Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
YouTube To Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views (nytimes.com) 316
The companies have come under intense criticism for their delayed reaction to the spread of hateful and false content. At the same time, President Trump and others argue that the giant tech platforms censor right-wing opinions, and the new policies put in place by the companies have inflamed those debates. The tension was evident on Tuesday, when YouTube said that a prominent right-wing creator who used racial language and homophobic slurs to harass a journalist in videos on YouTube did not violate its policies. The decision set off a firestorm online, including accusations that YouTube was giving a free pass to some of its popular creators.
- So google with have to remove all it’s own videos?
- by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *Youtube is at war with its customers. They decided to go with annoyance with their advertising. The ads will run in the middle of what you’re watching – unless of course you pay your monthly rent. They demonetized lots of content providers because they used swear words etc. Now they’re outright banning people they deem “extreme”. Well Youtube – you remove all the content which is the reason that people visit in the first place, then people are going to stop visiting. All that will be left is puppy videos an
- by Falos ( 2905315 )
Then they’re known as behaving inconsistent with standing claims, or that their TOS is meaningless and their staff do as they please.
Which is still legal. But people have less interest in using a website that bans arbitrarily. Less interest means less moneys.
People have more interest in a site that says “we ban according to XYZ, not whims.” but then your “they own the platform, they can indulge whims” isn’t relevant, the XYZ terms are.
But people have less interest in using a website that
People have more interest in a site that says
Do you have any statistics that support your claims?
- by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *How about the balance sheet [cnbc.com]? This statement comes from Alphabet itself. It’s also common sense if you engage your brain. Assuming you have one. Cut the number of viewers and you directly cut the number of ads served, which cuts your advertising income.
their TOS is meaningless and their staff do as they please.
Link to some facts or go home.
Their TOS is broad, but it has to be because human behavior doesn’t fall into neat little buckets. And it isn’t much different than the TOS of most other service providers.
But people have less interest in using a website that bans arbitrarily.
Last time I checked they seemed to be doing alright.
Re:Google committing harassment and discrimination (Score:4, Insightful)
by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:20PM (#58713968)So it’s ok for UPS to decide they don’t like the look of you, so they won’t deliver you packages. It’s ok for a bank to decide they’re going to close your account because you posted a comment that was pro-Trump. Because “they own the platform”…Re:Google committing harassment and discrimination (Score:4, Insightful)
by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ikihsam}> on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:28PM (#58714024) HomepageConsidering the Obama era actions to pressure banks and lenders to close accounts for gun stores and manufactures? Yes. When the authoritarians can’t shut something down, their next recourse is to use the government in an attempt to bypass something that’s protected.
What I find interesting is that the original post has nothing about the literal shit stain from Vox is the one trying to shutdown speech. What’s even funnier is the absolute insanity of his points, especially the “Crowder and Youtube are bestest buddies 4lyfe!” I’m sure though that with this new found introspection over at Vox, they’ll be going after the dailybeast and facebook for doxing a guy for creating a meme that lefties didn’t like.
No? And they wonder why people are sick and tired of the progressive identity politics bullshit.
What I find interesting is that the original post has nothing about the literal shit stain from Vox is the one trying to shutdown speech. What’s even funnier is the absolute insanity of his points, especially the “Crowder and Youtube are bestest buddies 4lyfe!” I’m sure though that with this new found introspection over at Vox, they’ll be going after the dailybeast and facebook for doxing a guy for creating a meme that lefties didn’t like.
Yeah, I was curious this was all left out of the Slashdot summary…
- And we the people have the right to pressure our lawmakers to revoke the immunity such companies were granted based on them not acting as an editor.
> They can ban a channel for having too much green in its logo
But they don’t, they ban them if they hold opposing political views. Google’s views are materially the same as Facebook, Twitter, and a host of others that only were ever placed in this position of trust by being neutral, a powerful claim they used to dethrone competition. It’s not normal to see all of these things arise in the same few years as well funded free speech zones, and then simultaneously all adopt the exact same policy, in the ex
YouTube is a private entity, so they have no obligation to host anything YouTube finds offensive on their servers.
But if they do that, don’t they lose their protections from being sued under some sort of “common carrier” classification?
