Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

Kidchameleon

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah now now remember that your to respect other users.

I have nothing but respect for KiKi and there is nothing wrong with robust debate. Refering to a fellow poster as a "wizard" on the other hand...

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

Yes, if you read my full post you would have seen my reasoning.

50,000+ followers but far less than 1% of them engage with her posts. Dead giveaway that someone has bought followers.

That is literally a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should create a BitChute account? Because by your logic you would agree you should be banned from having a YouTube account?

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That is literally a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should create a BitChute account? Because by your logic you would agree you should be banned from having a YouTube account?

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an opinion.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

If she has 54,000 legit followers, how come she can’t seem to get more than 25 of them together for a photo, even pre-Covid?

TheRepentent

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

How do you know that though? Thats really just an assumption by yourself. How could you possibly know whether all the doctors, scientists etc who were banned were quacks?

That you blindly assume that anything banned must have been quackery is whats scary. Happy to assume those who are deciding what information you're 'allowed' to see are correct and have your best interests at heart.
Kind of like back in the day "well if the bishop says we shouldn't read this book then it must be true and I'll stay away from it" "Well the monsignor said this book is immoral and should be banned therefore it should be"

We're still waiting for you to come back with proof of your support of quackery in the Anti-vaxxers thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113154442&postcount=4921

Clarence Boddiker

TheRepentent wrote: »

We're still waiting for you to come back with proof of your support of quackery in the Anti-vaxxers thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113154442&postcount=4921

Here ya go, read read all the research papers, compile a refutation with citations, otherwise shut the fcuk up.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes
https://www.livescience.com/silent-hypoxia-killing-covid-19-coronavirus-patients.html
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8888884https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1759078711000122
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02564602.1988.11438335?journalCode=titr20
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224571055_Evaluation_of_the_Potential_Biological_Effects_of_the_60-GHz_Millimeter_Waves_Upon_Human_Cellshttps://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/35234
https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/sub10-systems-oxygen-absorption-makes-60-ghz-perfect-for-backhaul

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an opinion.

An informed opinion? How do you know people are not engaging with her? Where is your information coming from?

KiKi III wrote: »

If she has 54,000 legit followers, how come she can’t seem to get more than 25 of them together for a photo, even pre-Covid?

Maybe she has. Have you seen every photo of Gemma ever taken? There is a huge stigma attached to association with people like her. This is one of the reasons the media got the Trump election wrong. People were afraid to say they were voting for Trump, many many people. I would think Gemma has far more support than your figures suggest.

On a side note, do you think David Ike should be allowed back on YouTube if he were to say his theorys were 'opinion'?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Did not know Boards will not allow BitChute to be embedded. That's pretty pathetic. Once one is not inciting violence they should be free to say whatever they want. To ban people exercising free speech is a very very slippery slope.

It doesn’t allow embedding of, say, Vimeo or Dailymotion either. YouTube is the biggest platform. You can post a link and describe what is contained within. If you don’t know what to do with a link if it’s not embedded, I don’t know what to tell you.

CinemaGuy45

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It doesn’t allow embedding of, say, Vimeo or Dailymotion either. YouTube is the biggest platform. You can post a link and describe what is contained within. If you don’t know what to do with a link if it’s not embedded, I don’t know what to tell you.

Many people will not click on links and having the embedded video makes people far more likely to watch it and you know it.

A lot of Youtube videos are clickbait anyway with a picture of a 500ft shark or something.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have nothing but respect for KiKi and there is nothing wrong with robust debate. Refering to a fellow poster as a "wizard" on the other hand...

What's wrong with being called a wizard, my niece loved the one we got for her birthday last year

Now if someone is posting something harmful, think your typical anti-vax type that thanks to people being a bit stupid and following their advice, has led to kids dying from a disease that was nearly unheard of, or people being abused verbally or worse because of their religion, colour etc, I wouldn't be calling them a wizard, it would be a more likely asshole.

CinemaGuy45

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Many people will not click on links and having the embedded video makes people far more likely to watch it and you know it.

A lot of Youtube videos are clickbait anyway with a picture of a 500ft shark or something.

Maybe the ones based on your search habits, most of the ones I see are for woodworking, networking, programming, hacking, history and some comedy.

Most people on here and other sites, don't embed videos, I don't think I ever have I just give the link and if needed a quick description.

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

An informed opinion? How do you know people are not engaging with her? Where is your information coming from?




Maybe she has. Have you seen every photo of Gemma ever taken? There is a huge stigma attached to association with people like her. This is one of the reasons the media got the Trump election wrong. People were afraid to say they were voting for Trump, many many people. I would think Gemma has far more support than your figures suggest.

On a side note, do you think David Ike should be allowed back on YouTube if he were to say his theorys were 'opinion'?

No, because his use of the platform could easily result in hundreds or even thousands of deaths because of the falsities he’s spreading.

TheRepentent

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Here ya go, read read all the research papers, compile a refutation with citations, otherwise shut the fcuk up.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes
https://www.livescience.com/silent-hypoxia-killing-covid-19-coronavirus-patients.html
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8888884https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1759078711000122
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02564602.1988.11438335?journalCode=titr20
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224571055_Evaluation_of_the_Potential_Biological_Effects_of_the_60-GHz_Millimeter_Waves_Upon_Human_Cellshttps://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/35234
https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/sub10-systems-oxygen-absorption-makes-60-ghz-perfect-for-backhaul

Wow do you always react that way when asked for evidence to back up your claims?

But true to form for CTers + Vaxtards , do a link dump and leg it.

Grow a pair and go post the above links where you were asked and show where in them that 5g can (allegedly :pac::pac::pac::pac:) suppress oxygen intake.

Guy:Incognito

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He's a multi billionairre. Your literally spewing the mainstream narritive word for word here. He is not stupid, he is playing them at their own game and winning

Any actual proof he's a multi billionaire? Maybe some tax returns? You'd think people that cry fake news the whole time would at least hold the object of their affection to follow through on his own utterances, whatever about ignoring stuff that's asked of him by others.

Starting off rich helps too.

He spouts childish and unsubstantiated rubbish on his Twitter feed all the time. The only people being played are idiots that worship him. He uses the same tactics as conspiracy gob****es. Says stuff without real proof or makes predictions, then when it's not true or doesn't happen, move on and say something else. Or tweet a deflection that has them all lickong his boots because he said something about a democrat.

Swap Obama's name on to everything he's done and does in his life and you'd be crucifying him . This partisan politics bull**** is just that. Even worse that there are sad fansboys of his on an Irish site.

pjohnson

A lot are certainly trying to make bitchute relevant and mainstream but it rarely works, part of the conspiracy I guess.

Portmanteau

The "free speech" objection doesn't hold water.

When has anyone ever been able to publish/broadcast absolutely anything? It just doesn't exist, and never has. There are even exceptions to the US constitution's first amendment.

Now freeDOM of speech is a different matter - any views which have material to support them and are not incitement to violence or blatant incitement to hatred, should not be silenced by government or huge monopolies. Far smaller private companies have the right to choose not to give them a platform though (although bias is not ideal, but they're not breaching freedom of speech, as they're not state or monopolies) and no, it's certainly not breaching freedom of speech to stamp out lies.

Yellow_Fern

whippet wrote: »

Is he the same wizard who was at a Gemma protest outside google explaining how cloud computing was actually nano chips that were spread by chemtrails and Google were the main culprits ... who would have thought that cloud computers were actually a cloud !!!

Why haven’t the science and technology reporters in RTÉ been telling us this ?

I would be interested in a link about that. I watched about 20 of his videos and they all seemed normal enough and cautious.

Portmanteau wrote: »

The "free speech" objection doesn't hold water.

When has anyone ever been able to publish/broadcast absolutely anything? It just doesn't exist, and never has. There are even exceptions to the US constitution's first amendment.

The problem is that Youtube will claim it is a platform and free from liability like a phone company is free from liability for content spread on its service but Youtube is happy to edit out controversial videos to boost their image like a newspaper that is liabible. They should be one or the other.

AllForIt

Never heard of Bitchute until today but I have to say I'm delighted to see there is an alternative to youtube.

pjohnson

AllForIt wrote: »

Never heard of Bitchute until today but I have to say I'm delighted to see there is an alternative to youtube.

It wouldn't be really. Dailymotion is probably a bigger more legitamate alternative to Youtube.

Blacktie.

AllForIt wrote: »

Never heard of Bitchute until today but I have to say I'm delighted to see there is an alternative to youtube.

There's a tonne of alternatives to youtube.

CinemaGuy45

pjohnson wrote: »

It wouldn't be really. Dailymotion is probably a bigger more legitamate alternative to Youtube.

An alternative not more of the same.:rolleyes:

pjohnson

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

An alternative not more of the same.:rolleyes:

Ah yeah I dont think DailyMotion humours conspiracy rubbish either.

Plenty of youtube alternatives. But for conspirators not many people sane would host them. Part and parcel of being a conspiracist.

Feisar

storker wrote: »

This. YouTube is under no more obligation to host someone's sh1te than a publisher is required to publish their book or a newspaper to print their letter or Joe Duffy to take their call. It's not censorship, it's an editorial policy.

If they can upload it somewhere else, or host it on their own website, then they're not being censored.

While I totally agree with you and technically it’s not censorship to not allow a video when one platform is so big as to be verging on a monopoly it basically becomes censorship.

AllForIt

Blacktie. wrote: »

There's a tonne of alternatives to youtube.

Really. So there's no big deal to youtube banning stuff so, it's all out there somewhere and as easily accessible as youtube? I hope that is correct.

Dravokivich

AllForIt wrote: »

Really. So there's no big deal to youtube banning stuff so, it's all out there somewhere and as easily accessible as youtube? I hope that is correct.

What do you mean by accessible?

CinemaGuy45

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean by accessible?

Many tv remotes have a Youtube button Sky and Apple Playstation Xbox and Nintendo have a Youtube app installed on their hardware.

A few posts back and that person only heard about Bitchute on this very thread.

Dravokivich

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Many tv remotes have a Youtube button Sky and Apple Playstation Xbox and Nintendo have a Youtube app installed on their hardware.

A few posts back and that person only heard about Bitchute on this very thread.

A button? You think a website isnt accessible becuase it doesnt have a button? If they want an app on any number of devices, has anyone prevented them developing one?

Theres a whole range of websites I haven't heard of. I wouldnt be surprised to find they exist.

osarusan

Feisar wrote: »

While I totally agree with you and technically it’s not censorship to not allow a video when one platform is so big as to be verging on a monopoly it basically becomes censorship.

I take your point, but it's also unrealistic to effectively force a private business to publish content that might firstly get them in legal trouble, and secondly, negatively affect their business.

2u2me

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

[Should boards allow racists and homophobes ]that encourage attacks on or discrimination against these groups?

To separate your loaded question into two digestable parts:

Should boards allow 'racists and homophobes' (or any other disliked opinion): Yes. Their ideas should be out in the light of day for others to challenge and ridicule. Instead of making them 'boogey-men' and constantly misrepresenting what they actually say.

Should boards allow others to encourage attacks on or discriminate against these groups?: No, it already doesn't. It's already illegal. It's already against the law.

Christopher Hitchens daring to summarize three greatworks about liberty, John Milton's "Areopagitica" Thomas Paine's introduction to the "Age of Reason" and John Stuart Mill's "Liberty":

It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard.
It is the right of everybody in the audience to listen and to hear. Everytime you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner or your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something.

John Stuart Mill

If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important — in fact, it would become even more important — that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Youre free to start a website and air your views all you like. No one else has to be force to air them for you. Surely the freedom goes both ways?

I'm sure this attitude that you and many others hold would quickly change if Youtube or twitter was suddenly acquired by Breitbart or PragerU.

We don't allow electricity companies to choose who they supply electricity to. We've gone down a dangerous slope already of banks refusing services to people and social media platforms kicking people off. Surely you recognize that some services must be available to everybody; where does this end?

Is it that you and others would prefer a world where we have separate ideological social networks for everybody? Don't you think that would lead to more division and not less, or is that what you want?

Blacktie.

AllForIt wrote: »

Really. So there's no big deal to youtube banning stuff so, it's all out there somewhere and as easily accessible as youtube? I hope that is correct.

The sense of entitlement from this post. Wow.

2u2me

Robert ninja wrote: »

That's not what old youtube was like and it's not what the internet is good for. I want the random normal folk talking about controversial stuff in their rooms, not Google-sponsored/approved content.

Exactly; it's not what built their platform. It spits in the face of the very people who helped created what it is today. They too quietly dispensed with their motto "Don't be evil".

I remember when the internet was full of free speech absolutests. People always willing to help and aid whenever they could, along time ago now. That was a far better time.

“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.