it is not at all limited to info wars

your data is old and this is happening right now in greater numbers than what you admit.

notice how quick they put jones videos back up when the public noticed?

they done that because for them it is illegal to remove them and they were called out.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


I definitely agree with that assessment. I have seen countless alternative channels banned or their videos censored/age restricted and demonetized for no reason other that the targeting of conservative or alternative view points.

Heck I'd rather watch YouTube alternative videos or read Infowars than anything that comes from the MSM. At least I don't get blanket statements MSM are told to write.

YouTube is a private entity so until this is fixed, people need to fund a startup to create an alternative video uploading service for alternative content creators.


edit on 12-3-2018 by WarPig1939 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky




notice how quick they put jones videos back up when the public n

they done that because for them it is illegal to remove them


It is not...

Ever seen posts removed here?
edit on 3/12/2018 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

They never took them down. Your first strike means nothing. Your second strike in three months means you can't post for two weeks. Your third strike in three months terminates the account.

DMCA strikes have been a thing on YouTube for years now. The only difference now is that a prominent figure on the alt-right got one and now the alt-right as a whole have adopted a persecution complex.

Guess what? YouTube isn't the flagging these videos. The record labels have bots and algorithms that trawl through videos identifying copyrighted songs and they report them.

This is not a concerted effort. It is simply something that has been going on for a long time now.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Certain topics are taboo here at ATS and rightfully so in my opinion but the only opinions that matter are those of the owners and as such with You Tube.

You Tube owes nothing as far as a platform for your free speech and why would anyone expect them too ? As for copy righted material, it's pretty simple, it's the law that censors (wrong word) that material not the owners of You Tube.

If my life's labor involves the writing, or performing of music, then I wish for those that use it to pay for it, the same as a carpenter expects to be paid for the work on my house. I am pretty sure that he or she wouldn't buy that I am only making fair use of the house so I really don't owe anything.

You Tube provides a service, one that is expensive as far as bandwidth and it's mostly free to the user. They have to control what's on it or in some cases face lawsuits whether it be for copy right infringement or libel.

These recent lawsuits will be thrown out for no merit whatsoever and since there are other platforms out there that will host anything then it's not censorship. Public back lash could turn them around but not when it comes to copyright violations.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939

A lot of channels just got demonetized. YouTube just changed their monetization policy to be a lot more stringent.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


Oh I've taken notice. No one likes it when popular people create competition against the big corporations. That one was a given.


edit on 12-3-2018 by WarPig1939 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
So Infowars doesn't get to peddle their trash on Youtube. Is it really the end of the world?

The guy is full blown liar anyway, he's only interested in selling idiots garbage products.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
There is a severe and systemic inability to understand how the Constitution functions in the Original Post.

YouTube can play Nazi propaganda videos 24/7 or The Red Army Choir while banning everything else and they wouldn't be violating anything except people's sensibilities.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Youtube is a social media company. It is not run by the government.

As a private company, it can change its rules from time to time, and does. It can choose to not allow one group or another post, or to limit or deny such posting on its platform. And the only people that it has to answer to, is the stock holders. Everything else it pretty much a mute point.

One can cry and claim foul, the reality is that as long as the Government is not running this, it is not a case of censorship, but of a business decision.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939

The biggest channels on YouTube are gaming channels. The channels most affected by this policy change are gaming channels.

How do YouTube gaming channels cut in to the profits of the major corporations?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Facebook, Google, and Youtube are leaning as utilities. I think Youtube at one time claimed itself as a utility. It's only a matter of time when Congress treats them all as utilities, as they do deliver public services and benefits. When congress treats them as utilities, then it would be illegal for them to censor free speech.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Youtube is a social media company. It is not run by the government. L

As a private company, it can change its rules from time to time, and does. It can choose to not allow one group or another post, or to limit or deny such posting on its platform. And the only people that it has to answer to, is the stock holders. Everything else it pretty much a mute point.

One can cry and claim foul, the reality is that as long as the Government is not running this, it is not a case of censorship, but of a business decision.


I get your point, but what happens when the gov starts a corporation? Because power is obviously at the hands of those who control the narrative and the flow of information. Now more so than the past with instant information.

Do people think the think tanks didn't suggest this. It obvious to me, and I'm not some super brain.


Take a look at Google. They are parasitic, their privacy terms are absolutely insane.

They pushed the search engine, then military grade gps tracking of civilians. All for free. Now they are hard coded into everyone's phones.

The gov isn't retarded, they know about the tracking either way. They know about the Samsung TV's , the Alexa, the etc,etc...

I am almost convinced none of the "tech" companies are even real companies, they are just gov.llc's

Just take a look at what they are allowed to do. In a normal world, we would be protected from corporations.

It is getting out of control and into dangerous territory.

Now, they bought youtube.

Now we are here.

With the alphabet agencies with known revolving door employees with these "companies" it's pretty obvious what is going on.

Christ, they even named their "company" Alphabet.

They probably run Google and youtube and MSM at a loss with our tax dollars on top of all the info war bs.



edit on 3 by Mandroid7 because: corr



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I have wondered why youtube will censer CNN illegal live streams but they don't censer the fox illegal live streams?

Youtube is obviously biased against liberal views, why else would they censer CNN so much.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I agree with what your saying but I have to tell you something.



much a mute point.


It's moot , not mute. I see so many people on ats get this word wrong.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

If the government ran something like Youtube, by this time frame it would be out of business, or a defunct platform.

The federal government is functionally unable to run any sort of business. Best case of example of that would be Amtrak, that seems to be losing money time and time again, no matter how much they pump into it. And instead of letting those who could turn it around and have it make a profit, they override and it keeps getting worse and worse.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Yes I do admit to the typo, however, in this case it may be the correct word, where Youtube or any social media can eliminate or mute anything it does not like.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

It would be a hosting server. Not some high tech website.

You know, like the one they operate in Utah?

Running the DOT and post office is one thing, but our intelligence guys aren't beauracratic retards.

They made the internet.

Why would they not attempt to control the flow of information?

That makes less sense.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:45 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.


No the law should protect freedom of speech instead it is used as a method of control. Remember the SS operated within the remit of the law. That does not make the law right. If you however want to defend the removal of free speech continue..



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join