I mean, under that, if you don’t actively manage or cultivate the content posted by users, you are largely not liable for any of that content not there.
But if you start censoring and picking what can and cannot be on there, then you aren’t really common carrier type anymo
- I can’t figure out why Google that is developing AI so powerful they want to sell it to the DoD….can’t develop AI so that it can detect the content and decide what if any Ads to put on that content.
Advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)
by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:49PM (#58713062)this is about Advertisers more than anything else. YouTube’s kind of gotten stuffed with this stuff lately and it’s a bad look for the advertisers. Extremist views by their nature have a niche audience. If you mix in stuff like segregationists, white supremacists and the like you’ve got a small number of very loud people pushing an exclusionary agenda.That doesn’t really work when you’re selling stuff. Black, white, brown, yellow… none of it matters next to Green.
Re:Advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)
by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:08PM (#58713198)No advertiser wants their ad on some video that’s advocating that *ethnic group* is sub-human. None. And above everything else Google IS an Ad company.
Ad rates fell substantially about half a year ago when advertisers found out their ads were being shown on videos they didn’t want to be associated with. In fact many advertisers simply pulled out until Google could guarantee that their ads wouldn’t be shown with extremist content. This forced Google’s hand, if they wanted those advertisers back and ad rates to go back up they either needed an algorithm that could detect these videos and filter advertising or they needed to simply ban the content entirely.
I think Google experimented with trying to find an algo over the last six months or so that would work and this announcement is evidence they failed. That trying to filter this content automatically is impossible because the people hit with this will simply alter their strategies to avoid the algorithm, not to avoid the content that Google’s advertisers don’t want to be associated with. Ultimately bringing the advertisers back and solidifying ad rates is Google primary concern, everything else will get tossed to preserve that.
Your point about “algo wars,” is insightful.
The ecosystem is basically Google vs everybody else. The odds are stacked against Google by sheer number. The probability is that there are way more smart people posting to the platform than Google is dedicating to moderate those posts.
A very simple example is the initial porn sites that said, “Click here if you are under 18 years old,” and those who did were redirected to disney.com.
Kids would make another run and just click on the other link.
Algo wars describe t
It’s more restrictive than that. Few advertisers want their videos on adverts that contain a lot of swearing, or insult a major political party, or mock religion, or say anything at all relating to sex. Those are the sorts of videos that get demonetized. What youtube wants are nice, safe videos of pets doing tricks.
Ah the “we are being persecuted” form of red herring with a good old fashion “but Soros!” misdirection.
The only thing Google is going to care about is how advertisers view that content. You find something objectionable, complain to the advertiser, but be aware that advertiser may not care what you think or share your ideology. Google’s actions in this regard are going to be driven by their advertisers alone, just like everyone has been warning for ages now. Piss off the advertisers and Google will ban your
Re: They’ve long since fixed that (Score:4, Insightful)
by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:57PM (#58714740)Is the left or center violating the ToS?
That’s the bar.
- Yes, this is why broadcast TV is more sanitised than niche cable TV which is more sanitized than subscription programs. It makes sense it’d eventually start to happen online since they’re the ones that keep TV more self regulated than it’d be via only government regulations.
And nobody wants their product associated with neo-Nazis, not because neo-Nazis are bad but because nobody’s gonna risk losing sales from black & jewish customers in exchange for the
Just where is this plethora of neo-nazi propaganda?
They keep saying it is getting such high ratings, and viewership and showing up on peoples’ feed and interest pages.
Ive yet to see a single one…nothing like that just pops up.
I’m sure if you are searching actively for such content it is the
Why not just flag it as “Biggoted bullshit” when they present it to advertisers and LET THEM CHOOSE what they put their ads on. And let them have their own white-list/black-list of channels or videos. And let users know just who is buying ad-space on any given video.
I think Youtube should be a more or less impartial platform and let people decide what is wrong-think rather than enforcing it themselves.
Advertisers can’t choose
That’s the entire crux of the idea. Let them choose what videos to put their ads next to. Unless that whole “targeted advertising” thing was a big giant lie.
