Demonotize And Banning Alternative Solution

We put disclaimers on everything potentially harmful from video games, movies, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, TV shows, infomercials, views of TV guest....really on just about anything sold or marketed.

Why can't YouTube just do that and call it a day. Why are they wasting their time hiring all these people to be hall monitors. Seems like such a waste of human potential, having people create code to block certain words, block points of views, un-bann people due to their own mistakes.

We put disclaimers and warnings on everything but for videos or opinions it's simple not an option. They must be completely eliminated from society. Tobacco companies though do way more harm than stupid videos but they put that small disclaimer on there and they are good to go.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets
The pen is mightier than the sword.

I still believe that if they keep doing this they should be treated as a publisher.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
We put disclaimers on everything potentially harmful from video games, movies, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, TV shows, infomercials, views of TV guest....really on just about anything sold or marketed.

Why can't YouTube just do that and call it a day. Why are they wasting their time hiring all these people to be hall monitors. Seems like such a waste of human potential, having people create code to block certain words, block points of views, un-bann people due to their own mistakes.

We put disclaimers and warnings on everything but for videos or opinions it's simple not an option. They must be completely eliminated from society. Tobacco companies though do way more harm than stupid videos but they put that small disclaimer on there and they are good to go.

Because there are groups of weenies who can't just ignore stuff they don't like....

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Why can't YouTube just do that and call it a day. Why are they wasting their time hiring all these people to be hall monitors. Seems like such a waste of human potential, having people create code to block certain words, block points of views, un-bann people due to their own mistakes.

It's all about controlling a narrative. They hire people to block unpopular opinions so those opinions don't become popular ones. Many of the youtubers I tend to watch say different words while talking about topics to make sure they don't have their videos de-monetized and/or taken down period. Rather than say "racist" and/or "homophobic", they say "-ists", "phobes", or just combine them to "istaphobes". Stuff like this happens a lot in entertainment videos, be it for movies or video games, because there's lots of censorship and the race-card gets played a lot in attempts to censor these mediums.

Long story short, warnings don't control narratives.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

This is how the tyrants in government control speech, thru their proxy Corporations. Makes it easy for our government to subvert the 1st amendment.

Do you see any government officials going after Youtube, Facebook or Google? I have seen maybe a handful of officials speak out about big tech, but other than that nothing is being done. Youtube has gone so far as to ban people who are bringing attention to channels who are promoting pedophilia for crying out loud. Think about that one.

Like someone already mentioned, these are not platforms anymore but publishers. They should abide by the laws accordingly.

I was watching an old episode of the TV show Hunter last week. Must have been late 80's. I was shocked when I heard one of the white bad guys call a black man the N word uncensored. I busted out laughing. I guess they either missed censoring it or feel who the hell is even watching this old show broadcasted on antenna TV anyway so said screw it. Not worth their time going back and editing shows that use to broadcast in prime time uncensored.

Then it made me think about how this whole thing is getting totally out of control where people have to watch every single word they say, even comedians. Hard to believe this is what the US has become and even the world for that matter. Everyone must think the same, act the same and agree the same. I have never joined social media and never will. Makes me sick to my stomach that this is going on. Wish we could all ban together and quit social media and apply severe economic pressure to stop this nonsense.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

"Why can't YouTube just do that and call it a day. Why are they wasting their time hiring all these people to be hall monitors."

Content, liability to past projects... copyright infringement...many such reasons. They own it. Do we?

Otherwise, a free for all. There are plenty of those elsewhere....

MS

a reply to: seeker1963

Are the corporations the proxies, or the government the proxies of corporations?

Either way.. Seems like a good idea to expand Constitutional restrictions to include organizations that hold power and influence similar to a government.

With regards to providing "warnings," Alphabet Inc knows exactly what they are doing...

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: seeker1963

Are the corporations the proxies, or the government the proxies of corporations?

Either way.. Seems like a good idea to expand Constitutional restrictions to include organizations that hold power and influence similar to a government.

With regards to providing "warnings," Alphabet Inc knows exactly what they are doing...

I have often asked myself that same question.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I mean you are right we should do it that way. But we live in the age of shutdowns and censorship. "welcome to the New Normal", (I finally get to use that line.) Where the few get to ditctate to the many what they can see and hear and do.

a reply to: seeker1963

Do you see any government officials going after Youtube, Facebook or Google?

Because those organizations are influenced by the governement. to me there is nothing private about them. when you have comments from their leaders that say we are going to do what state officals tell us. we are going to what W.H.O tells us. anyone who goes against that cannot take part in our organization.

When people say "Facebook private corporation." really look at who tells them what to do

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Why can't YouTube just do that and call it a day. Why are they wasting their time hiring all these people to be hall monitors.

Ad-revenue and the opinions of those who provide ad-revenue.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: seeker1963

Either way.. Seems like a good idea to expand Constitutional restrictions to include organizations that hold power and influence similar to a government.

That "good idea" would require a constitutional amendment, which is a very difficult thing to do, and for good reason. Even defining what organizations to include would be difficult. And the plain fact is, the Bill of Rights is not about private organizations. It's about restricting government, and ONLY government, from passing legislation that would restrict our rights.

As a private organization, YouTube can do what they want without your permission. And they are not the only one. ATS does it, too. Try criticizing ATS policies and see what happens to your post, or even your account. You can't even mention certain other websites on here without being sanctioned. We are not allowed to elect the moderators here. We have no say on how this place is run.

"Freedom of the Press" is for those who own one. If you don't like what ATS or YouTube does, start your own service. The only guarantee is that someone else won't like your policies and will demand that you change them.

I get that it's their toys. Still needs to be regulated like any other industry.

Well, actually, IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to protest. Although I am very strongly in favor of free speech, I also understand that the spirit of free speech is sometimes profoundly damaged by some of the paths some people choose to take in their quest to speak their mind.

For example, people who show up in town carrying guns to protest the lockdowns are probably not doing us any favors in the long run. They're just begging the gun grabbers to take scary pictures of them and paint gun owners as crazy lunatics all over the media.

I do wish people would be more thoughtful, TBH. I think Yoiutube has been pretty tolerant over the years. All things considered. They are reluctant enough to censor things that there is plenty of stuff on there that might not be for the best. I have seen racists and assorted other bigots (homophobes and so forth) on there who rant and rave with impunity for years on end. They may get demonetized (I don't know) but some of them are still on there.

So there are ways you can express almost anything on Youtube (or anywhere else) if you are willing to use some finesse and sugar coating. And if all else fails, you could just resort to deception and ambiguity and throw what you have to say out there disguised as whatever and let your audience make of it what they will. Again, that's kind of irresponsible but it has pretty much always been the way things go with publishing. There have always been things that writers and journalists just didn't come right out and say. Or if they did, they faced repercussions. The internet seemed to be somewhat an exception in the early days but you know that can't last as more and more idiots get online and stupid people do stupid things and blame it on some video they saw or article they read online.

a reply to: schuyler

Im aware of the process.

Comparing Alphabet Inc and ATS is either disingenuous or naive, IMO. Particularly with the notion as I stated it, seeing as how I was quite specific.

I doubt you have much to worry about with regards to restricting organizations like Alphabet Inc though. Many dont even know what Im talking about, or think of them in terms of private entities like ATS.