YouTube Restricts… Mike Rowe?

Ahhh the Google Monster left and their insatiable need to censor things instead of letting the, in their opinion, less intelligent people self censor.

Last Thursday, Mike Rowe, the immensely likable host of “Dirty Jobs,” announced via a Facebook post that his YouTube channel had been restricted.
In this vein, a few months back conservative commentator Dennis Prager invited Rowe to give the commencement speech for his virtual university, Prager University.
Rowe gladly obliged with a video entitled “Don’t Follow Your Passion,” which has been viewed over six million times. Suddenly, without prior warning, Rowe received a message from YouTube notifying him that his video for Prager U was “determined” to be “inappropriate.”

mynewsguru.com...

Sure enough in the policy that is checked " I agree" boiler plate that is checked or no YouTube, is the truth that YouTube can veto anything at anytime. But Rowe has a large enough audience that he called YouTube out and they freed up his account. Anyone else, is screwed.

Rowe said that he then reread YouTube’s policy fine print and found the following sentence: “Some videos don’t violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases, our review team may place an age restriction when we’re notified of the content.”

Fortunately for Rowe he has a big enough audience that he was able to effectively call out YouTube for hypocrisy, but what about the lesser known user who finds himself victim of a similar prejudice?

a reply to: seasonal

Silicon Valley is just begging for regulation.

Personally, I can't wait for some Ma Bell treatment.

a reply to: seasonal

In a world of freedoms, companies have a right to decide what is presented on their behalf.

While I don't agree with the way YouTube has been doing such, they are opening the doors for other sites to take their place should they continue.

Shame he didn't call them out and then switch to another platform... not that there is a real alternative.

The free market just can't compete with a service that makes its profits by selling user data.

a reply to: seasonal

YouTube with their arbitrary censorship and demonetization is just setting the stage for them to be usurped by a more freedom loving site.

Can't happen soon enough.

I tire of media conglomerates telling me what I should watch and read.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

In a world of freedoms, companies have a right to decide what is presented on their behalf.

You needed to add unless it is a Christian baker.

So much outrage, so little time.

It almost seems unfathomable that a site can/would replace YT, and would also be free-er.

Unfathomable things happen everyday, though. Let's hope YT's demise and replacement is no different if they keep it up (they will).

a reply to: seasonal

Rowe said that he then reread YouTube’s policy fine print and found the following sentence: “Some videos don’t violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases, our review team may place an age restriction when we’re notified of the content.”

Which really means , 'We want to know who is viewing content we have deemed offensive'. Because just signing in to "verify" age doesn't verify anything, except User Email address and name.

This has been hitting people all over YouTube. It even hits harmless sites that have no political axes to grind. They get told their content has to be appropriate for a 5-year-old when they review b-grade horror and sci-fi type movies.

Say what?

There is such a thing as knowing your audience.

a reply to: intrptr

Maybe the youtube bots are doing alot of the suspending? The video in question is a vanilla flavor-no gore or mayhem.


.

A poster said something about "corporationphobes," in another thread lol....

That seems appropriate in this instance. Big ol' evil YouTube are doing what they want - with their business.

Don't like it? You may be a "corporationphobe," lol

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: intrptr

Maybe the youtube bots are doing alot of the suspending? The video in question is a vanilla flavor-no gore or mayhem.

Maybe I misunderstood. Then why did he address the "age appropriate" flag he read in their fine print?

I get that all the time. Sign in to view material. They wont let me stay signed in either. I figure they want to know what I'm viewing or commenting.. I gave up making comments at all because every time I try they ask me to sign in.

a reply to: intrptr

Watch the video.

It is about deciding what to do with your life. No idea about age restrictions.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: intrptr

Watch the video.

It is about deciding what to do with your life. No idea about age restrictions.

Okay I did. I get why. He bursts the bubble , the American dream bubble. He poopooed american idol, Lady Gaga, and passion vs, capability.

The MSM fantasy world grinds out this message all day, its like the phony message in church, beleive and its true.

They hate when people expose that lie. Mike Rowe has a wider audience, thats why they took offense.

I happen to agree with him, but get why they deemed it 'inappropriate. And you're right it had nothing to do with violence or gore.

originally posted by: seasonal
Ahhh the Google Monster left and their insatiable need to censor things instead of letting the, in their opinion, less intelligent people self censor.

Last Thursday, Mike Rowe, the immensely likable host of “Dirty Jobs,” announced via a Facebook post that his YouTube channel had been restricted.
In this vein, a few months back conservative commentator Dennis Prager invited Rowe to give the commencement speech for his virtual university, Prager University.
Rowe gladly obliged with a video entitled “Don’t Follow Your Passion,” which has been viewed over six million times. Suddenly, without prior warning, Rowe received a message from YouTube notifying him that his video for Prager U was “determined” to be “inappropriate.”

mynewsguru.com...

Sure enough in the policy that is checked " I agree" boiler plate that is checked or no YouTube, is the truth that YouTube can veto anything at anytime. But Rowe has a large enough audience that he called YouTube out and they freed up his account. Anyone else, is screwed.

Rowe said that he then reread YouTube’s policy fine print and found the following sentence: “Some videos don’t violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases, our review team may place an age restriction when we’re notified of the content.”

Fortunately for Rowe he has a big enough audience that he was able to effectively call out YouTube for hypocrisy, but what about the lesser known user who finds himself victim of a similar prejudice?

Their computer algorigthm is biased against conservative thought. I highly doubt an individual made the decision, but however they've programmed their bot clearly has some issue with non mainstream or conservative thought.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: seasonal
Ahhh the Google Monster left and their insatiable need to censor things instead of letting the, in their opinion, less intelligent people self censor.

Last Thursday, Mike Rowe, the immensely likable host of “Dirty Jobs,” announced via a Facebook post that his YouTube channel had been restricted.
In this vein, a few months back conservative commentator Dennis Prager invited Rowe to give the commencement speech for his virtual university, Prager University.
Rowe gladly obliged with a video entitled “Don’t Follow Your Passion,” which has been viewed over six million times. Suddenly, without prior warning, Rowe received a message from YouTube notifying him that his video for Prager U was “determined” to be “inappropriate.”

mynewsguru.com...

Sure enough in the policy that is checked " I agree" boiler plate that is checked or no YouTube, is the truth that YouTube can veto anything at anytime. But Rowe has a large enough audience that he called YouTube out and they freed up his account. Anyone else, is screwed.

Rowe said that he then reread YouTube’s policy fine print and found the following sentence: “Some videos don’t violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases, our review team may place an age restriction when we’re notified of the content.”

Fortunately for Rowe he has a big enough audience that he was able to effectively call out YouTube for hypocrisy, but what about the lesser known user who finds himself victim of a similar prejudice?

Their computer algorigthm is biased against conservative thought. I highly doubt an individual made the decision, but however they've programmed their bot clearly has some issue with non mainstream or conservative thought.

This is why you gotta slap an animated border onto your videos and skew the video insert by a few degrees, also speed up (or slow down) the audio a tick or two. Screw with Youtube's algorythms and make it look like gobbledygook to the bots. Content generators unhappy with the site's policies need to start doing this with all of their content... force Youtube to actually hire scores of moderators to physically review content, killing the site's bottom line and leading to loosening of rules and policies.

Youtube is at war with anyone right of the far left because they are getting decimated in the area of ideas and debate. Even my channel has been affected and all I do is review news/media clips. Nearly everything in my library of videos has been demonetized.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

This is why you gotta slap an animated border onto your videos and skew the video insert by a few degrees, also speed up (or slow down) the audio a tick or two. Screw with Youtube's algorythms and make it look like gobbledygook to the bots. Content generators unhappy with the site's policies need to start doing this with all of their content... force Youtube to actually hire scores of moderators to physically review content, killing the site's bottom line and leading to loosening of rules and policies.

Awesome, thanks for the tip.

Hey since everyone loves big government and endless regulations and intervention, I really do think it's time to essentially regulate Youtube, Google, Facebook, etc - and force them to comply with fairness standards and equality.

These corporations are too big to fail nowadays, and there is no alternative. There is simply no way to defeat these businesses, and their user bases will continue to grow no matter how ugly their corporate practices get. For an example, look at the Oil Business, everyone uses their service no matter how horrible they are - we are stuck in it basically. So therefore the government had to intervene and set the rules even on some minor aspects of how things work.

I say regulate them with a 150,000 page bill. No one needs to bother reading it either, we can just pass the bill and then find out what it says later.

You can tell I love irony.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Anti trust is what is supposed to happen. Trump mentioned antitrust during the campaign, but he is finding out that the name Trump doesn't make everyone quake like in the "real world".

Does anyone here think Trump has the nuggets to apply anti trust laws to some of these large corps that are dangerously close to new styles of monopolies?