Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[mongrel]

It is politics if it is being done for political reasons, which it is (since such action is not bipartisan).

It protects people from harm , for example sites recommending that liberals be run over and killed before marching in , say Charlottesville, or individuals commending such acts when commited.

[Heathen Hammer]

So you have no proof? Cause i haven't quoted a source or any evidence from you.

This is a rather bold claim. And it would be appropriate to support it with something.

Big tech is left leaning. Big tech is colluding to silence opinions on right-wing of the political spectrum. Big Tech is not colluding to silence the left side of the spectrum. Therefore, Big tech censorship is politically motivated.
Heck, there is a thread right next to this one talking about Google openly stating that.

[NorthernXY]

Big corporations can do what they like as long as it's legal and we shouldn't care. If Apple has to install nets on their sweat shops in China because they treat their employees so terribly, shut up, it's legal in China so you shouldn't care.

[mongrel]

Big tech is left leaning. Big tech is colluding to silence opinions on right-wing of the political spectrum. Big Tech is not colluding to silence the left side of the spectrum. Therefore, Big tech censorship is politically motivated.
Heck, there is a thread right next to this one talking about Google openly stating that.

By right -wing opinion you mean the screams of extremists and wannabe terrorists. No loss.

[TheLeft]

Big tech is left leaning. Big tech is colluding to silence opinions on right-wing of the political spectrum. Big Tech is not colluding to silence the left side of the spectrum. Therefore, Big tech censorship is politically motivated.
Heck, there is a thread right next to this one talking about Google openly stating that.

So no actual evidence at all then, I mean besides the voices in your head and whatever nonsense you've read on /pol/. Which don't count. Obviously.

Provide us with a independently sourced and verified article supporting your claims, or withdraw your spurious allegations.

[Heathen Hammer]

So no actual evidence at all then, I mean besides the voices in your head and whatever nonsense you've read on /pol/. Which don't count. Obviously.

Provide us with a independently sourced and verified article supporting your claims, or withdraw your spurious allegations.

Except for the literal post you quoted as well as Google officials themselves. We are yet to see you provide evidence of the contrary.
But I can't get enough of the irony when leftists all of a sudden become faithful defenders of crony corporate authoritarianism.

[TheLeft]

Except for the literal post you quoted as well as Google officials themselves. We are yet to see you provide evidence of the contrary.

Project Veritas? So biased right wing blogs count as 'fact' now?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/

Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III who is an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations. O’Keefe’s videos are edited in a way that makes them difficult to fact check. Often his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more

https://www.dailywire.com/news/48824...-james-barrett

Funny you should quote that horse dropping of an article.

To quote the employee in question:

Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me.

So that's your evidence? A debunked, selectively edited 'scoop' from a far-right blogger? Wow. Stop the presses, we have a new Pulitzer Prize winner here!!

But I can't get enough of the irony when leftists all of a sudden become faithful defenders of crony corporate authoritarianism.

So in your mind, everyone who leans slightly left of centre politically, is now a Leninist smasher of the Corporatist Bourgeoisie? What a strange world you inhabit. I guess the word 'nuance' has yet to filter through to your part of the world...

Besides, it has nothing to do with that, it's more to do with debunking the rubbish conspiracy theories perpetrated by butt-hurt far-right loonies who hate the idea that Neo-Nazi propaganda is no longer acceptable.

Back to the drawing board for you!

[Vanoi]

Big tech is left leaning. Big tech is colluding to silence opinions on right-wing of the political spectrum. Big Tech is not colluding to silence the left side of the spectrum. Therefore, Big tech censorship is politically motivated.
Heck, there is a thread right next to this one talking about Google openly stating that.

Do you understand you have to prove collusion?

[NosPortatArma]

Big corporations can do what they like as long as it's legal and we shouldn't care. If Apple has to install nets on their sweat shops in China because they treat their employees so terribly, shut up, it's legal in China so you shouldn't care.

corporations were created by society with the purpose of furthering economic growth. They serve society, they exist because society allows them to. We did not create them to be the judges of what is and isnt acceptable speech. That is quite simply not their purpose, just as its not their purpose to give political donations either. The discussion can get so confusing when people forget that corporations arent really real, and instead treat them as if they inalienable rights etc. yes, clearly they should follow the law, but we can and should change the law. laws from the 18th centrury are obviously not sufficient as they did not foresee this kind of situation. By virtue of their near monopolistic positions, we must treat them specially. Why pretend that they arent wielding dangerously much influence? it is in the best interest of all to regulate them.

[mongrel]

Pah, corporations aren't meant to be conduits for views that are a potential threat to their customers either.

[NosPortatArma]

Pah, corporations aren't meant to be conduits for views that are a potential threat to their customers either.

No, but they can be made to serve as extensions of the public forum, in the spirit of the 1st amendment. There are already sufficient laws to handle actual threats and incitement etc. That is certainly not something which companies like google, facebook or twitter should decide anyways. They are not judges, no one appointed them as such. And before you say it, to hell with private property, it does not apply in this case. The service they provide is of such a nature that it is better to classify it as some kind of public good, than as merely an ordinary service. It does require extraordinary regulation in my view, as their position to unjustly affect the public discourse is unique. that is not power we should be giving to private companies.

[Vanoi]

No, but they can be made to serve as extensions of the public forum, in the spirit of the 1st amendment.

They could never be designated as a public forum. Already a legal definition for public forums in the US and none of these companies fit the definition.

[mongrel]

No, but they can be made to serve as extensions of the public forum, in the spirit of the 1st amendment. There are already sufficient laws to handle actual threats and incitement etc. That is certainly not something which companies like google, facebook or twitter should decide anyways. They are not judges, no one appointed them as such. And before you say it, to hell with private property, it does not apply in this case. The service they provide is of such a nature that it is better to classify it as some kind of public good, than as merely an ordinary service. It does require extraordinary regulation in my view, as their position to unjustly affect the public discourse is unique. that is not power we should be giving to private companies.

Private corporations can be forced to promote the idea that black people /jews/muslims must be killed to promote a race war, or that westerners must die to promote a fake Caliphate? Or that women should stay in their place? Are vou for real?

[NosPortatArma]

They could never be designated as a public forum. Already a legal definition for public forums in the US and none of these companies fit the definition.

so broaden the definition.

Private corporations can be forced to promote the idea that black people /jews/muslims must be killed to promote a race war, or that westerners must die to promote a fake Caliphate? Or that women should stay in their place? Are vou for real?

as of those are the only kinds of views being censored. as i have said, there already exist laws that deal with threats and incitement. we dont need google deciding what is ok to say.

edit: as for women staying in their place.. yes that is exactly the kind of opinion that needs protection. its not a criminal opinion at all.

[Love Mountain]

so broaden the definition.

Why would we want to? They're not banned from the Internet, merely the property of a private company.

as of those are the only kinds of views being censored. as i have said, there already exist laws that deal with threats and incitement. we dont need google deciding what is ok to say.

edit: as for women staying in their place.. yes that is exactly the kind of opinion that needs protection. its not a criminal opinion at all.

Then tell us what views are being censored. There is an appeal process if a channel does not deserve a ban. Youtube banning neo-fascists, alt-right, and enlightened centrists isn't the problem. Private corporations abusing their power is.

And what is exactly the "place" for women?

[NosPortatArma]

Why would we want to? They're not banned from the Internet, merely the property of a private company.

I dont think it is beneficial for society, wanting a free and open discourse, to pretend that these companies are like any other, and that this is merely a matter of private property. it isnt. they currenrly have a great power to shape public discourse. i dont believe they should have that power.

Then tell us what views are being censored. There is an appeal process if a channel does not deserve a ban. Youtube banning neo-fascists, alt-right, and enlightened centrists isn't the problem. Private corporations abusing their power is.

it is a problem if they are banning views even if tjose views arent illegal. wanting a white ethno state for wxample, is not an illegal opinipn, and should thus not be censored.

And what is exactly the "place" for women?

you should ask someone who holds that opinion

[Love Mountain]

I dont think it is beneficial for society, wanting a free and open discourse, to pretend that these companies are like any other, and that this is merely a matter of private property. it isnt. they currenrly have a great power to shape public discourse. i dont believe they should have that power.

They are free to have open discourse. They're just not free to have it on Youtube. They are free to have their own discourse on other platforms. The reason the alt-right is complaining isn't because they can't upload their videos, it's because they can't make money or get exposure from it.

Nor is public discourse limited to social media.

it is a problem if they are banning views even if tjose views arent illegal. wanting a white ethno state for wxample, is not an illegal opinipn, and should thus not be censored.

Smoking isn't illegal either. Yet it is banned on many premises. Private companies are free to discriminate so long as its not against a protected class, which vary according to your location.

[mongrel]

as of those are the only kinds of views being censored. as i have said, there already exist laws that deal with threats and incitement. we dont need google deciding what is ok to say..

After Christchurch and earlier terror attacks linked to such nonsense I don't think so. Some things are inherently wrong, incitement to harm or kill people different to the group is one of them.

edit: as for women staying in their place.. yes that is exactly the kind of opinion that needs protection. its not a criminal opinion at all.

that. Private firms are not required to fund such dinosaurs

[NosPortatArma]

They are free to have open discourse. They're just not free to have it on Youtube. They are free to have their own discourse on other platforms. The reason the alt-right is complaining isn't because they can't upload their videos, it's because they can't make money or get exposure from it.

Nor is public discourse limited to social media.

lets be frank. youtube et al is a huge forum, very influential. if you are shut off from it you are greatly handicapped. those who decide that have great power, and i dont want that power in hands of private companies. its really that simple. in my view these platforms should be considered public forums. I am a practical man, i simply ask what good there is by allowing private companies to shape public discourse? that is not their purpose.

Smoking isn't illegal either. Yet it is banned on many premises. Private companies are free to discriminate so long as its not against a protected class, which vary according to your location.

not comparable. society has an interest in allowing a free public discourse.

After Christchurch and earlier terror attacks linked to such nonsense I don't think so. Some things are inherently wrong, incitement to harm or kill people different to the group is one of them.

incitement yes, but not a controversial view like eg wanting a ethno state. such views arw legal and should not be censored.

that. Private firms are not required to fund such dinosaurs

but maybe they ought to be obliged to treat them equally and fairly.

[mongrel]

lets be frank. youtube et al is a huge forum, very influential. if you are shut off from it you are greatly handicapped.
.

Good, that means violent extremists don't get airtime. I'm struggling to see why you consider this a detriment.

not comparable. society has an interest in allowing a free public discourse. .

Not after public media was abused to undermine society and promote violence and terrorism.

incitement yes, but not a controversial view like eg wanting a ethno state. such views arw legal and should not be censored.

Such views have been directly responsible for terrorist acts and mass murders, so no thank you.

but maybe they ought to be obliged to treat them equally and fairly.

Treat them in an equal way to paedophile material, they are both intended to damage people for gratification.