Youtube Being Censored, We Can't Question the Government on Youtube

[flacaltenn]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

What can't you speak about on the internet?

Specifically.

Ask Google. They tell US at USMB what content we can't allow if we want their ad service. And it's CLEAR (if you read the OP) that they are acting against folks that don't follow THEIR political advocacy. Like I said theres a diff between content rules and CENSORSHIP based on political biases.

IN FACT --- since Google is NOT "the media" or journal or political advocacy group, it's not THEIR SPEECH that's being restrained. It's different because they are USING political advocacy to restrain the speech of others.

At SOME POINT -- they should be required to register as a political advocacy organization or acted on as monopolizing the available marketplace of ideas..

So you can't actually name a single thing you can't talk about on the internet.

Not one single thing.

Of course I can.. This OP names a couple. If we expand the topic to Twitter and Facebook, there's ALL KINDS of politically biased freezing, shadow banning, sanctioning of accounts goin on.. Aren't you paying attention to these free speech issues? Or is it because they are NOT going after "your kind" of content yet??

 

[Pogo]

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

I just checked- you have posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President.

Your loss -- it's there. Search for WashPo with my name on the post... Fake news? Thy name is WashPo/CNN/NYTimes... AND their fucking "fact checkers"...

It's NOT SOMEBODY ELSE'S CLAIM, Sparkles. It's YOUR claim. Ain't OUR job to go do YOUR homework. Burden of proof, etc.

Once again --- you made an ass-sertion that you can't back up. Therefore it's dismissed as empty.

 

[MindWars]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

It has exactly nothing to do with free speech. A private company can't violate free speech.

If you think so

 

[MindWars]

Yeah bet it was a mistake.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I don't object to it. I pointed out that they're losing more viewers and content creators this way.

The fact that they censored content already doesn't mean censoring it more won't lose them viewers and content creators. It also doesn't mean that this isn't news. In fact, your point here is completely meaningless.

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do.

While you are correct, if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains, the market will react, there's no possibility that they'll gain more viewers by ensuring they have less content and fewer creators. There's no benefit aside from silencing opinions they don't agree with on their own platform.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do.

While you are correct, if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains, the market will react, there's no possibility that they'll gain more viewers by ensuring they have less content and fewer creators. There's no benefit aside from silencing opinions they don't agree with on their own platform.

You're wasting effort on this one.

YouTube can do as they please but it's obvious more than a few social sites are trying to control the narrative.

 

[hazlnut]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

It's a private company.

McDonalds doesn't allow screaming madmen either.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

It's a private company.

McDonalds doesn't allow screaming madmen either.

Idk about that I've seen some pretty unruly customers in McDonalds

 

[dblack]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

It has exactly nothing to do with free speech. A private company can't violate free speech.

If you think so

I know so. The problem is the widespread lack of comprehension regarding freedom and rights. Someone refusing to accommodate you isn't violating your freedom. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want, but you can't force people to listen. And you can't force them to print your words.

What's ironic is that this is exactly the same argument going on in the cake baking nonsense. The baker didn't violate the rights of the gay customers. He just declined to accommodate something he didn't approve of. That's all YouTube is doing.

 

[Tilly]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

It's a private company.

McDonalds doesn't allow screaming madmen either.

It does. It also allows grooming gangs.

 

[Syriusly]

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

What can't you speak about on the internet?

Specifically.

Ask Google. They tell US at USMB what content we can't allow if we want their ad service. And it's CLEAR (if you read the OP) that they are acting against folks that don't follow THEIR political advocacy. Like I said theres a diff between content rules and CENSORSHIP based on political biases.

IN FACT --- since Google is NOT "the media" or journal or political advocacy group, it's not THEIR SPEECH that's being restrained. It's different because they are USING political advocacy to restrain the speech of others.

At SOME POINT -- they should be required to register as a political advocacy organization or acted on as monopolizing the available marketplace of ideas..

So you can't actually name a single thing you can't talk about on the internet.

Not one single thing.

Of course I can.. This OP names a couple. If we expand the topic to Twitter and Facebook, there's ALL KINDS of politically biased freezing, shadow banning, sanctioning of accounts goin on.. Aren't you paying attention to these free speech issues? Or is it because they are NOT going after "your kind" of content yet??

Of course I can.

Then why won't you?

Name the thing you are prevented from talking about on the internet.

Remember though- just because FB or Twitter or Youtube or USMB have policies restricting what you can post on their sites- doesn't mean you are prevented from posting on the internet.

You can start your own web-page and post whatever you want. You can post most any crazy crap on Infowars or WND- as long as it is anti-left.

So name the thing that cannot be named.

Since you say you can.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

So umm, what's the latest, best Android OS?

 

[Syriusly]

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do..

Okay- prove all of those things.

Go for it.

This should be interesting.

Because so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

 

[del]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

you and usmb are free to not do business with them, just as they are free to index whatever the fuck they want.

if you don't like the terms and conditions, don't do business with them- not exactly rocket surgery

or, you could whine about it and bewail the denial of nonexistent *rights* by a private business

your choice, snowflake

 

[del]

The Dirty Democrats are unable endure freedom of speech.

 

[del]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

in the cloud(s)

 

[del]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

what part of business eludes you?

 

[del]

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

*documented on usmb* might be the funniest thing posted on the internet this month

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do..

Okay- prove all of those things.

Go for it.

This should be interesting.

Because so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate.