Question. Has this actually ever happened? I would figure even the dumbest brick of a human being would recognise the difference between randomly run advertisement and the content it was just played on. What they fear would be akin to something unexpevted and questionable happening on live TV and someone going "AHA! There was just a Coca Cola add before this, they MUST be OK with what just happened. Time for a boycott!". I do not have to tell you how absolutely ridiculous this idea is.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki steps down after nine years at the helm
- Thread starter erek
- Start date
Question. Has this actually ever happened? I would figure even the dumbest brick of a human being would recognise the difference between randomly run advertisement and the content it was just played on. What they fear would be akin to something unexpevted and questionable happening on live TV and someone going "AHA! There was just a Coca Cola add before this, they MUST be OK with what just happened. Time for a boycott!". I do not have to tell you how absolutely ridiculous this idea is.
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,023
Youtube is a Mess you have people using Tik Tok videos from Tik Tok and making money off other peoples videos.
I really like the video's from Top Notch Idiots those guys are hilarious they just entered my feed like a few months ago.
I really like the video's from Top Notch Idiots those guys are hilarious they just entered my feed like a few months ago.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
Pretty much this, and it's probably going to get worse. The new CEO was Youtube's product manager, someone who tried to push Youtube into NFTs quite heavily when NFTs were first getting started, saying NFTs are the future.
Youtube used to be much more small channel friendly and much more open to diverse content. Now small channels are easily demonitized by copyright claims, swearing within the first 10 seconds of the video (seems like things like hell and damn can count as swearing), too much bloody content, content deemed not age appropriate, etc. The policies are constantly changing without warning or clear guidance and can be retroactively applied to older content, which can easily be 25+% of a channel's revenue. Copyright claims are extremely difficult to fight and Youtube essentially adopts a guilty until proven innocent stance. At the same time, large network channels like T-series and Marvel are generally boosted in the algorithms over small channels.
Basically Youtube keeps bending over backwards more and more for advertisers and large networks at the expense of small creators. It won't affect you if you just go on Youtube for specific videos like tutorials, but it affects others that follow the small content creators.
Yes. Several major advertisers (like AT&T, Disney, Epic Games and Nestle) temporarily pulled their ads from YouTube following word that predators were latching on to content aimed at kids, while the UK government yanked ads after they were found running against extremist content. Numerous advertisers have left Twitter because they don't want to have their ads run alongside tweets from Holocaust deniers (among others who are back on the platform). It's not just the possibility that some might see ads as condoning or endorsing horrible content— it's that advertisers don't want to be seen profiting or otherwise benefiting from that content.
A better example for TV might be, say, Fox News. Certain advertisers avoid its shows (particularly op-eds like Carlson's) because they don't want to be associated with the bigotry and lying. Mind you, some gravitate to the channel precisely for that reason...
Youtube/Google is one of the worst, evil companies in the world. Youtube is pro-censorship and has a leftist political ideology - it has nothing to do with 'advertising' like ppl are talking about. You could upload the 'wrong' video and still advertise - and your video will be taken down. It's a bunch of clickbait, silly videos of ppl - although, there is some interesting/good videos mixed in.
There's no real competition since you need viewers and most ppl know of Youtube and go there.
There's no real competition since you need viewers and most ppl know of Youtube and go there.
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,414
100% with you. Feels like some people just make politics and identity politics in particular a way of life. EVERYTHING has to somehow be politically motivated and this thread proves it. A CEO steps down suddenly and then we are talking politics.
YouTube is fantastic for people to be able to listen to who/what they want by people who create content that are just like us. YouTube has been infinitely useful to me.
Also I will never ever ever take a person seriously who uses the word "woke." Just my 2 cents.
And your basis for this is? I've already provided evidence; you have nothing.
I also have to laugh at Google being one of the "worst" companies in the world because of alleged censorship and political leanings. You have no idea what "worst" is if that's your criteria. No, actually horrible companies are ones like the oil giants, which knew about human-made climate change but have still tried to prop up petroleum, or Cargill, which is accused of using slave labor on plantations and even stealing land. Google has done some lousy things (see its anti-union efforts and giving Andy Rubin a golden parachute), but it's nowhere near as monstrous as some companies.
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
Careful -- only people with certain viewpoints are allowed to express them (and very openly) on this site, while others get the memory hole treatment. Wrongthink DoublePlusUngood™
What's a little Uyghur genocide between friends, as long as it supports the glorious revolution?
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...ube-xinjiang-censorship-human-rights-atajurt/
You're right. I forgot. I keep forgetting we get less and less freedom - more and more censorship is happening. Everyone learns from Youtube.
'My basis for this?!?' I don't know what this site will allow for some totally opposite viewpoints. I think it's common knowledge that those companies censor - and have a bad reputation nowadays. Anyone can do a web search even using their own google engine - but, there's even controversy with their search engine, btw - for 'google & youtube censorship.'
https://telecoms.com/497112/youtube-censorship-contributes-to-disappointing-google-numbers/
Any number of hits - this is just ONE example. There's a lot more.
I notice you didn't read that very well. YouTube did what it did because people were showing IDs that could theoretically be used for doxing, not because it supported China's actions. Now, YouTube was clearly short-sighted, but it wasn't acting maliciously.
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
I would report this personal attack but as we all know, all of us are equal but some are more equal than others.
Also: "pot, kettle, black" as per the article:
Refugee groups are violent criminal organizations, if they opposed the CCP. Got it.
Reading is essential. Check to see if you're living in a glass
The subjects of the videos voluntarily showed their IDs. This is a silly cop-out.
The folks who think YouTube has a bad reputation due to censorship are in the minority... you know that, right? You're trying to pull one of those "silent majority" stunts where you simply assume your view is secretly held by most people, evidence be damned. The reality is that most people don't care, and those that do have frequently been spun up by politicians lying about hidden agendas and government collusion.
And that article, if you'd read it closely... proves nothing. The author merely has a hunch that banning channels and videos maybe, kinda, possibly might have affected ad revenue. He doesn't present any real evidence. I'd add that it's clearly an op-ed, not a hard news piece, and cites highly partisan sources like Tim Pool as 'proof.' Oh, and did I mention that the story is from four years ago, and clearly isn't borne out by YouTube's continued growth? As problematic as YouTube can be, it's not slashing and burning huge swathes of content.
Also, please don't try the "do your own research" stunt with me by asking me to Google something. That's what anti-vaxxers and QAnon conspiracy theorists do. If you want to prove YouTube is a horrible monster, the onus is on you to provide direct, well-supported and reasonably neutral examples. For that matter, I can do a similar search and come to a very different conclusion. Why would you assume I'm going to agree with you like a mindless drone?
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
Only 70%+ of polled users. But then again a Pew Research poll is a terrible source compared to an opinion piece on Utopia.org and Mighty Earth.
ETA add link to poll:
https://www.pewresearch.org/interne...cial-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/
dub77nj
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 304
As long as the next boss doesn't censor my favorite cat videos I'll be happy. Mess with my pussy cats and there will be hell to pay!
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
Thank you for proving Aurelius correct on multiple points, including the fact that you can't read the sources correctly and rid yourself of confirmation bias.
Aurelius stated the following: bad reputation due to censorship are in the minority. The link you posted showed that 51% (the majority) approve of the censorship while 46% (the minority) disapprove of it. To be fair, a full 66% do say they don't trust social media companies to get it right, but that's different from having a bad reputation for it.
Demonitization =/= censorship. The great thing about capitalism is people are free to spend money however they want to. If you like a channel that is being demonitized, you can support them using Patreon or buying their merch. Don't expect me to spend my dollars to support something I don't like.
Last edited:
That's better, but you're also making an incorrect statement. The over-70-percent figure doesn't mean that same percentage also thinks the activity is bad, and it's (surprise) conservatives who will disproportionately say censorship is "very likely." If you look further down, where it shows the percentages of people who think internet companies should label false/misleading posts, a slight majority of adults (52 percent versus 46) are in favor; YouTube isn't social media as such, but that's not what I'd call a rousing condemnation of internet companies' policies.
