Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Censorship, Bias & Political Correctness on YouTube

  1. #51
    6th army lives matter
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,177
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,258
    Thanked in
    1,502 Posts


    “War is waged by men; not by beasts, or by gods. It is a peculiarly human activity. To call it a crime against mankind is to miss at least half its significance; it is also the punishment of a crime.” - Frederic Manning, The Middle Parts of Fortune

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  3. #52
    Senior Member Verđandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgĺrd
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    6,581
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    528
    Thanked in
    345 Posts

    YouTube Purge: Over 100K Videos, 17K Channels, and 500M Comments Removed in 3 Months

    No honest opponents of jewish supremacy and their White genocide agenda are allowed on the platform, regardless of whether or not they try to stay within the new rules.

    More...

  4. #53
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,233
    Thanked in
    722 Posts
    YouTube to Ban Content That Contradicts WHO on COVID-19, Despite the UN Agency’s Catastrophic Track Record of Misinformation

    Soon, YouTubers will be silenced if they don’t agree with the United Nations on public health. As The Verdict reports:

    YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

    Wojcicki announced the policy on CNN on Sunday. WHO is an agency of the UN, charged with overseeing global public health. The Verdict report continues:

    Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”.

    She told host Brian Stelter that this would include “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”.

    “So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,” she said.

    “Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”

    While the decision has been welcomed by many, some have accused the streaming giant of censorship.

    To be clear, for American YouTubers, this kind of censorship is not a violation of their constitutional right of free speech. The First Amendment protects citizens against government censorship, and YouTube is a private platform. Were the US government to force the private owners of YouTube to continue broadcasting certain videos against their will, that would be much more a violation of the First Amendment.

    While YouTube’s decision is not unconstitutional, it is unwise, exhibiting far too much deference to central authority in general and to WHO especially.

    WHO’s Track Record on the Issue

    The World Health Organization is far from infallible. Its handling of information throughout the coronavirus emergency has been a long string of failures. As policy analyst Ross Marchand has recounted here on FEE last week, WHO failed to raise the alarm as the coronavirus rapidly spread through China during the crucial early period of the global crisis in January of this year. Then, as Marchand wrote:

    The global bureaucracy uncritically reported that Chinese authorities had seen "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus” on January 14, just one day after acknowledging the first case outside of China (in Thailand). WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his “political commitment” and “political leadership” despite these repeated, reprehensible attempts to keep the world in the dark about the coronavirus.

    President Donald Trump recently announced that the US would cease its funding of WHO over its many coronavirus-related failures.

    And it is not just American conservatives who have been critical. As FEE’s Jon Miltimore wrote a month ago:

    Our World in Data, an online publication based at the University of Oxford, announced on Tuesday that it had stopped relying on World Health Organization (WHO) data for its models, citing errors and other factors.

    This raises an interesting question: would YouTube censor Oxford if it posted a video on the coronavirus issue with recommendations based on data that contradicts WHO’s?

    As Miltimore wrote, “Recent reports suggest US intelligence agencies relied heavily on WHO in its national assessment of the COVID-19 threat.”

    This is gravely concerning because bad information leads to bad policies. This is true not only for government policy (like mayors, governors, and heads of state deciding to largely shut down the economy in their jurisdiction), but for the policies of private decision-makers like doctors, business-owners, and individuals making decisions about the health and overall lives of themselves and their families.

    Indeed, WHO’s misinformation early in the crisis squandered the most precious part of the world’s prep time, which likely crippled the public’s responses and may have cost many lives.

    YouTube risks compounding that tragedy by now insisting that the public’s response to the coronavirus emergency conforms even more strictly with WHO’s dubious pronouncements. Wojcicki wants to protect WHO’s recommendations from contradiction. But WHO’s recommendations are necessarily informed by WHO’s information, which has proven to be extremely suspect. Sheltering untrustworthy pronouncements risks amplifying their dangerous influence.

