So "X" - nothing to see here. Elon's in control - Part XXX **Threadbans in OP**

What you on about. Look at the title of the thread.

No, because that's different. When something is sold as medicine it has to be approved as medicine and any claims related to it must be backed by facts. Actual facts and studies, not a department of call centre level people deciding with no accountability what is fact and what isn't. And also none of these restrictions apply to individuals.

And if you want to say I don't trust Musk/X to hire proper people for this, you're right, I dont. He would hire the cheapest. Someone in the backhole of the 3rd world deciding what is true on my behalf, thanks but no thanks.

And if you need to be upset about something, apparently there is a shadowbanning in progress on the pro Ukraine / anti Russia content. That is something which is actually concerning, not the fact that people are now more free to say whatever they want to say.

Twitter sorry X is now nearly all just an echo chamber for racists, peados, nazis, conspiracy nuts etc who pay for the blue tick mark and get the ideology they and the owner and funders of X want promoted to the top of nearly every area of X thus making them the most powerful algorithms on the social media site that infects every users view of the site.

It is no longer the public square that the owner proclaims it to be it is the extreme right wing racist, nazi, peado speakers corner given control of the the entire square by the onwer and backing funders of the site.

From what I see here I can extrapolate that the Venn diagram of people wanting more moderation and people claiming that twitter is an echo chamber full of nazis without moderation is a circle and that's why I don't want more moderation. What it is now is more than enough. A free for all is better than a heavily moderated one. What you don't like you are free to ignore. Make your own echo chamber free on nazis, leave mine alone.

Look a this:

That's the danger of having some unaccountable neckbeard deciding that the world needs to be made safer by removing ALL of your content for no good reason. Linus Sebastian and Louis Rossmann are backing him, just in case you think he's some nazi weirdo getting what he deserves.

A quick Google indicates that he was banned for having enough info on his channel which could enable people to 3D print guns, and that after a YouTube review he took down most (but not all) his videos on that, so they banned him.

That's not a free speech issue. That's not a nazi issue. That's not a neckbeard issue. It's a company removing content which breaches its rules to ensure there is no liability against them.

As per this dude himself:

He was demonetised for having 3d gun printing videos on his channel, he removed them, started uploading them on his friend's channel, then when he posted another gun video (a documentary-type video), it came to Youtube's attention again and they banned both channels.

He also posted the explanation from YouTube.

Regardless, none of that addresses the point that it's not a free speech issue. They have evidence his content and actions violated their terms of service and they've engaged with him through their appeals process.

You said some neckbeard with no accountability removed his content for no good reason. He had numerous videos about 3D printing guns. Get ta f*ck!

It's an arbitrary decision issue, not a free speech issue. He had some videos manually approved then they were stricken, then he deleted them all and then after more than 1 year he uploaded an interview and he was gone. His appeal was denied. That was his livelihood, 3D printing reviews, not guns making, or guns in general, all gone because someone said so. That someone, low level employee or contractor, had too much power.

Not an arbitrary decision. As stated, the reason for his ban was his uploading of videos on another channel to circumvent the demonetisation on his main channel, then when he posted a video which discussed guns on his main channel it was brought to Youtube's attention and the ban was issued.

You say that "low level employee or contractor" (no basis for such a statement by the way) had too much power, but that's their job. They have to review reported items, check them against the rules of the site, and action in accordance with those rules. And YouTube are engaging with him on it as part of the appeals process, which means it's not just some low-level guy, but it's obviously been reviewed and they're standing by their decision.

Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's just a low-level employee or contractor throwing their weight around.

If the guy's livelihood was based on his youtube channel, maybe, just maybe, he should have ensured he stuck within the rules. If he didn't, then it doesn't matter if it was a low level contractor or Mr. Hugh Toob himself who banned him.

It's grand. Musk is just asking questions.

"Not going to investigate further"

"Must be right"

Is that an echo I hear?

It is certainly not engaging with the evidence or counter arguments.

You have no idea who made the decision. What does calling them irrelevent even mean in this context?

If they are irrelevent why are you talking about them?

You have provided zero evidence to support your claims. It is without foundation or credibility.

Yes, that Linus. If he, who's exposed to such levels of scrutiny can get things wrong, imagine how wrong and how often those low level employees get them wrong. And how many people had their channel deleted just because someone saw a kitty meowing the wrong way - they did it to Louis Rossmann in case you missed it.

I didn't miss the Louis Rossmann thing. I ignored it because I never heard of him and, like the 3D printer guy who you casually forgot to mention posts videos about 3D printing guns, I assumed you're leaving out relevant information.

So fine, I spent 2 minutes googling. And what I found was a bunch of his videos were removed one day for breaches of rules, including two videos of his just featuring his cat meowing. Including this one:

This video on YouTube, which I've just linked from YouTube, was removed from YouTube. Can't believe this YouTube video which is still on YouTube was removed from the YouTube account which is also still on YouTube.

Unless of course, it was removed at the time by mistake, and reinstated upon appeal/review. That would explain how the YouTube video is still on YouTube and hasn't been removed on YouTube.

Look, Youtube's moderation sucks ass. Nobody is stating otherwise. They can be over reactionary and so much of it is automated that it's open to huge abuse with regards copyright claims etc. Yet they can be completely blind to some of the horrendous and dangerous stuff, particularly as it relates to children and teens.

But as a company they still enforce the rules they set and if a guy is showing how to 3D print guns and they ban his account for it, maybe he should have printed literally everything else in the world except guns.