YouTube"s foul play again: Censorship proven

[stvdv]

This is muddled thinking. YouTube is a commercial operation with stated terms and conditions of service. Of course it censors content. In fact it gets into trouble for not doing so enough, from time to time. No organisation is required to put out content that it disapproves of. It is not an arm of government, and there are plenty of alternative channels someone can pick to get a message out in public.

I just saw a YouTube about new Laws in Europe which control Social Media, so my wish got fulfilled sooner than I expected.

 

[F1fan]

I think there is an argument for regulating news outlets that broadcast. Or at least a licensing requirement so that news sources have to register and be approved to present news.

I just saw a YouTube about new rules (in Europe) to control Big Tech big time, as in keeping them in check and IF they violate these laws the fines can be incredibly high (they had not censored that video...).

So, my wish got granted very quick (that Big Tech will be controlled more), although I am not a fan of such crazy high fines, but maybe that's the only way to get them behave well

Do you want government control over the content of news providers?

 

[stvdv]

No one is owed a platform and all platforms have their own rules. Twitter, Facebook whatever.
If you violate those rules (and aren’t profitable to them) then they will kick you off. They are inconsistent, true. And they will unfairly target content creators for a variety of reasons.True.
But that’s not censorship. Censorship is the government literally telling you that you cannot say what you want on your own property.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Also YouTube is a business. If it makes money they will do it. They don’t care about anything else lol

True, it's business

But my wish go fulfilled after I posted my thread...a new Law is implemented in Europe to control Big Tech. Very crazy high fines, so they will think twice making mistakes again

 

[F1fan]

True

Big problems I foresee, unless there is Full Freedom of Speech, hence it's paramount

So the government should force a private company to allow speech the company doesn't approve of? Where is the company's freedom? Why is the government forcing it to do something that it has freedom to choose to not say?

 

[stvdv]

I think there is an argument for regulating news outlets that broadcast. Or at least a licensing requirement so that news sources have to register and be approved to present news.

Good idea

Do you want government control over the content of news providers?

I am all for Freedom of Speech, otherwise we get dictatorship before we know it.

Giving Government control to protect Freedom of Speech is good.

 

[wellwisher]

I just saw a YouTube about new rules (in Europe) to control Big Tech big time, as in keeping them in check and IF they violate these laws the fines can be incredibly high (they had not censored that video...).

So, my wish got granted very quick (that Big Tech will be controlled more), although I am not a fan of such crazy high fines, but maybe that's the only way to get them behave well

Another way to this is treat bias in the media, both mainstream and social, as a campaign donation, with penalties for not reporting this value and income.

During campaign season, candidates buy air time to make their pitches and claims. For a price you can say almost anything, about your opponent, including highly biased assessments. If the media does this; offer value to certain candidates or parties, they are offering a campaign contribution that otherwise has to be bought.

For example, say a 30 second commercial on daytime CNN is about $5000. In a one hour show, of nothing but partisan propaganda, we would need to multiply that; 120; 30 second commercials X $5000 each. This donation needs to be claimed. CNN donates more than it makes from adds. What is the quid pro quo that makes this worthwhile? This is why we have campaign finance laws.

 

[stvdv]

So the government should force a private company to allow speech the company doesn't approve of? Where is the company's freedom? Why is the government forcing it to do something that it has freedom to choose to not say?

The OP was an example of foul play. I am against faul play of Big Tech...Digital crime I might call it. I am against crimes

 

[stvdv]

Another way to this is treat bias in the media, both mainstream and social, as a campaign donation, with penalties for not reporting this value and income.

During campaign season, candidates buy air time to make their pitches and claims. For a price you can say almost anything, about your opponent, including highly biased assessments. If the media does this; offer value to certain candidates or parties, they are offering a campaign contribution that otherwise has to be bought.

For example, say a 30 second commercial on daytime CNN is about $5000. In a one hour show, of nothing but partisan propaganda, we would need to multiply that; 120; 30 second commercials X $5000 each. This donation needs to be claimed. CNN donates more than it makes from adds. What is the quid pro quo that makes this worthwhile? This is why we have campaign finance laws.

Interesting thoughts

Social Media just started (relatively speaking), so my hopes are up, after just hearing on YouTube that they implemented a new Law to put Big Tech on a leash

 

[Twilight Hue]

First, YouTube is a private company, they can choose what to publish. This is not censorship.
Second, YouTube removes content all the time, citing guideline violations. This has been a problem for professional content providers for some time now. If the free market would function as free market economists tell us it does, YouTube would lose business to a competitor. It doesn't.
This is not a failure of "Big Tech", it is a failure of the market and with it, a failure of democracy. You, the content provider and everyone else can democratically choose to not visit YouTube any more and go to a competing site instead.

There are other, more complicated legal issues here, i.e. the question whether YouTube is a platform or a publisher. The answer to that might spur government action.

