| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
https://shop.babylonbee.com/collections/other-stuf f/products/mt-writemore-framed-poster | ||
| Blake |
Hahahah. That's hilarious Patrick. | ||
| Sami |
 | ||
| Blake |
Anti-Semite!  | ||
| Sami |
That hurts muh feelings. | ||
| Blake |
This man's story is absolutely chilling. The globalist Leftist authorities and press seem to be all-in trying to destroy him. Amazingly the Oxford Union invited him to speak and answer questions, so there is hope. But that was years ago. He's now banned from Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, and is being censored on YouTube. https://youtu.be/8WNZPffUJ5A Amazing. You'll need to go to YouTube to watch it and confirm their little warning. Amazing. Thoughts? | ||
| Sami |
Hi Blake, that's an insightful video on Danish journalism. The MSM are stooges at this point, they lie by omission. Youtube is playing in their hands by censoring this video so that it doesn't gain traction. Reminds me of Psalm 7:15, ''They dig a deep pit to trap others, then fall into it themselves.'' | ||
| Blake |
Well putt. The citizen journalists are gaining traction, and the establishment is in a panic. They were finally at the point where they thought they and their authoritarian friends in politics had the world under their thumb. But then social media, and who knows what will be next. Hmmmm.... | ||
| Sami |
Blake, There are alternatives to YouTube, for example Bitchute. YouTube censors videos if they violate their YouTube policy. Here is YouTube's blog where they explain their policy: Our ongoing work to tackle hate Wednesday, June 5, 2019 https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/06/our-ongoing -work-to-tackle-hate.html YouTube policy follows from the input of the ADL: ADL Statement on YouTube Policy Changes to Reduce Extremist Content https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-statem ent-on-youtube-policy-changes-to-reduce-extremist- content Here is a quote: "Online hate and extremism pose a significant threat -- weaponizing bigotry against marginalized communities, silencing voices through intimidation and acting as recruiting tools for hateful, fringe groups,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO and National Director. “That’s why ADL has been working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism." The ADL's input to YouTube policy has resulted in videos like the one from Tommy Robinson to be censored. The ADL and YouTube censor videos to ''counter the scourge of online hate and extremism''. I don't think Ronbinson's video is hateful or extreme, so I don't see how they reach that conclusion. | ||
| Ourdee |
"Online hate and extremism pose a significant threat -- weaponizing bigotry against marginalized communities, silencing voices through intimidation and acting as recruiting tools for hateful, fringe groups,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO and National Director. Is it just me or does that sound like a description of the ADL? | ||
| Sami |
Ourdee, I noticed the irony as well. Someone once said, ''Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.'' The ADL has become what it is fighting against. (Message edited by Sami on January 31, 2020) | ||
| H0gwash |
IMHO I don't think YouTube is required to make available everything people post to them. Even at that, the video is still watchable and therefore not really censored. Whoever Tommy is he sure seems irritated that other people don't do things his way even if he is a guest on their show. | ||
| Sami |
Hi H0gwash, The video isn't watchable when shared as an embed, making it difficult for people to watch it unless they go to YouTube and click on what seems to be an agreement clause of some sort. Even then, people can't comment on the video, because commenting has been disabled Apparently, this new form of ''censorship'' was introduced in 2017 according to this article: DOWN THE 'TUBE YouTube quietly launches new ‘CENSORSHIP’ scheme designed to ‘limit’ access to videos Google-owned video site is taking steps to reduce the audience for content deemed 'inappropriate or offensive', but not illegal. YOUTUBE has been accused of censorship after introducing a controversial new policy designed to reduce the audience for videos deemed to be "inappropriate or offensive to some audiences". https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4372177/youtube-accu sed-of-censorship-over-controversial-new-bid-to-li mit-access-to-videos (Message edited by Sami on January 31, 2020) | ||
| H0gwash |
I wouldn't say difficult at all. | ||
| Hootowl |
No comments, and it cannot be shared in the usual way. | ||
| Sami |
It is difficult to watch the video outside of YouTube, because sharing the video is disabled. The article mentions: ''They also cannot be easily published on social media using the usual share buttons and other users cannot comment on them.' Comments are also disabled, which is weird for videos that are not illegal. | ||
| H0gwash |
I don't think that Google has to justify things that some people think are weird in order to protect their ad revenue. EDIT: I see some interesting parallels with users posting offensive comments on this topic hosted by the Badweb and Tommy Robinson posting offensive content on YouTube. (Message edited by h0gwash on February 01, 2020) | ||
| Sami |
H0gwash, Google is not protecting their ad revenue, Google is losing their ad revenue. Here is evidence: Alphabet had more than $70 billion in market cap wiped out, and it says YouTube is one of the problems https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/youtube-algorithm- changes-negatively-impact-google-ad-revenue.html Youtube censorship policies have wiped out billions of market cap for Alphabet. | ||
