YouTube to ban 'hateful, and 'supremacist' videos

a reply to: dug88


Nice. Hopefully him and Jared can grab a drink and work on their world domination plans.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As is the custom at such meetings.

Goodbye Ugly Kid Joe you hateful Prick.


I, hate the rain and sunny weather,
And I, hate the beach and mountains too
(And) I don't like a thing about the city, no, no
And I, I, I, hate the country side too!

And I, hate everything about you!
Everything about you!

I don't like a thing about your mother,
And I, I hate your daddy's guts too,
I don't like a thing about your sister, no, no
'Cause I, I, I, think sex is overrated too.

And I, get sick when I'm around,
I, can't stand to be around
I, hate everything about you!
Everything about you, everything about you,
Everything about you.

Maybe this somewhat haphazard act by Youtube on 6/5 right after the Bilderberg 2019 meeting ended on June 2 is significant.

Strict orders may have come down from upon high.

The Bilderberg Meeting 2019 takes place from 30 May to 2 June in Montreux, Switzerland. A press release including the list of topics and participants can be found here

www.bilderbergmeetings.org...

a reply to: DBCowboy

Free speech is protected in the public square, not necessarily in the corporate space. This is no different than a newspaper denying to print a neo-nazi advertisement.

I hope that these YouTube users sue the hell out of Google. Not because I agree with them, but because I hate YouTube.

a reply to: lincolnparadox

Define it however you wish.

It's corporate censorship, but in the end, what differentiates government-ideological censorship from corporate-ideological censorship?

originally posted by: lincolnparadox
a reply to: DBCowboy

Free speech is protected in the public square, not necessarily in the corporate space. This is no different than a newspaper denying to print a neo-nazi advertisement.

I hope that these YouTube users sue the hell out of Google. Not because I agree with them, but because I hate YouTube.

So you are saying that YouTube and others like it are not a mere platform, but instead they are a publisher?

That's fine. Then they need to redefine themselves as a publisher and follow those rules and not call themselves simply a free content platform for any user like they do. Basically, they're trying to have their cake and eat it to.

I's have less problem with what they do if they did call themselves publishers and publish clear rules and guidelines and vet those who post and what they post on their sites like actual publishers do.

a reply to: dug88


As soon as another platform comes online that takes the videos they are dumping, they are finished. Stupid business move and its going to alienate and piss off a lot of people.

a reply to: dug88



I would have no problem against hate speech being banned, but its the fact that they are selectively banning content that is disturbing. They are leaving hate speech against some groups alone, others are banned, that speaks of an agenda. In short, the left can be as hateful as they want towards whoever they want and they don't get touched.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The answer is never more government.

Wow, I had to do a double-take... you actually said something that I wholeheartedly agree with.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Wow, I had to do a double-take... you actually said something that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Probably because you reside in a right wing echo chamber where anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist.

As I said before, I have very Libertarian views on things and when people think I'm on the left the situation is pretty friggin sad for them.

originally posted by: Grambler
I don't know what the answer is. I suggest a sort of internet bill of rights that says people may not be kicked off of these platforms for ideological reasons.

I agree 1000%. Regardless of whether or not these behemoths are 'private companies' or not, I don't think it can be argued that they aren't the online equivalent of the public square when it comes to speech, so free speech rules should apply.

In addition, laws already on the books should be applied against these companies. So if youtube and the rest are now acting as publishers and not platforms, they should be held accountable for the material they publish. And if they are ideologically favoring one party, they should have to process that as a campaign contribution and be heled to those laws as well.

I decided to read this entire thread to see if anyone else had brought up Section 230 of the CDA. You didn't mention it by name, but that is what you are referring to, as it is what gives them immunity for content - but only because they don't police the content.

Now that they are policing it, they should automatically lose CDA protections and become liable for the content.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Probably because you reside in a right wing echo chamber where anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist.

As I said before, I have very Libertarian views on things and when people think I'm on the left the situation is pretty friggin sad for them.

Said someone who resides in a left wing echo chamber.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Said someone who resides in a left wing echo chamber.

Present some of my left wing views, I have plenty of threads on politics. I won't hold my breath since you wont find any.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Said someone who resides in a left wing echo chamber.

Present some of my left wing views, I have plenty of threads on politics. I won't hold my breath since you wont find any.

Go on, embrace your dirty pinko commie side.

We give hugs.

What’s interesting on this is YouTube seems to play dumb.
We all know what blatant racism and bigotry is and it's not a documentarian merely showing us Hitler’s speeches in the context of documentary and historical reasons.

So how can they be so stupid and cancel well-known news sites that do have recordings of nasty racists and upload them for educational and informational purposes?
Are the people at YouTube that goddam stupid?
I doubt it.

Or are they using machines or just some vapid algorithm to choose?
Damn, they need to hire thinking human beings to do this.

conspiracy

My conspiracy theory relates to the fact that the Bilderberger conference ended June 2 and YouTube did this June 4, likely on orders from the elitist who gives YouTube and other media mavens its marching orders, in terms of the NWO deep state agenda.


It's possible this is a turning point in that agenda and this is a start. We know they want to put virulent racists and advocates of violence in the same box as legitimate civil rights, left-wing, conservative and libertarian idealists, and conspiracy theorists like 911 truthers, and legitimate anti-corporate activists.

Indeed, they want to lump them into the nut bag category and get rid of all legitimate activists along with them.

This is what appears to us to indicate a sinister plot behind this.

a reply to: DBCowboy

YouTube can do whatever it likes based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It can delete posts that it views as threatening or vile or naughty. Or it can ignore them.

www.law.cornell.edu...

www.lawfareblog.com...

a reply to: lincolnparadox

Right.

Corporate censorship.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ketsuko,

This case has already had its day in court with higher stakes than deleting conservative posts. YouTube has special status as an online content provider. It's a weird ruling, but backed by Congressional legislation.

www.lawfareblog.com...