Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

Kidchameleon

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

https://youtu.be/2B8ycnc8PMA

Every answer you need for those who don't get it.

Thanks for sharing that. I'll embed it for those who couldn't be bothered clicking the link (see how lack of embed feature curtails speech?)

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Regardless, some peoples views are being shoved aside in a modern day book burning. Thats not good. And why let a technicality get in the way? Make it work I say. BitChute videos can be embedded (https://support.bitchute.com/content/how-to-embed-a-video-on-your-site) but I also get there are other issues to overcome

Well, also, Boards runs on a heavily modded, homebrew iteration of vBulletin. It branched away from core vBulletin what, a decade ago I would imagine, about the time they added the youtube extension in the first place. It would require building the feature into the boards version of vBulletin, which could be far more complicated and frustrating that it initially sounds. AFAIK, site development is mainly focused on keeping the site stable and responsive, not feature development.

Given the above, calling it a modern day book burning ignores the context of why Boards only embeds youtube.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Well, also, Boards runs on a heavily modded, homebrew iteration of vBulletin. It branched away from core vBulletin what, a decade ago I would imagine, about the time they added the youtube extension in the first place. It would require building the feature into the boards version of vBulletin, which could be far more complicated and frustrating that it initially sounds. AFAIK, site development is mainly focused on keeping the site stable and responsive, not feature development.

Given the above, calling it a modern day book burning ignores the context of why Boards only embeds youtube.

I suppose I could ask them to implement the feature but I couldn't be bothered, they say themselves there is no free speech here

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I suppose I could ask them to implement the feature but I couldn't be bothered, they say themselves there is no free speech here

Well, that's because that's what every good internet content source should tell you. Websites are (for the most part) privately owned. The freedom of speech is a matter between a person and their government. I can think of few to no websites that do not have some sort of content moderation policy. The rest are on the dark web and are frequently shut down from folks using them to circulate child pornography or sell contraband.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Well, that's because that's what every good internet content source should tell you.

I disagree. IMHO every website should allow free speech as it is allowable & defined under the law.

Overheal wrote: »

The rest are on the dark web and are frequently shut down from folks using them to circulate child pornography or sell contraband.

Scare mongering much? What about BitChute? Pretty sure there's no child porn there and they allow people like Ike and Jones along with others who can freely debunk them if they wish.

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I disagree. IMHO every website should allow free speech as it is allowable & defined under the law.



Scare mongering much? What about BitChute? Pretty sure there's no child porn there and they allow people like Ike and Jones along with others who can freely debunk them if they wish.

Which is to say the Bitchute has content moderation. So, clearly, they draw some line between "Free Speech" and "Free Speech under the law" which will ultimately slide toward not hosting content that they don't want on their platform ie. Content Moderation. For instance, cursory use of their search engine confirms they do not host graphic pornographic content. If they operated under a Free Speech under the Law model, they would host that material, which is lawful to do.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Regardless, some peoples views are being shoved aside in a modern day book burning. Thats not good. And why let a technicality get in the way? Make it work I say. BitChute videos can be embedded (https://support.bitchute.com/content/how-to-embed-a-video-on-your-site) but I also get there are other issues to overcome

Most bitchute users probably wouldn't have an issue with book burning so it's not really a great argument.

riclad

Under section 230 an American law a website or online
service can moderate its content and ban users who put
up content it deems offensive. I don.,t watch his videos
but from what I read David Ike pushs all sorts of dubious
conspiracy theorys. there's plenty of other websites
that host strange conspiracy theorys or conservative
content. There's millions of videos uploaded to youtube
Theres probably some that are rude or offensive to
minoritys. I presume youtube will take content down if
someone complains about it and it's deemed to be
offensive illegal or false and dangerous.
No one has a right to post content on YouTube if they
post content that is misleading false or offensive
I presume Facebook and other websites have similar
rules that youtube has.

MadYaker

Anyone else think the world is getting steadily dumber? It’s a pandumbic.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Which is to say the Bitchute has content moderation. So, clearly, they draw some line between "Free Speech" and "Free Speech under the law" which will ultimately slide toward not hosting content that they don't want on their platform ie. Content Moderation. For instance, cursory use of their search engine confirms they do not host graphic pornographic content. If they operated under a Free Speech under the Law model, they would host that material, which is lawful to do.

I'm going to base this response on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

"Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"....."special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Interpretation:

"Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Free speech is not an absolute, we need to hold back on it in certain circumstances such as incitement and exposure of children to harmful content etc. So as far as I am concerned & as far as the UDHR is concerned, BitChute is not restricting free speech by not allowing porn.

Their policy (https://support.bitchute.com/policy/guidelines) sets out from the off that there is no pornography allowed so that is fair enough IMHO.

Interestingly, they describe themselves as a "free speech platform" (see the policy document linked). I know Boards does not consider itself a free speech platform & I don't know with regards to YouTube.

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm going to base this response on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

"Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"....."special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Interpretation:

"Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Free speech is not an absolute, we need to hold back on it in certain circumstances such as incitement and exposure of children to harmful content etc. So as far as I am concerned & as far as the UDHR is concerned, BitChute is not restricting free speech by not allowing porn.

Their policy (https://support.bitchute.com/policy/guidelines) sets out from the off that there is no pornography allowed so that is fair enough IMHO.

Interestingly, they describe themselves as a "free speech platform" (see the policy document linked). I know Boards does not consider itself a free speech platform & I don't know with regards to YouTube.

"Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

I've highlighted the relevant terms that pertain to content from conspiracy theorists, in particular.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

I've highlighted the relevant terms that pertain to content from conspiracy theorists, in particular.

How has the likes of Ike and Alex Jones violated any of that? Should religious institutions be banned under those criteria?

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I disagree. IMHO every website should allow free speech as it is allowable & defined under the law.

So should I be able to post your PM that you sent me on here? After all every website should allow free speech right and me posting and commenting on that should be allowed yes?

MODS: I know P.M's are private and shouldn't be discussed but I am trying to prove a point here that absolute free speech does not exist.

Scare mongering much? What about BitChute? Pretty sure there's no child porn there and they allow people like Ike and Jones along with others who can freely debunk them if they wish.

What about bitchute? If they want to post content then that's their choice, will they still post all/any content in 5 years time if they reach the lofty heights of youtube?

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How has the likes of Ike and Alex Jones violated any of that?

Well, as if to perfectly illustrate my point, Alex Jones had to shell out $100,000 to settle his Defamation suit brought forward by the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook Massacre. Last I checked, that was just the legal battle in Texas - because that's where Jones is from, and operates. His case in Connecticut, where the massacre took place, last I heard was still an unsettled matter, but the outcome in TX basically ensures it will be a slam dunk. The families demonstrated injury to the courts, that because of Jones' content, they received death threats and other harassment from the public at large.

That's not even the only Conspiracy theory causing him litigation issues. He also had a high profile case brought against him by Chobani after he said their factory was linked to a child sex assault and a rise in tuberculosis. Even before that, he was similarly checkmated by Comet Pizza, the site of the infamous Pizzagate: where a loony shot up the place with an AR-15 because he was infuriated that he didn't find a basement there, much less one full of children and pedophiles, like Jones had convinced the listeners to his program. In both cases Jones saved his own ass by issuing, timely, public apologies.

Great question.

Should religious institutions be banned under those criteria?

That's a touchier subject but you certainly don't see anyone trying to defend ISISs right to recruit on youtube in the name of religious persecution. It really depends on the content itself.

Clarence Boddiker

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most bitchute users probably wouldn't have an issue with book burning so it's not really a great argument.

Whats the difference between book burning and banning videos? Lot of similarities if you ask me.

Overheal

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Whats the difference between book burning and banning videos? Lot of similarities if you ask me.

In some respects. People have certainly turned to 'banning' things, and 'canceling' things, and, still, 'burning' things when deemed.

The largest difference with online content is its almost impossible to not preserve it, whereas historically burning destroyed original works quite often.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Well, as if to perfectly illustrate my point, Alex Jones had to shell out $100,000 to settle his Defamation suit brought forward by the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook Massacre. Last I checked, that was just the legal battle in Texas - because that's where Jones is from, and operates. His case in Connecticut, where the massacre took place, last I heard was still an unsettled matter, but the outcome in TX basically ensures it will be a slam dunk. The families demonstrated injury to the courts, that because of Jones' content, they received death threats and other harassment from the public at large.

That's not even the only Conspiracy theory causing him litigation issues. He also had a high profile case brought against him by Chobani after he said their factory was linked to a child sex assault and a rise in tuberculosis. Even before that, he was similarly checkmated by Comet Pizza, the site of the infamous Pizzagate: where a loony shot up the place with an AR-15 because he was infuriated that he didn't find a basement there, much less one full of children and pedophiles, like Jones had convinced the listeners to his program. In both cases Jones saved his own ass by issuing, timely, public apologies.

Great question.

And yet the mainstream media, free to broadcast whatever they want on YouTube because they are "trusted" sources, cause nothing but havoc. Look at how the Ahmaud Arbery case is being handled for example, white people being shot because of the narrative on CNN even though the guy is clearly a scumbag who got himself killed. What about the riots after Trumps election, Brexit etc.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So should I be able to post your PM that you sent me on here? After all every website should allow free speech right and me posting and commenting on that should be allowed yes?

MODS: I know P.M's are private and shouldn't be discussed but I am trying to prove a point here that absolute free speech does not exist.

I said literally right before this "free speech is not an absolute" go and have a look post number 161, we are in agreement.


I am not stopping you from sharing PM's, the site itself forbids that. YOU signed up to the terms and conditions.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I said literally right before this "free speech is not an absolute" go and have a look post number 161, we are in agreement.


I am not stopping you from sharing PM's, the site itself forbids that. YOU signed up to the terms and conditions.

Exactly! And the same goes for everyone wether they sign up to boards, youtube, snapchat, facebook or any other website that they wish to use.

People are not getting banned from them or having their content removed because the owners don't like them or their message, they are banned/removed because they broke the T&C's that they agreed to when creating their account.

nthclare

MadYaker wrote: »

Anyone else think the world is getting steadily dumber? It’s a pandumbic.

It seems to be either one way or the other, there's people who are making hay while the sun shines.
Looking after their house's and gardens, enjoying the break and adhering to the rules and suggested guidelines.
Making good time with the family.
Enjoying Art and creativity.
Looking out for their neighbours and local vulnerable people.

Then you've bitter and twisted people who are getting more violent, hiding out in dark rooms gone totally underground and joining internet groups like anything to do with social justice, incels moaning about toxic masculinity and agreeing with the third wave femminism movement just because they want to get laid.
Negative people posting up positive meme's on Facebook to hide their bitterness towards the outside world.
People plagiarising other famous people's quotes and pawning it off as their own or just posting it to make themselves sound like they really care about humanity.

Another one I notice is the amount of twisted bitches and cruel bastard's who are posting animal cruelty video's on Facebook and pretending they really care about animals.
These cnts make me sick.
Sharing animal cruelty is disgusting and only adding to real animal lover's pain by gloryfying your own sickness.
And the stupid post's about Donald Trump, why are these lefty liberal goons so obsessed with The Don, he never did me any harm.

I was off Facebook for 10 year's and rejoined to catch up with friends and family and listen to live DJ sets.. which is cool.

Then the snakes come out of the grass, hissing around my page.
I take one look at their page, I see a plethora of famous people's quotes, social justice bull****.
Animal lover's posting clips of animal cruelty and they have shown the problem and show no interest in a solution...pricks

What's happened to people, I leave Facebook for 10 year's and I'd say 20% of people are original and the rest are like clones of each other.

Tk fck I can accept,look at their page unfriend block...

2u2me

Dravokivich wrote: »

You want to use a service, you do so in agreement with terms and conditions. Breach them and you'll be removed from the service.

We're not talking about a private company fairly enforcing their clear rules. We're not talking about being allowed to say what you want in a cinema and claim 'free speech'. We're talking about private companies purposefully creating fuzzy and unclear rules, so that they may enforce said rules as they wish, which tends to have an ideological bent.

Even the most staunch free-speech supporters admit that there are limitations; practical reasons for not shouting your mouth off at any moment. (Inciting violence for example is not allowed; yet you can talk about, priase and support Antifa freely on twitter despite them being classified as a terrorist group.)

Would you be happy if electricity companies also didn't supply electricity to people who's opinions you think are dangerous or conspiratorial; genuine question? If they have electricity they can use it to print letters containing their dangerous words and thoughts which they can post to other people.

Look what happened to the reddit /thedonald and /politics subreddits. They created rules; yet enforced them unfairly. Trump's detractors were allowed to abuse the rules while they unfairly treated his supporters. There was a clear bias to how they implemented their rules. They even had the owner of reddit changing the comments of some of their users 'to embarass' them.

Good video from Tim Pool explaining it here.

Again I'll draw my example from earlier which nobody has addressed; Denying black people entry to a restaurant is illegal. Illegal even in a private restaurant(Civil laws) But if a restaurant was doing it 'covertly' telling every black person 'sorry we're full' at which point would you be able to realize the restaurant is being racist?

At which point would you be able to realize their is an ideological bent to the enforcement of their 'rules'?

Carfacemandog wrote: »

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

He made $30 million last year and he's been doing this for a long time. If he cared about making more money he would 'clip' his own podcasts. If you were a fan of his you'd realize how much more money he could make if he wanted. If you listened to his podcasts you'd know his problem is he doesn't get to talk to everybody he wants to talk to.

Blacktie. wrote: »

It's freedom of speech so I demand my voice be on their platform. *Shakes pitchfork*

You know the word 'forum' is now a virtual place; but once it existed as an actual place in ancient Rome. There they believed in the value of freedom of speech; anyone was allowed to gather freely and speak in these fora. They valued 'public spaces'. It was not just freedom of speech but freedom from religion, freedom from ideology. An ideology that has seemed to have infected social media over the last number of years.

"I’d see the bus pass every day. But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world.”

“Stand for something or you will fall for anything. Today’s mighty oak is yesterday’s nut that held its ground.”
Rosa Parks

Do the people in favour of the 'it's a private company' argument want a conservative world and a liberal world?
That's what it seems like to me.

Post-modernists that have given up on the idea of reason and logic in favour of winning for their ideology at any cost.

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

People are not getting banned from them or having their content removed because the owners don't like them or their message, they are banned/removed because they broke the T&C's that they agreed to when creating their account.

Why did Milo get banned?

Oh wait here's Vijaya Gadde the head twitter exec explaining why.

nthclare

2u2me wrote: »

Why did Milo get banned?

For telling the truth I'd say myself.
Nothing like Milo taking down the SJWs

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Exactly! And the same goes for everyone wether they sign up to boards, youtube, snapchat, facebook or any other website that they wish to use.

People are not getting banned from them or having their content removed because the owners don't like them or their message, they are banned/removed because they broke the T&C's that they agreed to when creating their account.

That's not why they are getting banned, this has been pointed out time and time again to you. Why does Ike with his lizard people get banned whilst the church with its sky fairy get to stay? Neither of them are breaking any T's & C's! The YouTube recommendation algorithm is blatantly favoring the left

Yellow_Fern

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Exactly! And the same goes for everyone wether they sign up to boards, youtube, snapchat, facebook or any other website that they wish to use.

People are not getting banned from them or having their content removed because the owners don't like them or their message, they are banned/removed because they broke the T&C's that they agreed to when creating their account.

I cant believe someone would be so naive. Clear T&C's should exist and they should not be changed and applied retrospectively but they are. It is isnt really about T&C's. Alex Jones was on Youtube and other sites for years. He was famous for a very long time. Then suddenly he was banned from Youtube, Facebook, Spotify, Apple and Paypal, all within a short space of time. Years of videos with millions of views were not suddenly discovered to be breaking the rules. No one cared about this famous commentator until he became a friend of Trump. People claim it was about Sandyhook but he retracted and apologised for that. Now there has been efforts to get controversial figures banned from Mastercard. That is ridiculous. IN many of these high profile cases executives have been asked T& Cs were broken but they cant name anyone.

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

Why did Milo get banned?

Oh wait here's Vijaya Gadde the head twitter exec explaining why.

She clearly explains why he was banned, do you have an issue with her explanation?

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That's not why they are getting banned, this has been pointed out time and time again to you. Why does Ike with his lizard people get banned whilst the church with its sky fairy get to stay? Neither of them are breaking any T's & C's! The YouTube recommendation algorithm is blatantly favoring the left

Clearly explained here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-52517797

after repeatedly warning Mr Icke that he had violated its policies by posting misleading information about the coronavirus pandemic.

Timberrrrrrrr

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I cant believe someone would be so naive. Clear T&C's should exist and they should not be changed and applied retrospectively but they are. It is isnt really about T&C's. Alex Jones was on Youtube and other sites for years. He was famous for a very long time. Then suddenly he was banned from Youtube, Facebook, Spotify, Apple and Paypal, all within a short space of time. Years of videos with millions of views were not suddenly discovered to be breaking the rules. No one cared about this famous commentator until he became a friend of Trump. People claim it was about Sandyhook but he retracted and apologised for that. Now there has been efforts to get controversial figures banned from Mastercard. That is ridiculous. IN many of these high profile cases executives have been asked T& Cs were broken but they cant name anyone.

And I'm sure that eased the pain of the dead children's families, personally i think that prìck should have been jailed for 20 years but only after visiting the families of each child killed/injured and apologising to their faces.

nthclare

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And I'm sure that eased the pain of the dead children's families, personally i think that prìck should have been jailed for 20 years but only after visiting the families of each child killed/injured and apologising to their faces.

Are you a Liberal or SJW type of person Timberrrrrrr ?

Are you a lefty by any chance ?

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Clearly explained here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-52517797

Again, why are the church not being banned for sharing misleading information? Do you no see the CLEAR double standard? It is not about terms and conditions or public safety, it is about ideology.