| H0gwash |
I think Google is allowed to sink its own ship in the way it feels is best. | ||
| Aesquire |
Google, who's motto has mutated from "Don't be Evil" to " Well, dang! Evil pays really well! " ( wish that was a funny joke ) Political activism by deliberately asking for someone to go against their beliefs then destroying their business & lives. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/h ow_did_gay_wedding_flowers_lead_to_a_supreme_court _battle_over_creativity_.html I was accused of ignorant meanness for comparing the famous cake maker's victimization to asking for a BLT at a Muslim deli. It wasn't ignorance, it was the deliberate tactic of asking for someone to violate their faith to attack them fraudulently. It's a religious freedom issue. The assault on believers by intolerant followers of a different belief. This is NOT a condemnation of gay people, or socialist leaning people as a Group, It's recognition of the evil intent and tactics of Revolutionaries in the Alinsky/SJW Way. Know your enemy. It starts with individual assaults, and continues beyond Kristallnacht. | ||
| H0gwash |
I do find the wedding cake decoration issue interesting for its delineation between the private and public realms. | ||
| Aesquire |
If it was simple and clear cut there'd be no controversy. We can probably agree you shouldn't discriminate against people by race or sexual orientation. If they are not smelly, violent, or thieves, then you should serve them with equal courtesy. I doubt anyone here would approve of not selling whatever you sell from the "shelf" to anyone based upon group identity. You sell donuts, you sell them to everyone. And, it's the law. It gets muddy when there is creative custom work. And it's a political activist tactic that's the real problem. I'd defend a Muslim deli owner if some jerk was persecuting them for not serving BLTs, that's just being evil. I don't even agree with the baker, or the florist. I don't share that particular belief. I even argue for marriage, gay, straight, groups... But that's not the point. I'm against bullies. | ||
| Blake |
Roger on the other video platforms Simi. Vimeo is also a decent one. I'd say that Google/YouTube earned market dominance through its policy of acting as a platform and allowing everything short of porn and incitement to violence. What an awesome time to have experienced the Internet. We never thought it would change. Once YouTube achieved control of the market, everything drastically changed to the detriment of open and free speech, to the benefit of Leftist thought control, political correctness and thought control. It went from a free speech utopia to a re-education gulag. It either needs to be run as a platform and allow all lawful content per American free speech and pornography law, or it needs to be run as a publishers site, which would open it up to a barrage of lawsuits. Right now they're trying to have it both ways to their own benefit. Of all the social media, Facebook seems the least authoritative. Zuckerberg seems to have taken some criticism to heart. Google is still sore for being caught helping the Chinese Communist Mob. Edited for typo. (Message edited by Blake on February 03, 2020) | ||
| Sami |
H0gwash, ''I think Google is allowed to sink its own ship in the way it feels is best.'' They can do that, sure. But they shouldn't pretend that they are doing this to serve YouTube creators and share holders. I'm not a YouTube creator or share holder, btw. Blake, indeed, not much needed other than the content being lawful. But YouTube has gone beyond lawfulness and instead has implemented political correctness. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Are they a platform or a publisher? If a platform, then why disable certain functions and censor content? If a publisher, then why not just say so and be done with it? They keep things vague so they can benefit from both sides. Facebook can't make up its mind about which one it is: Twitter and Facebook Are Publishers, Not Platforms Social networks are calling themselves platforms rather than publishers to skirt around legal issues, and it has to stop. https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/twitter-and-faceboo k-are-publishers-not-platforms | ||
| H0gwash |
Is the Badweb a platform or a publisher? | ||
| Sami |
H0gwash, I think it is a forum. https://www.lexico.com/definition/forum A website or web page where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings. YouTube is not a forum, rather it is either a publisher or platform. | ||
| H0gwash |
Should forums be allowed to censor legal content? | ||
| Sami |
H0gwash, I don't see why not, as long as the rules are clear. Not all forums are intended for all topics. | ||
| Hootowl |
This is a privately owned and funded forum. We’re in Blake’s living room. He, and his selected moderators, have say over what is allowed. The rules are pretty relaxed. Other than the recent spate of antisemitic propaganda, there hasn’t been anything censored in years; a very tasteless joke involving the explosive rape of a small animal, if memory serves. | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't think Facebook is a forum. It contains some. But it's original purpose... back in colkege, was to get personal information for it's founder. Girl's information and pictures, at first. Now it's for stealing personal information and selling it..And selling advertising. That's a publisher. An evil, thieving publisher. By the time it hit broad use, you're an idiot if you don't know that YOU are the product. Once upon a time they denied selling your every word, but now, it's just assumed. |