You Tube is not a private company as far as I'm concerned. It's not like a mom and pop couple running and owning a private business by themselves.

It's a shareholder owned mass media company meaning its actually a public domain, not owned whatsoever by any particular individual, and ought to be held to public standards and constitutionality same as government is.

 

[F1fan]

Another way to this is treat bias in the media, both mainstream and social, as a campaign donation, with penalties for not reporting this value and income.

During campaign season, candidates buy air time to make their pitches and claims. For a price you can say almost anything, about your opponent, including highly biased assessments. If the media does this; offer value to certain candidates or parties, they are offering a campaign contribution that otherwise has to be bought.

For example, say a 30 second commercial on daytime CNN is about $5000. In a one hour show, of nothing but partisan propaganda, we would need to multiply that; 120; 30 second commercials X $5000 each. This donation needs to be claimed. CNN donates more than it makes from adds. What is the quid pro quo that makes this worthwhile? This is why we have campaign finance laws.

In the USA the broadcasting laws made a requirement that political content was a public service announcement. If CBS let candidate A have a 30 second commercial then they were required to give the opponent a 30 second spot. I'm not sure if they got pain for the time or if it was part of the requirement as a licensed news service. The laws were changed in the 80's, I think, and allowed broadcasters to do whatever they want. I think this was a bad policy change because partisan news sources might never see a message from an opposing candidate.

 

[F1fan]

You Tube is not a private company as far as I'm concerned. It's not like a mom and pop couple running and owning a private business by themselves.

It's a shareholder owned mass media company meaning its actually a public domain, not owned whatsoever by any particular individual, and ought to be held to public standards and constitutionality same as government is.

Sounds like socialism. Government control over business. I don't like it.

 

[Stevicus]

I think there is an argument for regulating news outlets that broadcast. Or at least a licensing requirement so that news sources have to register and be approved to present news.

Do you want government control over the content of news providers?

Well, there is the Equal Time Rule, although there are many who think they should bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The idea being that broadcast radio and TV stations have to serve a public interest, which would put them into a somewhat different category as far as private businesses are concerned. It wouldn't mean government would control the content, but they would likely exert greater control than they would over other types of businesses.

There may be different rules for internet service providers or social media sites, although I think there are worries of possible monopolistic business practices. For industries and services where consumers have few choices and where competition is limited or severely lopsided, then government may have to intervene to ensure fairness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sounds like socialism. Government control over business. I don't like it.

No. I said held up to the same standards as government as in respect to the parameters of our constitution concerning open free speech and the like.

 

[Heyo]

I just saw a YouTube about new Laws in Europe which control Social Media, so my wish got fulfilled sooner than I expected.

That law is about more censorship, not less.

 

[Heyo]

You Tube is not a private company as far as I'm concerned. It's not like a mom and pop couple running and owning a private business by themselves.

It's a shareholder owned mass media company meaning its actually a public domain, not owned whatsoever by any particular individual, and ought to be held to public standards and constitutionality same as government is.

You become more socialist every day. Holding corporations to public standards, a good idea.
(Cue ****storm from stock owners and other capitalists.)

 

[F1fan]

Well, there is the Equal Time Rule, although there are many who think they should bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The idea being that broadcast radio and TV stations have to serve a public interest, which would put them into a somewhat different category as far as private businesses are concerned. It wouldn't mean government would control the content, but they would likely exert greater control than they would over other types of businesses.

There may be different rules for internet service providers or social media sites, although I think there are worries of possible monopolistic business practices. For industries and services where consumers have few choices and where competition is limited or severely lopsided, then government may have to intervene to ensure fairness.

I'm not up to date on laws and regulations. I heard a story in the last month on NPR about how the laws licensing and regulating news services were changed and this allowed FOX News to become a reality.

As it is if extremists from either side want content that is biased there should be an entrepreneur start up a new platform that will allow the content they want. The problem with social media companies is that they sell advertising (Capitalism at work) and to make more money you need to appeal to the vast majority of users. The fringe will turn off a huge segment of populations and the profits will not be impressive. As corporations the board of directors will want more profits and demand policies that will open the platforms to more users, thus less obscene content. This means the fringe will be weeded out yet again. Parler didn't make it because they wanted profits. We will see if trump's platform will work, but so far it's fallen flat. Democracy and Capitalism seems to favor more reasonable content on popular platforms. hat's not to say I agree with how social media does it's work in policing content.

I'm seldom on Facebook anymore because it is mostly garbage at this point. I see many folks being banned for rather innocuous posts while people firmly rooted in fake news proliferate like poison ivy. I've been banned for making liberal jokes, I defended myself several times and was reinstated, so I understand how the algorithms react, but don't assess. Given my liberal jokes it makes me suspect that the people who reported me were conservative users. So a bit of irony about cancel culture and bans on content they don't like. I would suggest that if conservatives don't want social media to censor content then they will have to endure the push back, especially on political issues where their candidates have serious ethical concerns.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You become more socialist every day. Holding corporations to public standards, a good idea.
(Cue ****storm from stock owners and other capitalists.)

Truth be told I like socialist ideology, but I despise its implementation in terms of how authoritarian it gets. It's why I rail against the left so much.

Corporate matters do go in that same direction so I favor having a line that shouldn't be crossed by either.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not up to date on laws and regulations. I heard a story in the last month on NPR about how the laws licensing and regulating news services were changed and this allowed FOX News to become a reality.

As it is if extremists from either side want content that is biased there should be an entrepreneur start up a new platform that will allow the content they want. The problem with social media companies is that they sell advertising (Capitalism at work) and to make more money you need to appeal to the vast majority of users. The fringe will turn off a huge segment of populations and the profits will not be impressive. As corporations the board of directors will want more profits and demand policies that will open the platforms to more users, thus less obscene content. This means the fringe will be weeded out yet again. Parler didn't make it because they wanted profits. We will see if trump's platform will work, but so far it's fallen flat. Democracy and Capitalism seems to favor more reasonable content on popular platforms. hat's not to say I agree with how social media does it's work in policing content.

I'm seldom on Facebook anymore because it is mostly garbage at this point. I see many folks being banned for rather innocuous posts while people firmly rooted in fake news proliferate like poison ivy. I've been banned for making liberal jokes, I defended myself several times and was reinstated, so I understand how the algorithms react, but don't assess. Given my liberal jokes it makes me suspect that the people who reported me were conservative users. So a bit of irony about cancel culture and bans on content they don't like. I would suggest that if conservatives don't want social media to censor content then they will have to endure the push back, especially on political issues where their candidates have serious ethical concerns.

You make some good, well-reasoned arguments, although even under our capitalist system, there are antitrust regulations and laws against collusion, price-fixing, discrimination, and other such rules and regulations depending on which industry we're talking about. If we were talking about a truly open market which was free and fair to all, then it would be truly democratic and a matter of the people's choice.

But it's never quite simple as that. Capitalism is somewhat predatory where the big fish are given license to eat the little fish, such as exemplified by the Walmart effect of putting local, mom-and-pop stores out of business because they just couldn't compete with the big box stores. That may be considered "fair play" under the capitalist system, but it still leaves a lingering bitter taste among the body politic.

And of course, with public utilities, they have to be regulated and overseen by a state commission to prevent any monopolistic abuses. TV and radio are in a different category, as they're not public utilities, but they're regulated because the airwaves are considered public property.

The internet seems a different kettle of fish, and perhaps it's still relatively "too new" to be able to flesh out all the legalities and responsibilities of both government regulators and private businesses. The internet started out as public property, but now many seem to think that it's a private enterprise that should only be available to those with the wealth and resources to exploit it. As you say, anybody can start up their own social media company and take their chances in the marketplace, and no doubt many have tried. I'm recalling the infamous "Dot.Com" bubble burst many years ago.

The only thing I ever do is post to message boards like this one. I don't have a Facebook account, and I'm not a YouTube content producer. I don't have my own website or blog - so I really don't have any dog in this fight one way or the other. I do have a Twitter account and get Tweets from local law enforcement and local news, but I've never once tweeted anything myself.

I have no idea what it would take to start up a company like Parler or Twitter or any of that. I don't know what their financials look like, so I can't tell whether controlling or banning certain kinds of content (or failing to do so) has any appreciable effect on their bottom line or profit margins.

As far as the public clamor over offensive content might be a factor, that also may not be quite so black-and-white. Film, TV, and music industries have taken a lot of heat from the public over some of the content they've produced, yet they've been willing to take that heat - even if it may have affected their bottom line. But they also got a lot of support. Back when Tipper Gore wanted to ban offensive rock lyrics, there was a public backlash from people who didn't like the direction that was going.

Some consumers of media would prefer that media outlets be more open, even if it means allowing offensive content - and let the viewers decide for themselves whether they like it or not. That's capitalism, too.

On a more personal note, I find myself feeling resentful anytime I see where something has been deleted or where something has been denied access for public viewing. It's an insult to believe that I'm not able to handle it or that I would need to be "protected" from whatever content there might be.

 

[SomeRandom]

True, it's business

But my wish go fulfilled after I posted my thread...a new Law is implemented in Europe to control Big Tech. Very crazy high fines, so they will think twice making mistakes again

I hope you’re right

 

[Kooky]

Tech Giant YouTube forced to UnBlock WION after Global outrage

So they weren't actually censored after all.

I just saw a YouTube about new Laws in Europe which control Social Media, so my wish got fulfilled sooner than I expected.

So what you're telling us is that Youtube does not in fact censor these videos.