    Why Censorship Is Counter-Productive

    So, it is ironic that YouTube justifies this policy in the name of protecting the public from dangerous misinformation.

    It is true that many videos contradicting official pronouncements are themselves full of medical quackery and other misleading falsehoods. But, censorship is the worst way to combat them.

    For one, censorship can actually boost the perceived credibility of an untruth. Believers interpret it as validation: evidence that they are onto a truth that is feared by the powers-that-be. And they use that interpretation as a powerful selling point in their underground evangelism.

    Censorship also insulates falsehoods from debunking, allowing them to circulate largely uncriticized in the dark corners of public discourse.

    This makes censorship especially counterproductive because it is open-air debunking that is one of the most effective ways to counter misinformation and bad ideas. As Justice Louis Brandeis expressed in a US Supreme Court opinion, the ideal remedy for bad speech, “is more speech, not enforced silence.”

    Again, YouTube has a right to set the terms of service of its own website. But the general principle applies here as well: the truth has a much better fighting chance with a proliferation of competing voices than with inquisitorial efforts to circumscribe discourse within a narrow orthodoxy.

    A Systematic Problem

    Moreover, WHO’s track record of misinformation is not exceptional among government organizations in neither its degree of error nor in its disastrous impact. Governments and the experts they employ not only get things wrong but have frequently proven to be fundamentally wrong-headed on big questions.

    To take another example in the realm of public health, it is increasingly widely recognized that the high-carb, low-fat diet recommendations, as depicted by the the USDA’s “Food Pyramid,” and successfully promoted for decades to the population by the US government and the most respected authorities on dietary science and epidemiology, was basically backward. Science journalist Gary Taub tells the whole story of bad science, corrupt influence, and obtuse orthodoxy in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.

    Again, bad information leads to bad advice which leads to bad choices. So how much illness and even death was caused by generations of Americans uncritically swallowing “official” diet advice and by Americans largely only having one choice on the “menu” of diet advice?

    The more we centralize decision-making and the management of actionable information, the wider the scope of the damage caused by any single error. But if we let a thousand errors bloom along with a thousand truths, any single error will be circumscribed in its damage and more likely to be corrected through experience and counter-argument.

    Knowledge Problems

    Champions of policies like YouTube’s like to cast the issue in simplistic terms: as a black-and-white battle between respectable experts and wild-eyed crackpots. But the issue is more complex than that.

    It is just as often a matter of overweening technocrats making pronouncements on matters that are way beyond them in complexity, that involve factors that fall way outside their domain of expertise, and that drastically impact the lives of millions or even billions. For example: a few dozen epidemiologists, with limited understanding of economics and a great many other relevant disciplines, holding sway over whole economies.

    It is also a matter of dissenting experts being silenced along with the actual crackpots.

    And, perhaps most fundamentally, it is a matter of weakening the individual’s ability to discern between truth and falsehood, good advice and bad, by denying them the responsibility and practice of doing so in the first place—of turning self-reliant, free men and women into irresponsible wards to be led by the nose like dumb, deferential livestock by their “expert” caretakers.

    That is not where we are, but that is the direction that the rigid enforcement of centralized orthodoxies tends toward.

    A Challenge

    Let’s choose a different direction. YouTube, do better. Trust your users more. Treat them like human beings with all the capacities for learning, growth, discourse, and cooperation that are the distinctive glories of being human.

    After all, that is what made you great in the first place. Your very name is derived from your original faith in the individual. YouTube (a crowd-sourced, individual-driven, pluralistic platform) is what made the boob tube (centralized, institutionalized, and homogenizing broadcast television) largely obsolete. As such, you had a starring role in the internet’s democratization of information and learning.

    Don’t betray that legacy. Not now. Not when we need open platforms for the free flow of information and discourse more than ever.
    https://fee.org/articles/youtube-to-...isinformation/

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Nachtengel For This Useful Post:


  6. #54
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,233
    Thanked in
    722 Posts
    YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer, and more for hate speech

    YouTube has banned several prominent white supremacist channels, including those belonging to Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, and Richard Spencer.

    Other channels banned include American Renaissance (with its associated channel AmRen Podcasts) and the channel for Spencer’s National Policy Institute. The channels repeatedly violated YouTube’s policies, a YouTube spokesperson said, by alleging that members of protected groups were inferior. These come alongside other violations that led to YouTube taking action.

    “We have strict policies prohibiting hate speech on YouTube, and terminate any channel that repeatedly or egregiously violates those policies,” a YouTube spokesperson told The Verge. “After updating our guidelines to better address supremacist content, we saw a 5x spike in video removals and have terminated over 25,000 channels for violating our hate speech policies.”

    YouTube began cracking down on supremacist channels in June 2019. The company issued updated rules prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.” Channels that repeatedly brush up against this type of content but don’t cross the line will receive other penalties, including losing access to YouTube’s Partner Program and not being able to monetize their videos.

    A number of the creators affected have already started tweeting about their bans. Spencer tweeted that he will “appeal the suspension” and called the ban a “systemic, coordinated effort.” Molyneux tweeted that YouTube “just suspended the largest philosophy conversation the world has ever known.”

    YouTube’s ban of the six channels comes after Reddit banned a number of high-profile and controversial subreddits earlier today, including r/The_Donald, and Twitch temporarily banned President Donald Trump for hateful conduct over comments made in two different streams. YouTube has faced pressure from critics for years to remove Molyneux’s channel. Molyneux was banned by Mailchimp earlier this year.
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/2...ct-hate-speech

  7. #55
    Senior Member Verđandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgĺrd
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    6,581
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    528
    Thanked in
    345 Posts

    YouTube Will Ban Videos that Could ‘Interfere with the Election’



    YouTube has announced new updates to its policies relating to videos containing information obtained through hacking and other content that may “interfere” with upcoming U.S. elections.

    CNET reports that Google’s video-sharing platform YouTube has announced new updates to its policies relating to deceptive content on its platform as it aims to prevent the spread of information that could “interfere” with the upcoming U.S. elections.

    YouTube is the world’s largest video platform with more than 2 billion users a month, it will now reportedly begin banning videos containing information that was obtained through hacking and could affect elections or censuses. This leads many to question whether information obtained from sources such as WikiLeaks is allowed on the platform.

    The update follows the announcement of a similar rule by Google unveiled earlier this month banning advertisements that contain information obtained via hacking. The new policy will come into effect on September 1. YouTube added that it would be taking down videos that encourage people to interfere with voting such as encouraging people to create long lines at polling stations to stifle the vote.

    YouTube’s new update outlines the content it will remove, stating:

    Removing content that contains hacked information, the disclosure of which may interfere with democratic processes, such as elections and censuses. For example, videos that contain hacked information about a political candidate shared with the intent to interfere in an election.
    Removing content encouraging others to interfere with democratic processes, such as obstructing or interrupting voting procedures. For example, telling viewers to create long voting lines with the purpose of making it harder for others to vote.

    The newly announced policies come just ahead of the Democratic National Convention which starts on Monday and will be followed by the Republican National Convention later this month. Earlier this week, several tech companies including Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Microsoft, announced a coalition that will work with U.S. government agencies to protect election integrity.

    Red Ice

  8. #56
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,233
    Thanked in
    722 Posts

    YouTube REMOVES the Dislike Button Because Biden Keeps Getting NUKED With Dislikes

    YouTube REMOVES the dislike button because they keep getting NUKED and RATIO'D hard by the community. LOL.


Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Similar Threads

  1. Censorship, Bias & Political Correctness on Twitter
    By Nachtengel in forum Internet, Security, & Privacy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 09:45 PM
  2. Censorship, Bias & Political Correctness on Google
    By Nachtengel in forum Internet, Security, & Privacy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2019, 05:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •