The censorship wave of YouTube.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

@Danioover9000 hate speech is only based on personal bias, the problem is like saying "unicorn speech".
see it doesn't make sense.

Letting religious zealots and politic fanatitics of all kind having a right to defend their favorits mythology and in group fantasy is the definition of hate for me.

favoritism of in group, is hate, plain, direct, all love for one group entails you think other groups is untermensh.

if you prefer one group, it means others are not equivalent, which means they are lower, which means you're a nazi.

And if you don't agree with my definition it's cause you're not smart enough, it's hate too.

by this real definitions, all religions and everyone relating his mind to any belief system is a hater who think is way of perceiving reality is superior.

if it was up to me I would cancel 99% of humanity for hate speech.

[Twentyfirst]

It's their platform so they can censor however they like. Here are the issues

1. They don't make the rules clear and set in stone. Its ambiguous and changes tides with agendas and narratives

2. They have strange choices of who to promote and who to censor. Soft core porn and strange music videos get many views when people speaking out against systems can get banned 

3. These platforms are so adopted by the masses that the censorship leaks out into the real world. Getting fired from work just because you get banned off instagram/bank account getting shut down

Cancel culture will prove to be hell. It already has proven but it takes a while for people to realize 

[Danioover9000]

@AerisVahnEphelia

1 hour ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

@Danioover9000 hate speech is only based on personal bias, the problem is like saying "unicorn speech".
see it doesn't make sense.

Letting religious zealots and politic fanatitics of all kind having a right to defend their favorits mythology and in group fantasy is the definition of hate for me.

favoritism of in group, is hate, plain, direct, all love for one group entails you think other groups is untermensh.

if you prefer one group, it means others are not equivalent, which means they are lower, which means you're a nazi.

And if you don't agree with my definition it's cause you're not smart enough, it's hate too.

by this real definitions, all religions and everyone relating his mind to any belief system is a hater who think is way of perceiving reality is superior.

if it was up to me I would cancel 99% of humanity for hate speech.

   You would cancel 99% of humanity for hate speech, but 1% which contains you and your in group would be exempt?

   I think having a bias and preference of one group over another doesn't make you a Nazi directly, it makes you just biased and preferential. Would you consider yourself a Nazi and fascist for being biased and preferential for yourself and your culture you're a part off, or consider yourself just biased?

[bebotalk]

Social media are privately owned.

So freedom of speech in the strict legal sense doesn't apply. It's not different from restaurants not allowing swearing. It's their right, they're not the state. Go elsewhere if one doesn't like it. 

As long as Google, X, Facebook, etc. are private entities, then they hold the right to set whatever rules they see fit, and even then they cannot breach laws. They cannot say that only tall people can use their platforms, or only whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. can partake in them. 

Censorship therefore is moot. 

Maybe there should be laws stating that any social media firm should only permit speech that is within the current laws at the time. Given the pervasiveness of social media now, it seems harsh in a way that a person is banned from them all if they say things that are problematic. 

But it still goes to the facet of private ownership. The property owner has within reason the right to do what s/he wishes with their property. 

People also obfuscate what free speech means. And I feel this confuses many. Free speech in the legal sense just means that the state cannot limit speech. But even this has limits. Defamation, inciting violence, hate speech, etc. are illegal in many countries. As is blasphemy in some areas. People assume free speech means just a generic right to speak freely. In a colloquial sense, perhaps, but not in the hard legal definition. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by bebotalk

[BlueOak]

On 11/14/2023 at 5:05 PM, Danioover9000 said:

   Your thouthts and views? Can censorship be too much? For example visual novels showing some sexy scenes, drawn very well, are being censored despite being just drawings. Is that too much? Has society developed too softly? Has politics made almost everyone sensitive?

   Also, when will Leo upload a video? Been 6 months already.

Happens every couple of years, they censor something else. As someone who has had half of how they speak and most of what they would watch censored on youtube, meh is all i'll say. Nobody cares until it comes for them. Creeping authoritarianism throughout society and culture made manifest online.

I will say these days they censor more via not showing the videos in search or showing subscribers new videos are available, shadow bans etc, rather than outright bans. They have a lot more subtle ways to censor people, and it's usually driven by advertisers' whims, which is marginally more healthy than the decisions of an even smaller group of people.

Edited November 28, 2023 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

If a newspaper, magazine, TV/radio show, can censor items, then the exact legal process applies to social media. 

Many complain but don't address this basic legal fact, nor cite solutions. 

Or they never got what freedom of expression actually means.

https://www.freedomforum.org/free-speech-on-social-media/#:~:text=But what about free speech,those users' First Amendment rights.

Maybe the issue is that we're treating social media as a traditional media form, in terms of the legality of the content it can permit. But then what do the American conservatives - who often aren't bright as it stands - going to do to counter this or change this? years of moaning and whining hasn't solved their issues. 

Even Trump set up his own network. So even big Daddy Orange has found a solution, somewhat. 

It's a shame many of his followers don't act similarly and just moan and whine over rudimentary legal realities, that form the basis of their constitution no less. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by bebotalk

[Danioover9000]

@Twentyfirst

On 19/11/2023 at 2:14 PM, Twentyfirst said:

It's their platform so they can censor however they like. Here are the issues

1. They don't make the rules clear and set in stone. Its ambiguous and changes tides with agendas and narratives

2. They have strange choices of who to promote and who to censor. Soft core porn and strange music videos get many views when people speaking out against systems can get banned 

3. These platforms are so adopted by the masses that the censorship leaks out into the real world. Getting fired from work just because you get banned off instagram/bank account getting shut down

Cancel culture will prove to be hell. It already has proven but it takes a while for people to realize 

   That's true, as capitalism and neoliberalism is their ideology, and philosophy, which informs their behaviours and what rule they deem determines better free speach.

   However, do they realise that free speech began as hate speech? And that to have free speecb one must also have hate speech, because if you value free speech by definition some of that is hate speech expressed freely in speech. If yoy hate hate speech and want to censor and cancel hate speech, then that defeats the purpose of free speech because now that expression is limited and controlled.

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

On 28/11/2023 at 9:32 AM, bebotalk said:

Social media are privately owned.

So freedom of speech in the strict legal sense doesn't apply. It's not different from restaurants not allowing swearing. It's their right, they're not the state. Go elsewhere if one doesn't like it. 

As long as Google, X, Facebook, etc. are private entities, then they hold the right to set whatever rules they see fit, and even then they cannot breach laws. They cannot say that only tall people can use their platforms, or only whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. can partake in them. 

Censorship therefore is moot. 

Maybe there should be laws stating that any social media firm should only permit speech that is within the current laws at the time. Given the pervasiveness of social media now, it seems harsh in a way that a person is banned from them all if they say things that are problematic. 

But it still goes to the facet of private ownership. The property owner has within reason the right to do what s/he wishes with their property. 

People also obfuscate what free speech means. And I feel this confuses many. Free speech in the legal sense just means that the state cannot limit speech. But even this has limits. Defamation, inciting violence, hate speech, etc. are illegal in many countries. As is blasphemy in some areas. People assume free speech means just a generic right to speak freely. In a colloquial sense, perhaps, but not in the hard legal definition. 

   That's true based on many developmental factors like spiral dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing and traits, 9 stages of ego development, Carl Jung's Archetypes modal, Integral Thoery other lines of development in life and societal domains, ideological indoctrination in family upbringing and culture, and information ecology one consumes which manufactures consent from big tech companies and other big companies trying to profitcfrom customers.

   Given some research into the mental hqlth issues from social media, how the internet and online spaces increases narcissism, self entitlement, psychopathy and sociopathy traits, reduces attention spans and critical thinking by design, for example Tik Tok, I'm surprised not much is being dkne to manage and mitigate this increasing mental health crisis.

[bebotalk]

On 19/11/2023 at 9:53 AM, Consept said:

The youtube censorship issue for me breaks down like this -

There is freedom to do whatever you want, within legal limits, but there is not the automatic right to a platform. You have no specific right to be put in front of a lot of people and for them to have to listen to you. 

Youtube gives more of a platform then there has ever been to the average person. 

If we had total freedom of speech for everyone in which there could be hate speech or just things that might be highly offensive, the platform would suffer as most people would turn away. This has been the case in several instances, check out the monster Island experiment. 

It's also impossible to have a platform where there is unlimited free speech from a business point of view, because yt in this case could be liable for the content that's released. Moreover many advertisers may not want their adverts associated with certain types of content. It's possible that you could have a non-corporate, non-profit platform but it would be difficult to provide running costs, which would be millions. Creators also wouldn't get paid direct from content. 

So the freedom has to be balanced with sustainability of the platform. There are other sites where anyone can say what they want or telegram groups or wherever, even reddit offers a lot more freedom in what you xan post, mainly because it can seperate users into different subs so youre mot exposed to anything you dont want to see, so the choice does exist. What people get annoyed about is not necessarily the freedom but moreso the large platform offered by youtube which can only exist because of moderation. So it's almost a paradoxical request to have absolute freedom and have a really large platform such as youtube. 

 

"absolute" freedom in a private space is a pipedream. it's not always about sponsors but the USP that a media company wants to fill. 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

1 hour ago, bebotalk said:

"absolute" freedom in a private space is a pipedream. it's not always about sponsors but the USP that a media company wants to fill. 

   Interesting video about plagiarism and YouTube: