Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

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

Urm, yeah, that’s true of any video-sharing platform.

If you can’t drum up interest in a link you post then maybe it’s not interesting.

AllForIt

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean by accessible?

Not inaccessible.

AllForIt

Blacktie. wrote: »

The sense of entitlement from this post. Wow.

The complete and utter WTF from this post. Wow.

2u2me

If let's say a person who makes cakes refused to bake a cake for gay couples would people say the same thing?

• It's a private cake shop they can do what they like.
• Plenty of other cakeshops for those gays to buy their cakes.
• Only crazy idiots would bake cakes for gay people.

Blacktie. wrote: »

There's a tonne of alternatives to youtube.

pjohnson wrote: »

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

Dravokivich

AllForIt wrote: »

Not inaccessible.

Right. So seeing as it isnt inaccessible, what was the point in bringing up accessibility to a website we seem to have access to?

2u2me

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.

Article 19 of the U.N.'s declaration on Human Rights 1948.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So while there are some limitations to freedom of speech already ingrained into law(incitement to violence, harrassment,libel, etc..), anyone expressing their opinion has the right to do so, regardless of frontiers.

circadian

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Youtube is nothing of the kind anymore forget the YOU big media platforms have been given unfair advantage on Youtube.

Is it time video sharing sites like BitChute which works under peer to peer sharing was allowed to be embedded here?


We discuss current affairs here and Youtube is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion.

This video is banned on Youtube for example if you disagree with something post you counter argument censorship belongs in North Korea and China not Europe.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/H4W7FwBy0Ukh/

Alright Dave, what about ye? I see that interview with Prof Cahill got pulled from YouTube. **** one for you. Does that mean you'll be pulling yourself from the platform and ****ing off to somewhere more obscure?

That'd be great, ta.

Portmanteau

2u2me wrote: »

Article 19 of the U.N.'s declaration on Human Rights 1948.



So while there are some limitations to freedom of speech already ingrained into law(incitement to violence, harrassment,libel, etc..), anyone expressing their opinion has the right to do so, regardless of frontiers.

The right not to be silenced by government but not private enterprise (although I disagree with the media/massive monopolies silencing opinion - but misinformation should not be given a platform, unless it's in its own corner, like the Conspiracy Theories forum here).

sameoldname

2u2me wrote: »

If let's say a person who makes cakes refused to bake a cake for gay couples would people say the same thing?

• It's a private cake shop they can do what they like.
• Plenty of other cakeshops for those gays to buy their cakes.
• Only crazy idiots would bake cakes for gay people.

It's interesting that you're trying to conflate denying the sale of goods to people of differing sexual orientations (which we have laws preventing) and a guy who got kicked off YouTube for claiming that radio waves are somehow linked to Covid19 (of which there is absolutely no evidence). How are those two things similar in your mind?

Portmanteau

Yeah I can understand 100% any organisation refusing to give a platform to misinformation/totally unsubstantiated claims relating to a major public health concern. Too dangerous. This is people's health/lives.

ILoveYourVibes

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Youtube is nothing of the kind anymore forget the YOU big media platforms have been given unfair advantage on Youtube.

Is it time video sharing sites like BitChute which works under peer to peer sharing was allowed to be embedded here?


We discuss current affairs here and Youtube is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion.

This video is banned on Youtube for example if you disagree with something post you counter argument censorship belongs in North Korea and China not Europe.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/H4W7FwBy0Ukh/

And its only a matter of time before it gets banned there too.

Tell me how

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Millions of videos on that site.

As regards conspiracy stuff if it can be debunked it is best to debunk it not ban it.

This is a good video from an Irish poster.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/O0fsg8ijn8E/

No, it isn't.

It's embarrassing with just how lacking it is of anything which could be remotely viewed as empirical evidence.

Feisar

osarusan wrote: »

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.

And I take your point.

2u2me

sameoldname wrote: »

It's interesting that you're trying to conflate denying the sale of goods to people of differing sexual orientations (which we have laws preventing) and a guy who got kicked off YouTube for claiming that radio waves are somehow linked to Covid19 (of which there is absolutely no evidence). How are those two things similar in your mind?

I was arguing against the 'private business' argument. That private business' can't just do what they like, they must follow civil laws.

What is the difference between not allowing someone because of their sexual preference and not allowing someone because of the ideological incline? That is the direction we are headed in. If a restaurant tried to be racist and tried to circumvent the law, let's say everytime a black person tried to enter they said 'sorry we're full'. How would you ever prove that that restaurant was racist? If it turns out that the only people that restaurant turned away were black people wouldn't you start to ask questions?

The fact that twitter et al are banning conservative opinion en mass is suggesting that there is an ideological bent to their rules. Which is an attempt to circumnavigate our civil laws which protect our freedom of opinion, regardless of frontier.

Any talk about the lockdown that 'goes against the advice of the WHO' is removed/deleted from social media. This is absolutely the wrong direction to go.

I'll try to be specific, Candace Owens tweeted something like "The lockdown is ridiculous-we should all leave our homes and return to work at once, they can't stop us all". This is a call to action, a directive. It's inciting possibly violence and hatred. It goes against the rules and the laws. It's wrong and should be deleted.

However we certainly should be free to talk about things 'of which there is absolutely no evidence'. Where do you draw that line?
Why should people not be free to do this?
Or radio-frequencies or whatever the fashionable conspiracy theory why are others(perhaps not you) intent on seeing 'wrong think' banned? Can't those people just not watch that particular content, even ignore the person who posted it..

Banning them has far worse consequences. What good does it do? I don't see any.

Roger the cabin boy

We are becoming a society of lazy children.

As the poster above said. It's better to argue against something rather than pretend it's not there. The former makes it go away whilst the latter does the opposite.

Of course, reason and argument is hard work so....

Blacktie.

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

We are becoming a society of lazy children.

As the poster above said. It's better to argue against something rather than pretend it's not there. The former makes it go away whilst the latter does the opposite.

Of course, reason and argument is hard work so....

This is idealistic. If someone is good at debate and charismatic but in the wrong people will still believe that person. We like to believe people are led by logic and reason but they're not. People follow people they like and ideas that conform to their pre conceptions and dismiss arguments against them a LOT of the time.

riclad

There's fake news on fox news Eg they said covid 19 was just like the flu. Not that serious until recently Im happy
that youtube bans people who post conspiracy theorys
or content that is untrue Eg radio waves cause illness
Why should a private company be forced to host
content from another website if you want to find extremist right wing content there's plenty of websites
out there that host it as well as podcasts to listen to

Dravokivich

riclad wrote: »

There's fake news on fox news Eg they said covid 19 was just like the flu. Not that serious until recently Im happy
that youtube bans people who post conspiracy theorys
or content that is untrue Eg radio waves cause illness
Why should a private company be forced to host
content from another website if you want to find extremist right wing content there's plenty of websites
out there that host it as well as podcasts to listen to

There's no issues with Conspiracy Theories. They are just another form of scepticism. The issue lays with the likes of Icke. Who go off on weird tangents which are nothing more than fear mongering and leads people to call anything uninformed or unanswered a "Conspiracy."

Roger the cabin boy

Dravokivich wrote: »

There's no issues with Conspiracy Theories. They are just another form of scepticism. The issue lays with the likes of Icke. Who go off on weird tangents which are nothing more than fear mongering and leads people to call anything uninformed or unanswered a "Conspiracy."

Well, i would argue that the problem isn't Icke, but that people have lost the ability for common sense and reason.

In fact, i would argue the likes of Icke are vital to debate as it keeps the listener on his toes and stops people from questioning opinion.

If you ban opinion because you don't like it, or because you don't want to put the effort in to rebuke it, you generate an echo chamber which more dangerous than any single opinion.

Joe Rogan is leaving YT because of this push by modern liberals to stifle debate and opinion with the "Cancelation Culture" they have created.

Joe couldn't have any experts on his show who disagreed with the WHO or had a different opinion on Covid matters than the official lines.

The same WHO who told us old not to wear masks.

You have to have all and any opinion in a debate regardless. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Its a real concern to me that people don't understand this. Censorship is the seed from which communism, fascism, etc grow.

Kidchameleon

I don't get why David Ike is banned from YouTube yet they stream mass on a daily basis. Surly the worlds religions are equally as "questionable" and "dangerous" as what Ike talks about

riclad

Joe. Rogan. is getting. paid 100million.to go to Spotify. he has millions of young fans. He is not being banned. You can still listen to his podcast free on Spotify. Spotify is paying big money to make a podcast network to gain market share vs all the other services who all have the same music selection.
YouTube would love to keep him he has millions of subscribers. He has a wide range of guests, not just Conservative leaning writers or celebs.
David I've is weird person who believes government is controlled by some alien lizard group.
I m in favour of YouTube banning anyone who spreads conspiracy theorys or promotes hate speech against
Minority. Youtube is a private company. It has a right to set
standards of honesty and decency in the content it hosts

Yellow_Fern

riclad wrote: »

Joe. Rogan. is getting. paid 100million.to go to Spotify. he has millions of young fans. He is not being banned. You can still listen to his podcast free on Spotify. Spotify is paying big money to make a podcast network to gain market share vs all the other services who all have the same music selection.
YouTube would love to keep him he has millions of subscribers. He has a wide range of guests, not just Conservative leaning writers or celebs.
David I've is weird person who believes government is controlled by some alien lizard group.
I m in favour of YouTube banning anyone who spreads conspiracy theorys or promotes hate speech against
Minority. Youtube is a private company. It has a right to set
standards of honesty and decency in the content it hosts

People are attacking the lack of clear rules rather then saying there is mass censorship.
Although Rogan was not removed from Youtube he has a massive problem with Youtube censorship and the Youtube inconsistency is why he doesn't do live chats which are extremely lucrative.

David Ike's ideas are utter bananas but saying a politician is a lizard is not an incitement to violence and even if it was it is not more dangerous than watching a documentary on world war 2. Meanwhile there is millions of horrendous songs with utter incitement to abuse women and kill people in music all over Youtube. Censorship on Youtube is really an effort by Silicon Valley to stop alternative voices gaining traction in the culture wars, possibly unconsciously.

Carfacemandog

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Joe Rogan is leaving YT because of this push by modern liberals to stifle debate and opinion with the "Cancelation Culture" they have created.

You're sure it doesn't have anything to do with his $100mn deal with Spotify?

riclad

Rogan is getting 100million to go exclusive on Spotify listen to the free spotify app if you want to
Theres no liberal censorship involved. Is there any one
On YouTube who would turn down 100million dollars? At a
time when most ytubers are seeing a decline in ad
revenue
France passed a Law any website will have one hour
to remove content that has hate speech or videos promoting terrorism if it's asked to do so by the police
I think all his content Eg old podcasts
will be moved to spotify

Kidchameleon

Who gets to decide what hate speech is? One mans hate speech might be another mans opinion.

TheRepentent

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Who gets to decide what hate speech is? One mans hate speech might be another mans opinion.

Hate speech is defined by law

Kidchameleon

TheRepentent wrote: »

Hate speech is defined by law

Therefore David Ike hasn't broken any laws yet he gets banned.


Its a slippery slope also. We are free to criticize Christianity but saying Allah is a gay god is racist somehow. I don't trust the law/government to do what is right.

Blacktie.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Therefore David Ike hasn't broken any laws yet he gets banned.

Yeah banned. Not arrested.

Yellow_Fern

TheRepentent wrote: »

Hate speech is defined by law

There are not clear rules in Ireland and there are no rules whatsoever in the US. In the UK comedy gets investigated all the time under hate speech laws. Terrible terrible piece of legislation.

Kidchameleon

Blacktie. wrote: »

Yeah banned. Not arrested.

Why should he get banned if he hasn't broken any laws?