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
Thanks for proving the importance of reading and critical thinking. "Labelling posts from elected officials as misleading or inaccurate" is not outright censorship - that is attaching their editorial opinion to content. I think it's stupid when they do it and shows their bias, but if all they're doing is adding an addendum to the content rather than removing it and punishing the poster I don't think that's an egregious violation.
Here's a little chart for those whose reading and comprehension skills are lacking:
ETA: site doesn't seem to like webp?
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
It is unfortunate that only "one side" believes in free speech -- that used to be an unquestionably American value across the board, but in the past few years censorship has been pushed hard by big tech.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
It's a little hard when they don't ask that exact question, but if you want to take things literally, nowhere did they ask that censorship is a bad thing. Therefore, the fact that 70+% of people think censorship is happening does not equate to a majority of people thinking social media has a bad reputation for it. That is a logical fallacy, so please provide proof that people believe Youtube has a bad reputation for censorship.
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
Maybe I'm wrong for just assuming that most people don't want giant mega-corporations to restrict their speech (with the exception of some who want to restrict the speech of others and get special exceptions for themselves).
Future Fun
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2020
- Messages
- 34
The real left have been censored away and right er every ware. How can that be? Interest of cause.
I was also serious censored here. The Internet i really becoming useless.
I was also serious censored here. The Internet i really becoming useless.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
I believe some level of censorship is absolutely necessary. One of the biggest problems in social media is the echo chambers of extremist views that are happening. I do not want propaganda videos from groups like ISIS radicalizing people. Hate speech and harassment should be restricted at the bare minimum. All the harmful TikTok "challenges" need to be stopped. I don't want to see misinformative pseudo-science videos out there either, but I won't say those need to be censored. Companies are absolutely free to demonitize whatever they don't like though.
Edit: here's the funny thing though. Would companies like Youtube rather not spend the money on content moderation? Yes, they absolutely would. It's not until they got in trouble with the law and public perception of themselves that they implemented content moderation. This is especially true in the case of Youtube.
Last edited:
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
The fact that some people are so gung-ho for censorship is both depressing and terrifying.
This is also a logical fallacy - lack of belief of YouTube censorship does not inherently mean support for censorship. I can't prove that YouTube has a "bad" reputation for censorship. If you can prove they have a "good" reputation for censorship then I'm happy to hear it.
That said, I still don't think Big Tech censorship is popular outside of a very small minority of radicals.
This is not a direct question on censorship support in general, but massive bipartisan support calling for an investigation for collusion between social media sites and the FBI for censorship is pretty damning. Not to mention potential criminal and/or civil lability, as once a company starts performing censorship on behalf of a government agency they become a "state actor" and are then subject to the constitutional restrictions that would otherwise not affect private companies.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...want_fbi_s_social_media_activity_investigated
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
Don't censor - let people tell you who they are
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
Define "hate speech".
That's not true. It's just that some understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, or that private companies must be forced to host your speech. You want to promote scientific falsehoods, or issue hate speech? Fine, but don't expect a company to carry that kind of toxicity. You're entitled to speak your mind; you're not entitled to a megaphone.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
As defined by the US Supreme Court multiple times, which is pretty lax as compared to other Western countries, hate speech is anything that incites violence against other people.
The problem with this is that you get Jonestown-like groups on a global scale and it becomes easier to indoctrinate people in. Psychological studies have shown that otherwise normal people can be easily radicalized by a particularly charismatic leader. Heck, just look at how many prominent people got duped by Bankman-Fried...
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
There's always 'ifs and buts' for anything - inconsequential in the grand scheme here
You could get hit by a meteor walking out your door - doesn't stop you from leaving the house
Don't censor, let people tell you who they are
edit: lmfao these dumb fools: https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...cel-culture-is-good-for-democracy-1234681224/
Last edited:
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
Looks like it's not the vast majority of Americans who are clamoring for censorship. As with other questions this is not a direct answer to the question we're asking, but I think a pretty good proxy for it. Some people such as hardcore libertarians who would opposed government regulations on principle would probably vote "no" not because they want restrictions to speech, but to prevent government overreach.
Harvard-Harris poll pg 55
Harvard-Harris poll pg 55
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
Looks like it's not the vast majority of Americans who are clamoring for censorship. As with other questions this is not a direct answer to the question we're asking, but I think a pretty good proxy for it. Some people such as hardcore libertarians who would opposed government regulations on principle would probably vote "no" not because they want restrictions to speech, but to prevent government overreach.
Harvard-Harris poll pg 55
It's always '30%' or 'nearly 1/3rd of...'
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
And many people, too many in fact, are ill-equipped to figure out the truth on their own. Many times it is because "XYZ is so charismatic and friendly, there's no way he/she could be lying to us."
Keep in mind I am only talking about extremist viewpoints, not more moderate stuff. If you want to espouse the merits of a completely free market and whine about how welfare is a parasite on society, go right on ahead. If you want to make skewed videos on how communism is the ideal society, that's fine too. Videos promoting child labor and domestic violence should absolutely be deleted and the creators of said videos reported to the authorities for investigation.
Saying you hate the Japanese for being part of the Axis during WWII is perfectly fine. Telling yoir audience to go out and do bad things to Japanese people because you hate them is not. There is a line that exists, and in my opinion that line is crossed when the content intentionally causes people to harm themselves and/or others.
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
You can't and shouldn't (try to) protect people from themselves, including from their own stupidity
Edit: freedom is also the freedom to be stupid and make wrong choices
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
That's fine if you want to live in an anarchistic world. I would prefer for there to be some level of law and order.
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
Or some would say your world would be tyranny
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be in a car accident because some dumbass decided to have one too many drinks and get behind the wheel. When someone else has to pay the consequences for your stupidity, that is a problem.
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
There is no actual definition of "hate speech" in the US, and what is usually considered "hate speech" in other countries is protected by the first amendment in the US. Granted, the first amendment does not protect citizens against actions on private platforms unless those platforms are performing as state actors, which the recent Twitter revelations have shown is very likely. It is my understanding that there will be congressional inquiries into big tech firms other than Twitter to discover if this is in fact occurring.
The problem with "hate speech" in Europe / UK / Canada is that it is defined by the interpretation of the listeners, not by any essential feature of the speakers' speech. At that point it becomes completely subjective, and open to any wild interpretation. It becomes a matter of the opinion of arbitrary government bureaucrats to determine a person's fate. The inability to be able to predict what "hate speech" is then results in a chilling effect, making virtually anything dangerous to say. It opens a big door for selective enforcement, which IMO is a feature, not a bug. I also think selective enforcement and vague, constantly-changing rules are among the biggest problems with big tech, but those don't result in people going to prison.
What we do have is liability for "calls to action" if those calls directly result in injury or damage to others. The old example is "shouting 'FIRE!' in a theater". You can shout "fire!" if there is in fact a fire. If there is no fire, and someone gets hurt, you can potentially be held liable in court. Direct threats are generally also considered a crime. If I say "i'm going to kill [x person]" or "we need to kill [x person]" that would usually qualify as a terroristic threat, inciting a riot, etc. Saying "[x person] deserves to die" is not a direct threat and therefore would be protected speech. I would even agree that saying someone should die would be reasonable to moderate. The problem goes back to above with selective enforcement. Big tech companies often allow such language on their site, but only for specific groups they support. Others saying the exact same things will be subject to punishment. Like free speech, equal protection is another fundamental part of our system of laws and society that has recently come under attack by Big Tech and the very small group of radicals they seem to be aligned with. At one point, Facebook actually had a formal policy in its terms of service allowing calls to violence and death threats, as long as those people were on its list of people it didn't like. I'm pretty sure that would technically negate their Section 230 protections as they were explicitly supporting illegal criminal behavior.
There will always be cults. Being able to expose the truth about them is crucial. But what happens when that becomes "hate speech" because you're "oppressing their religion"? Giving people good information is a much better solution than trying to hide information you don't like. Who's to say the Big Tech companies aren't the cults themselves?
ETA: spelling & punctuation fixes
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
Maybe that was your mistake
You're conflating 'freedom of speech/freedom of expression' with 'not one single law whatsoever'
How'd you manage to do that?
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
False dichotomy and slippery-slope arguments are an easy way to try to abstract and simplify very complex issues.