If you’re concerned about an ad being next to one video, and the NEXT video they watch is some hideous shit. Then you ALSO LET THEM CHOOSE WHO they’re displaying ads to. Like you said, google knows what you’re watching. If advertisers don’t want to be shown to people who choose pro-robo-hitler-SJW-lizardpeople videos…. they can choose not to
- by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *If Youtube caters to advertisers then Youtube will be serving the same generic pap you see on your television. At that point you say “why should I watch youtube?”.
- If it were about ads, all YouTube would have to do is demonetize these videos so no ads would show up on them. This is 100% due to YouTube/Google/Alphabet.
If it were about ads, all YouTube would have to do is demonetize these videos so no ads would show up on them. This is 100% due to YouTube/Google/Alphabet.
They already started doing this years ago.
Right now there is hardly ever an ad on gun related channels anymore, the de-monitized them awhile back.
It’s spreading more and more.
The question has always been, where’s the line? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:59PM (#58713136)If youtube wants to ban real Neo-Nazis, and real white supremacists, saying real neo nazi crap, like the Illionois Nazi’s we saw in The Blues Brothers from 1980, Go for it!
The problem is that there’s not terribly many of those anymore. It’s not so simple. How about the phrase “It’s OK to be white”. Is that white supremacist? If enough white supremacists say something, does that make it suddenly owned by them?
How about questioning whether Israel is a just country? Is that anti-Semitic?
Here’s where the real trouble starts.
The company also said that channels that toe the line of hate speech but don’t explicitly cross the line will face monetization penalties like not being able to run ads or use the Superchat feature.Now it’s not just “the line” anymore there’s another one called “right up to the line line” that’s likely even more poorly defined. Greeaaat. Sounds like creeping censorship to me.
The real problem with censorship is the self-censorship aspect. The far lefties around here all think they “know racism/sexism/whatever-ism when they see it”. Yeah right. That works about as well as that stupid “I know obscenity when I see it” that the right wing came up with in the 60s when they decided they need to stamp out porn.
For those complaining… (Score:2, Informative)
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [wikipedia.org]- The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Re:try to get the full quote this time… (Score:5, Insightful)
by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ikihsam}> on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:44PM (#58713576) HomepageThe paradox of tolerance simply boils down to: We need to curate the proper opinions and not let people think freely. And when there are opinions that we can’t tolerate, instead of exposing them to the light of reasoned debate. The best solution is to censor them. I’m constantly amused at the stupidity of that argument.
- by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:10PM (#58713212)The problem with these bans is that on most platforms they claim to being doing a good but catch up a whole bunch of random other people. Not only that but people don’t know what exactly caused them to be banned. THE BETTER IDEA is to have complete transparency on bans. For every time someone is banned have a record of the date and time, and also show the clip/comment/post that caused it. Not only show the user that reason but keep a list updated that EVERYONE can see. It is the only way users can see that a system is not getting abused as well as shows exactly what is and isn’t against the rules.
Also today, Youtube announced that its automatic subtitling system will automatically translate all spoken words into newspeak subtitles.
Also… spoken words that are not found in the newspeak dictionary will be automatically bleeped out and shown as the newspeak equivalent in the CC/Subtitle only, instead.
Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:13PM (#58713250)There was a time in the United States when free speech was allowing someone to speak who’s ideas and words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of their lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
but no. Rather than teach critical thinking, expect social courtesy, explore ideas with open debate, and move past unsubstantiated pseudo nonsense, we move to censorship.
Let me ask you, who defines “extreme views”? What generation? What social class? What economics?
Merely calling someones BS out, is now “extreme” as bulling is as simple as making someone “feel uncomfortable” via any unintended words, actions or imagined slight.
We deserve Trump. He’s a mirror of what we’ve devolved to and reminder of what we’ve given up.And you absolutely still can. That said, at no point has it ever been your right to force other people to promote your speech for free. That’s what YouTube is. They aren’t being paid by these people for a service, it’s being offered as free given certain conditions.
Certain conditions being to constantly second guess what ideas or even words will get your speech demoted or get you kicked you off the platform entirely. Or what level of negative press exposure puts all your videos in the ‘limited state’ round file.
Before you even say ‘build your own’, those that try inevitably discover the difficulty of dealing with vertical monopolies and cartels that don’t want them to.
Also, creators ARE paying Youtube, with their time and effort to attract viewers, with the expectatio
They’re a private marketplace (Score:2, Insightful)
They’re welcome to do what they like; and frankly, I’m glad they’re doing it. The basic right to tree speech isn’t being inhibited once iota by this.- When you are one of the worlds largest monopolies and control a significant amount of all communications I think it is possible to inhibit free speech.
Congress hauled tech billionaires into hearings and promised their companies would get rekt if they didn’t so something about “fake news” and “russian propaganda”. Then there’s the fact that government-funded think tanks like the Atlantic Council are telling Faceboogletwit who to censor.
Only one problem… (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything they disagree with is considered hate speech.
So basically videos about Ilhan Omar and the evils she is doing? Hate speech.
Any evidence of any kind of corruption or bad behavior by anyone who is not white? Hate speech.Chances that there will still be thousands of videos that advocate the genocide of Christians? High.
Chances that there will still be thousands of videos promoting pedophilia? High.
Chances that there will still be thousands of videos promoting death to various groups that are not “protected classes”? High.Instead of banning them to make advertisers happy (Score:4, Insightful)
by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:26PM (#58713370)why not just create a “free speech” section, like they do for “adult content”.
Then the ad agencies could just not support content there.
If they are banning based on content, youtube will soon be a barren wasteland with no left, or right content, just cat videos. Not that there’s really anything wrong with that, as long as they treat all haters equally…
Although that doesn’t seem to be happening on either side:
https://boingboing.net/2019/06… [boingboing.net]
YouTube doesn’t allow porn either. You could argue they could create a porn section… But that probably wouldn’t be of much benefit for them. Even if it’s sectioned off, advertisers won’t want to be on a platform that allows that kind of stuff anywhere.
- by Ksevio ( 865461 )Because then it just ends up with a horrible section. Maybe the horrible people can just move to their own video service like that voat site
You’re talking about their decision NOT to deplatform Steven Crowder.
The activist pushing this is a guy by the name of Carlos Maza.
He’s works for Vox and has a huge platform on YouTube. Larger than even Crowder’s.
He’s also a jackass who advocates for violence to be used against those whom he disagrees with, and has no problems inciting such violence.
Also, every term that Crowder has used to describe him is:A) Accurate
B) Mean
C) A term that Carlos Maza HAS USED ABOUT HIMSELF.Additionally, Crowder is a comedian AND his videos are rebuttals of videos made by Maza & Co.
As formulated, they are NOT against YouTube’s TOS.
So, Maza, in an attempt to get His Way, is going to go scorched earth.
He’s going to try and trigger ANOTHER Adpocalypse. One that won’t hurt HIM. But could absolutely RUIN smaller YouTube content creators.Free speech
No TOS violations.
Fuck arbitrary bans.youtube still fine with hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:29PM (#58713414)rappers with songs of hate against other races are still fine
radical feminists with hate speech against males are still fine
hate speech against those that hold traditional family values is still fine
You know you can report the femenists (Score:2, Flamebait)
if they’re actually spouting hate speech and YouTube will remove them. In fact it’s not too hard to get them removed even if they’re not. YouTube, Twitter, et al will ban just about anyone who doesn’t look advertiser friendly.Also, “traditional family values” is a dog whistle for the Christian equivalent to Sharia law, e.g. enforcing their brand of religion on everybody else. Not sure if you knew that but, well, congrats, you do now.
pffft, no, between your ears “traditional family values” means that. Ask an indian or chinese person (like my wife) what it means, something different than the target of your particular hate speech. and yes, you just demonstrated what I’m talking about, hater.
plenty of rap songs have lyrics that are hate speech. of course, the interviews with many of them have that too. but that’s okay, because it’s okay to be racist hater advocating violence if you’re black and the object of your hatred is white.
The idea that you can start out a news story speaking of ‘neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies’ as well as ‘justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion’ but then you also have to include conspiracy theories videos about Sandy Hook. Because those are totally similar.
