YouTube News Is YT Censorship to be Censored?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guitar Hack

Active Member
TubeBuddy Pro
482
18
Subscriber Goal
5000
Hi all.
The Google and YT censorship has come to a head in the last 24 hours.
Project Veritas has aired an interview with a worker a YT HQ. The memos and content have confirmed the bias and censorship of Google and YT. Most disturbing is the medling in political points of view and religious following.

Hopefully the censorship will stop and YT and Google will become a platform again and not a publisher as they are now.

Do you agree with the censorship, or do you think free speech for all?

These are the current articles


“Google’s biases are now a threat to a free and fair election”

Good on you James O'keefe !! \o/
 
Last edited:

Tito Tim

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy User
So far I am fine with it - and past time for it. All they are blocking is hate speech, and promoting violence. You can still be liberal or conservative, but not dangerous. Also, they are supposed to block the verifiable BS, like flat earth.
 
OP
OP
G

Guitar Hack

Active Member
TubeBuddy Pro
482
18
Subscriber Goal
5000
So far I am fine with it - and past time for it. All they are blocking is hate speech, and promoting violence. You can still be liberal or conservative, but not dangerous. Also, they are supposed to block the verifiable BS, like flat earth.
It's the "ML Fairness" engine I have a problem with. And there will be lawsuits, I'm sure.
I think there are a few currently ongoing for free speech.
Trying to manipulate political outcomes is unforgivable.
But demonetising or removing content from people like Jesse Lee Peterson is wrong. Just because he has a different point of view.

Hate speech is fine with me. I hate Brussel Sprouts....
Voilence is fine for me as well. As long as it's within context. Reporting a riot or Incident is ok.
Car Crash Channels, Moto Madness, *******, etc, have a place.
Also Flat Earth is true... hahahaa. No it's just funny.
 

kunicross

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
646
23
Subscriber Goal
666
I really dislike overly strong notions of censorship and hampering with free speech.

Those are things a state does and not a private enterprise like YouTube and most of the actions YouTube does represent on the one hand policial / legal moves (article 13, liability etc. ) and on the other hand company advertising strategy.

So if there really is a problem that has to be taggeled much more on the policial side of things and sadly internet laws and judgments are done by people not really qualified for that job.

Also I think it's quite understandable that most companies don't want to sponser radical extremists of any side, pseudo-science, fake news etc. Because for one part that gives them false legitimacy and also it associates your brand with those groups.

We watched a couple of games last vivia world cup and my small kids now associate coca cola with that - imagine you'd get "this beheading is sponsored by coca cola".

In the end YouTube is a big cog in the system but the driving forces are on other ends, vote more competent and open minded people into office that will help the most.

And I understand that if you depend 100% on YT / adsense revenue that gives them quite a lot of power over you but actually I don't see anbody big not using patreon or addional streams of income these days and compared to being employee of any company the level of freedom on YT is not comparable. (If you'd go down the "since they give me all my money they are my employer road, I guess most employers are much less forgiving than YouTube overall)
 

Damon

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
1,077
21
www.blackwarriorlures.com
Subscriber Goal
10000
I agree with the points made. As a man of faith, I've always feared my channel getting shut down just because the things I believe are fundamentally different than the philosophies of YouTube and Google.

They're headed toward a big anti-trust lawsuit, bigger than AT&T ever was. In fact I've started posting to LRBY as a backup. This is also the main reason I run a totally separate custom fishing tackle business and trying to make as many of my own products as possible.

While my channel is not religious, I do share my faith with people, either when they ask, at certain times of the year like Easter or Christmas. I stay away from politics, but even there the trade war with China affects my fishing tackle business. While my commentaries there are not aimed at any political wing, it's just the state of affairs and how it plays out on a small scale as a guy trying to build his own brand via a mixture of importing and custom, handmade fishing tackle.

It's an unsettling time for sure.
 

RazzBarlow

Member
TubeBuddy Pro
127
13
Subscriber Goal
200
I'm not much at risk of censorship with my channel. Most of my content is pretty benign, with the occasional cuss word. I don't agree with censorship at all. If you think Google and YT don't have political bias in their views and censorship actions (Not their policies, because they're not dumb enough to put it in writing) then you are being naive. Their actions have shown some definite left-leaning tendencies. I don't want to start a huge political debate, but facts are facts. I do agree that certain things need to be taken off of YT, like the guy who live-streamed mass murder or anything that objectifies children in an erotic or sexual way. But just because something is an opinion that differs with yours....I say let that one stand. In the interest of fairness, one side's extreme views should not be censored while the other side's extreme views get to stand. An opinion that the US Supreme Court just upheld in the "FUCT" case. BUT....and this is huge...free speech does not exist on a PRIVATE platform like YT. Private in ownership, not exposure. You may have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to free speech in my living room. YT is no different, you don't have free speech rights on YT. Operate within their rules and expectations or you're off the platform. Pretty simple.
 

Damon

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
1,077
21
www.blackwarriorlures.com
Subscriber Goal
10000
Yes, but the reality is although YouTube is legally a "private" platform, they promise/promote freedom and justice for all, act and proclaim that they want anyone to publish anything. They claim to be a public forum, but act like a private platform. They're tipping the scales on anti-trust year after year. It's only a matter of time before the definition of what they're doing will change legally.

That's the rub. What they're saying and what they're doing is continuing to raise suspicion, and it won't be long before "Big Bother" have to step in and tell "little sister" where to go.

Also the problem is that they change the rules whenever it's convenient. You could literally be obeying the rules, doing everything exactly the way they say, yet you still get shut down. That's' what the whole Steven Crowder thing was about. He didn't violate anything, yet he still got shut down. Again that has anti-trust written all over it.

That's why I'm building up my LBRY channel. Who knows if it will take off, but ultimately there needs to be a viable technological system that is open, public, decentralized and where the creators are in charge of the system.

Today on YouTube we the creators are just the "slave labor." We're just "cotton pickers." Being from Alabama that's a pretty powerful statement.
 

Craig Payne

New User
26
8
Should action be taken against Fox News, Infowars, Breitbart et al for censoring liberal views?

Careful what you wish for.
 

Damon

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
1,077
21
www.blackwarriorlures.com
Subscriber Goal
10000
Should action be taken against Fox News, Infowars, Breitbart et al for censoring liberal views?

Careful what you wish for.
The difference is Fox News is a publisher. It is understood that they have a perspective and bias. YouTube is touting that they are not publishers and are only acting as a platform. Fox News isn't acting nor are they advertising or proclaiming that they are an open, public platform. An open, public forum has to be open and public. A private publisher can promote whatever view they deem worthy so long is it does not bring harm to life, liberty and property.

if you're an open, public platform, then you have to act like an open, public platform. If you're a private publisher dedicated to the promotion of a particular perspective or bias, then you act like a private publisher of said perspective.

Again YouTube is claiming to be an open, public platform, but is acting like a private publisher. That has anti-trust written all over it.

At this point big government coming down hard on big business. Maybe that tie them up as not to do anymore damage than they already doing.

Another problem is technologically they are much better set up to act like a private publisher, and probably should be governed as such. The reality to truly be an open, public platform/forum, it has to be decentralized where no one entity own the technology, platform, economics or distribution system, the Google and YouTube are on a fast track toward anti-trust suits.
 
Last edited:

Tito Tim

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy User
This is just capitalism at work. YT is a business, they are in it to make money. If they are making changes it is because their advertisers want them to. It is not about political bias - it is about ad revenue. Advertisers have always controlled the major airwaves, the internet will be no different.
 

Andrew

Superman
Administrator
5,664
31
youtube.com
Subscriber Goal
5000
I guess the argument to be made is YouTube an open forum or is it a "private space" with 1.9 billion users, hard to say it's not public. haha
 

Craig Payne

New User
26
8
That has anti-trust written all over it.
... the Google and YouTube are on a fast track toward anti-trust suits.
This has nothing to do remotely close to being an anti-trust issue.

Google are facing some anti-trust issues, but this is nothing to do with that.
 

Damon

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
1,077
21
www.blackwarriorlures.com
Subscriber Goal
10000
This has nothing to do remotely close to being an anti-trust issue.

Google are facing some anti-trust issues, but this is nothing to do with that.
Then I stand corrected, but a "private" space with 1.9 billion users, I can guarantee something is coming down toe pipe sooner or later. Sooner or later legal action will take place to determine if what YouTube is doing is an open forum or a private space.
 
OP
OP
G

Guitar Hack

Active Member
TubeBuddy Pro
482
18
Subscriber Goal
5000
This has nothing to do remotely close to being an anti-trust issue.

Google are facing some anti-trust issues, but this is nothing to do with that.
Hi Craig,
I think the current situation has EVERYTHING to do with antitrust.
The definition of antitrust as @Damon pointed out.
"Again YouTube is claiming to be an open, public platform, but is acting like a private publisher. That has anti-trust written all over it."

YT is promoting it's own ideology to the detriment of others. IE: Religion, Politics, Orientation, Culture. - Pure antitrust.
My interpretation of the current situation, is that YT, (Google, Alphabet) is interfering in political outcomes and social discourse and that has to stop.

Differing opinions and beliefs should ALL be allowed, within the law.
Antitrust laws will most definitely be enforced. No matter if YT is private or public.
YT (Google) may have more success with it's plans to have a more censored "Platform" for china?
 

Damon

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
1,077
21
www.blackwarriorlures.com
Subscriber Goal
10000
From Wiki:

"The Bosses of the Senate", a cartoon by Joseph Keppler depicting corporate interests—from steel, copper, oil, iron, sugar, tin, and coal to paper bags, envelopes, and salt—as giant money bags looming over the tiny senators at their desks in the Chamber of the United States Senate.[1]
In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. (The concept is called competition law in other English-speaking countries.) The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.[2]

Just the third reason alone: Does YouTube have a monopoly on online video? Yes. Do they abuse that monopoly power? Yes. Anti-trust.

Are they a cartel and act in collusive ways to restrain trade? Banning YouTubers that have other points of view, demonetising gun rights channels robbing them of vital revenue? Yes. Anti-Trust.

Do they participate in fair competition to the benefit of consumers? No. Anti-trust.

Do they engage in merger and acquisition practices to lessen competition. I don't know. It doesn't seem so. Trust.

2/3 strikes against them on a basic wiki definition doesn't place them is good standing with we the creators, the consumers of our creations, nor the government that has to makes sure they engaging in fair and free trade. People have been banned from YouTube for fewer/lesser offenses.
 

Craig Payne

New User
26
8
I think the current situation has EVERYTHING to do with antitrust.
Nope. Antitrust is when an entity uses its dominant monopoly powers to prevent competition via unfair practices. Not sure what you think that has to do with this situation. How is "censorship"on YouTube preventing YouTube's competitors doing anything??? - I would have thought it was helping their competitors by driving people to them who do not like what YouTube is doing!!!
YouTube is not remotely close to being a monopoly and has plenty of competitors.
Just the third reason alone: Does YouTube have a monopoly on online video? Yes. Do they abuse that monopoly power? Yes. Anti-trust.
1. They have plenty of competitors! (eg Dailymotion, Vimeo, Metacafe, Vevo, Twitch etc etc)
2. How are they "abuse that monopoly power" to preventing competition?

Are they a cartel and act in collusive ways to restrain trade? Banning YouTubers that have other points of view, demonetising gun rights channels robbing them of vital revenue? Yes. Anti-Trust.
Nonsense. That is not close to what anti-trust is. How is demonetizing gun channels preventing YouTube's competitors from doing anything???? If anything, it is probably helping their competitors!

Do they participate in fair competition to the benefit of consumers? No. Anti-trust.
Consumers = customers = those who pay the money = the advertisers!!! They do nothing that restricts advertisers from spending their money at other video sharing sites. Not even close to anti-trust!
 
Last edited:

Damon

Well-Known Member
TubeBuddy Pro
1,077
21
www.blackwarriorlures.com
Subscriber Goal
10000
Okay, I see what you mean. Not anti-trust, but totally giving competitors an grand opportunity. As evidenced by the fact that i now publish my content on LBRY.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.