But I guess when you live your life looking for new and interesting ways to be offended then there isn’t a different between actual racism and just seeing something that offends you.
- by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:36PM (#58713518)
You know what? I’m actually opposed to this. Rah rah freedom of speech and all that jazz. “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend it your right to say it”. (This is where you guys get to scream incoherently and accuse me of being a Nazi myself. Siiiigh.) Demonetizing them, sure. That’s been a kick in the teeth to a bunch of controversial people. And some unfairly. But that’s business. You can’t demand people stand with you and support you. I’d prefer a more transparent “WHO IS CHOOSING TO SUPPORT THIS GARBAGE”, and more direct options of supporting channels, but that’s honestly just me whining about google’s business model.
As a reminder though “bigot” is anyone that simply refuses to consider that they’re wrong. Pretty much a synonym with “closed minded”. If you refuse to consider the downsides to vaccines, or the merits of eating meat, or positive effects on society from the 2nd amendment… then you’re a bigot. And it’s ok to consider these things. “What about all the good things that Hitler did?” And he DID do a number of good things. He brought Germany out of a depression. He pushed for worker’s rights and broader healthcare support. It’s just that, when compared to the giant pile of vile atrocities he also committed, oh look, it doesn’t balance out at all and he’s an evil monster.
And “freedom of speech” is an ideal born out of the age of enlightenment and is far older than our government and the first admendment, which quite accurately does only restrict the US government. It is a moral issue, not (always) a legal one. If you thought upholdng freedom of speech just doesn’t apply to you or yours while you’re spouting comments online, then you’re likely a massive hippocrite.
My fear is that mearly saying such things and daring to have a nuanced view instead of banging the party drum sufficiently loud enough will be used against me. (And it already has, I’ve been accused of being a nazi simply for defending everyone’s freedom of speech).
- That’s mighty white of them! Oh… wait…
we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events
Question the official narrative and you’ll be censored.
it’s critical that our monetization systems reward trusted creators
Where the only way to earn the trust and not be suppressed by the algorithms is to be a corporate ‘creator’ like Vice, Vox, Young Turks, CNN, Guardian, etc. Definitely does not include YOU.
hate speech policies
Good luck trying to reach that ever moving goalpost.
The openness of YouTube’s platform has helped creativity and access to information thrive.
Finally. The one, singular, gem of truth in that entire pile of disingenuous PR bullshit.
YouTube’s greatest strength also happened to be it’s greatest flaw: becoming a marketplace of ideas where even the lowliest ple
- by Ksevio ( 865461 )
Question the official narrative and you’ll be censored.
Feel free to question, but there’s only so far you can go with that excuse. Events like the holocaust or Sandy Hook are very well documented and telling people they didn’t happen is just lying. There’s evidence that people believe these lies and have done bad things because of them.
Platform or Publisher (Score:5, Informative)
by bryanandaimee ( 2454338 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:06PM (#58713838)The problem with banning borderline, and near borderline content is that it disproves the premise that protects these companies from litigation. They are given protection from litigation because they were set up as a platform. Since they don’t curate the content of the platform they can’t be held liable for the content.In chasing advertising dollars they have started to move more toward curating their content. At some point it will become obvious that youtube is a publisher and not a platform. At that point they will be legally liable for the content of their site just like any newspaper, magazine or blog.
Unfortunately for youtube I’m not sure if it is physically possible to actually curate the entire content of the site. People will always be more clever than the algorithm that flags problematic content.
This is an extremely difficult endeavor. Just look at the concept of Free Speech in the United States. We have hundreds of years of jurisprudence on what it is and isn’t and it’s still not 100% settled. Most recently, people are getting reality checks on “hate speech” — learning quickly that “hate speech” is a buzz term, not a legal term and that it’s, in fact, completely legal.
Fighting words. Time, place, and manner. Imminent lawless action.
There are many concepts within the distribution of ideas that are
How YouTube plans to ride YouTube of “extremism” (not even just “hate”) when the term itself is exceedingly vague and to do so in such extreme volume while avoiding liability for any false positives or false negatives is mind boggling.
Only if you ascribe honest intent. Also if Youtube seems pretty apathetic about creators getting flagged and losing income through false copryright strikes when there’s such a thing as fair use.
As for the plan, its actually quite simple. Youtube already brings on ‘trusted flaggers’ such as political groups like the SPLC and the ADL who don’t even give lip service to impartiality and fairness. So anything those groups don’t like. Also recall that Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki is a feminist who gets triggered by
videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion
Cool! So any videos supporting jizya [wikipedia.org] are right out, I’m assuming?
Or is a literal tax on non-group members not “discrimination”?
Of course, youtube will carpetbomb their service and kick off tons of stuff that doesn’t meet their actual definitions of “extreme” but being a private entity they’re entitled to do that.
I’ll just enjoy watching internet libertarians/cryptofascists/alt-right people twist themselves into knots trying to explain why they’re owed a platform by a gigantic corporation.
Re: About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous CowardNo, people are not intrinsically bigots just because they don’t agree with identity politics.
Yeah, that’s exactly what it is. Just the tip, sweetie, I promise.
- Why is it that I constantly see left wing posters verbally attacking anyone that disagrees with their position. Resorting to name calling, bulling tactics, and censorship. Want to get banned from platform, use the same hate filled speech to respond to a rabid leftist. You will be banned in a heart beat. funny thing is. I have been more than once been banned stating. No asshole, I am not a bigot like you. I never considered ???? to be illegitimate. I don’t give a flying fuck about a persons politics/gend
Re:About time. (Score:4, Insightful)
by fortythirteen ( 5606969 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:03PM (#58713174)It always starts with censoring the people everyone agrees are egregiously wrong/malicious. It always ends with the g-men knocking on your door, because someone overheard you saying something mildly outside of the publicly approved Overton window.If you hold extreme enough views to think that corporate censorship in the U.S. is a good thing, you most certainly hold other views extreme enough to make you their next victim.
So why do you think you can force the owners of Google to say things they don’t want to say? Forced speech is the exact opposite of free speech.
Because they’re not the ones saying them, they’re running a public square. Further, the government absolutely forces speech. See every disclaimer ever.
Because they enjoy the “common carrier” defense of being a hands-off third-party not responsible for the content that they deliver. Can you find an ISIS video or pirated material on Youtube? Can you sue Google corporate for hosting that video? No? That’s because they’re claiming that it’s not their responsibility and are foisting it off onto the users. As they should.
But as soon as they start policing SOME of their content that they don’t like, they lose that common carrier defense. Now they are inspecti
Wrong. You do not understand slippery slopes, and the fact that they are not always a fallacy.
If there is a process identified, and multiple examples of how things slid down the slope, how is it a fallacy?
- Really? Slashdot is one place one can come to to see passionate defenses of Marxism – usually from posters in Europe
- Nazi racist evil bigots should be censored. Maybe punched in the face as well.
All censorship is bad. Expose bad ideas, don’t let them hide and fester.- How about people who post about how Islamophobic everyone who opposes Jihad is?
- by Fwipp ( 1473271 )
Surely if you believe that Nazis are evil, it is evil to help them spread Nazism.
- Yes, and justifying their claims of persecution by censoring them and driving them into echo chambers, instead of letting their horrid ideas face the light of reason, helps them spread Nazism.
apparently rappers spreading race hate against whites is okay though
Surely if you believe that Nazis are evil, it is evil to help them spread Nazism.
Until you realize that you are a Nazi just b’cos someone who disagrees w/ you says so
Precisely. All opinions are equally valid, as long as they are correct.
Precisely. All opinions are equally valid, as long as they are correct.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but there’s actually something to that last part of what you just said.
If you ever study human rights, you’ll quickly discover that nearly every list of rights is understood to include the notion that you have a right to not be deceived by others. Sometimes it’s stated explicitly, but usually it’s an implied right. For instance, the right to informed consent can’t exist in the absence of truthful information. Likewise, the right to self-determination, which is central to nearl
If you ever study human rights, you’ll quickly discover that nearly every list of rights is understood to include the notion that you have a right to not be deceived by others.
Oh really? Is that why the police aren’t allowed to tell you lies and deceive you into incriminating yourself? Because you have a right to not be deceived by others. Oh wait, the police ARE allowed to lie and deceive you into incriminating yourself [knowmyrights.org]… Guess that throws the notion of a right to not be deceived by others right out the window…
- And wouldn’t you know it, the Slashdot censorship icon has suddenly gone MIA again! Funny how that coincidentally happens whenever leftist censors are in the news.
Relevant XKCD [xkcd.com]
Its also a false XKCD. They are confusing the right to free speech with the US constitution.
Its true that the Constitution provides protection against the government infringing upon free spech.But free speech is still a natural right in other places.
Its very much an infringement of free speech that Youtube deletes Alex Jones, etc.
- by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ikihsam}> on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:42PM (#58713560) Homepage
Fixed XKCD [magaimg.net]
Sometimes people really don’t understand the topic they’re talking about, like in your picture.
Relevant XKCD [xkcd.com]
Leftists have come a long way.
There was a time when “well, we own all the sidewalks, so you can’t say unpopular things” wouldn’t have flown with them
so long as it’s against those people I don’t like?
Exactly, expect creative definitions of “superior”. Let’s imagine the military denies some people enlistment because they will eventually need a $50K medical procedure. The military does this for financial reasons not bigotry. A person endorsing this decision will be *seen* in the reviewer’s eyes as “declaring” people who do not need this medical procedure as “superior” and thus be violating the terms of use. It won’t matter that the endorser is really offering a possible explanation for a policy that does
Its only illegal if the government does it in certain circumstances.
Wrong. If it’s a public space, and YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. absolutely are, it is the government’s duty to actively protect free speech.
Being privately owned or operated has nothing to do with it. If that were the case, no one could protest or strike on a sidewalk or in a parking lot or at a park.
- by Straif ( 172656 )
POPOS (or POPS) is an acronym for Privately Owned Public Open Spaces and is very much a thing, at least in the US. They are usually used as designations for privately owned parks but can include pretty much any type of land or structure that while owned by a private entity must be accessible for public use. Occupy Wall Street made use of POPOS locations for many of their camp sites and the private owners were legally powerless to remove them due to the designation.
In the simplest form they may consist of
Hard working slaves built this country
Would that be before or after 1865 when the people of this country fought a war to abolish slavery?
How many centuries need to pass before you stop blaming people for looking like someone who engaged in what was at the time an accepted worldwide practice?
The slaves (and slave owners) are dead. Stop being a victim.
Yup, and the Score: -1 downvote demonstrates this point to a tee.
Every person is offended by something, and different people have different tastes. The only “fair” way to deal with this is to avoid pandering to any particular person’s views and simply uphold free speech for all, just as the first amendment to the US constitution implores us to.
…because everyone is offended by something.
But how you choose to express your offense is another matter entirely.
Do you advocate for (or actually) punch them in the face because you don’t like what they said?
Do you try to get someone else to censor them?
Do you hurl personal insults or resort to shaming tactics?Or do you counter their bad ideas with your good ones in a thoughtful and reasoned discussion?
…because everyone is offended by something.
But how you choose to express your offense is another matter entirely. Do you advocate for (or actually) punch them in the face because you don’t like what they said?
Are we discussing Antifa activists here?
Do you try to get someone else to censor them?
Like people who complain to Facebook and Twitter to get conservative posts deleted and their posters banned?
Do you hurl personal insults or resort to shaming tactics?
Like Alyssa Milano does regularly on Twitter? Or like Facebook and Daily Beast do in blackmailing a truck driver who made an unflattering video of a seemingly drunk Nancy Pelosi into apologizing?
Or do you counter their bad ideas with your good ones in a thoughtful and reasoned discussion?
You mean like Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson or Mark Steyn or Mark Levin?
Are we discussing Antifa activists here?
Nope, the fairly common leftist idea that it’s OK to punch a Nazi. Yeah, Antifa thinking it’s OK to cover your face, get in a mob and smash things / set things on fire could probably be argued as a result of this idea that physical attacks are ok if the victim has the wrong ideology.
Like people who complain to Facebook and Twitter to get conservative posts deleted and their posters banned?
Those are exactly the people I’m talking about.
Like Alyssa Milano does regularly on Twitter?
Yep.
You mean like Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson or Mark Steyn or Mark Levin?
Ben Shapiro yes absolutely. I haven’t found someone on the left who can articulate and back up his ideas with nearly the same logic or eloquence, though he’s always come across
Cat videos, instructional videos on how to do or fix stuff, idiots doing stupid things; I really can’t see how that’s affected by any of this.
Screaming Idiotic Bigots, however, seem to be the norm they’re trying to lose, with good reason.
When someone is trying to make you feel, instead of think, odds are they’re trying to manipulate you.
People are too stupid to realize this, and follow them on Twitter, and elect them president by shady means.
I really hated that Cody’slab had a whole bunch of their videos re
I do wish they would do something about the quackery next. Youtube has far too many videos telling you how to make a fat-burning smoothie, or their all-natural cure for diabetes.
Precisely!!! Today’s woke Millenials call everything that they disagree w/ Nazi. If you disagree w/ the Green New Deal, you’re a Fascist. If you disagree w/ Medicare for all, you are a White supremacist. If you support the wall and want to keep out illegal aliens, you are a Nazi. If you oppose Antifa, you’re a bigot. If you oppose 4th Trimester abortions (as enunciated by Gov Northam of Virginia), you are a misogynist. And on it goes.
In the meantime, actual Jihadists worldwide post Judeophobic vide
- by Ksevio ( 865461 )I get the feeling you’ve never knowingly talked to a Millennial…
videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion
What they are saying is *those guys* are inferior and they will discriminate against them by excluding their posts.
I figured that by “a group”, YouTube meant a “protected class”, which is a group defined by ethnicity, gender, or disability. The blog post backs this up: “qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”
- Massive own goal or false flag post? I can’t tell at this point.
- Exactly – couldn’t tell whether GP was being facetious, or whether she’s just another Antifa thug
Problem w/ that is that once YouTube starts picking those whose videos stay and those whose videos are deleted, they are violating the premise that Google made to Congress: that they should not be held responsible for views expressed on their site since they are a platform, not a publisher. But they are doing precisely what publishers do: if someone tried posting something pro Trump on Daily Beast, that post would be deleted. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are doing pretty much the same thing, which is why
What retirement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Laura Southern just launched the documentary Borderless [laurensouthern.net], a movie about European migrant immigration. Everyone should watch this, no matter what “side” you think you are on.
She has gotten way, way less “extreme” and that movie is truly as informative and unbiased as any documentary could be.
- by eepok ( 545733 )
I had never heard of Laura Southern until this post. I looked at the link and then looked her up in Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern#Views).
From Wiki: Southern has been widely described as alt-right, far-rightand right-wing. She rejects the label “alt-right”. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Southern’s videos as antifeminist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and borderline white nationalist. She is anti-multiculturalism and has called the Black Lives Matter movement a “terrorist orga
- Interesting that this was modded down: there are a lot of Jihadist videos, which rarely get pulled down, since the Right likes to use it as evidence of what we’re against, while the Left has no problems w/ it, since it’s anti-Western. And in the Covington case, the Black Hebrews were screaming vile things against those Covington kids who were on their way home, but no campaign was started against this hate group. If only one type of racism is gonna be condemned, it won’t be long before it all devolves int
- by Ksevio ( 865461 )No, they’re talking about right wing ideas. Everyone knows the right wing party doesn’t care about deficits and wants to increase the military (government)
- I didn’t see those mentioned in TFS.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 1445 commentsFewer Than Half of Young Americans Are Positive About Capitalism
- 1293 commentsMass Shooting Reported at Madden Video Game Tournament in Florida
- 985 commentsLinus Torvalds Reflects On How He’s Been Hostile To Linux Community Members Over the Years, Issues Apology, and Announces He Will Be Taking Some Time Off
- 929 commentsWikileaks Co-founder Julian Assange Arrested in London
- 825 commentsSan Francisco Officials Are Planning To Ban Corporate Cafeterias, Force Tech Workers To Eat Out At Local Restaurants
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 100 of 316 loaded
The debate rages on: Is PL/I Bachtrian or Dromedary?
