Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76

Thread: This isn't politics - Better pay attention

  1. #1

    Default This isn't politics - Better pay attention

    https://www.rt.com/usa/521456-youtub...ression-award/

    The height of hypocrisy.

    "Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of Google’s video platform YouTube, was awarded the Freedom Forum Institute’s ‘Free Expression Award’ on Friday in a ceremony sponsored by her own company – despite YouTube’s track record of censorship."

    “The freedoms we have, we really can’t take for granted,” Wojcicki declared, adding that “we really have to make sure we’re protecting them in every way possible.”

    Wojcicki, however, went on to argue that “we also need to make sure there are limits,” and revealed that the company removed nine million videos in the last quarter, 90% of which were taken down by machines.

    She also said there is “a lot of content that technically meets the spirit of what we’re trying to do, but it is borderline, and so for that content we will just reduce – meaning we’re not going to recommend it to our users.”

    ****Understand yet? They know best. They will decide for you. They determine what you should be allowed to say or not say.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,549
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaps View Post
    ****Understand yet? They know best. They will decide for you. They determine what you should be allowed to say or not say.
    They decide what is acceptable on their platform, seems about right to me. They aren't the gov't, you don't have free speech on their platform.
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    5,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    They decide what is acceptable on their platform, seems about right to me. They aren't the gov't, you don't have free speech on their platform.
    The phone company isn't the government but you DO have free speech on their platform because they are a medium based on the same protections granted to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and so on. Yet simpletons like you and others argue this same retarded point every time. And then you go whole hog on persecuting a baker or florist when they choose to refuse service to people based on their faith.

    Get it yet? You are the Left are hypocrites and do not believe in free speech and you are defending your bastions of control at every turn. It's ok when they censor conservatives because they are mean. Just remember Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you. They see themselves as a government and that needs to stop.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,137
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    It is business. If you don't like it, don't use it.

    Just like Kranar could pop back in here and stop you from spamming 35646435 threads about whatever article you come across every day.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaps View Post
    https://www.rt.com/usa/521456-youtub...ression-award/

    The height of hypocrisy.

    "Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of Google’s video platform YouTube, was awarded the Freedom Forum Institute’s ‘Free Expression Award’ on Friday in a ceremony sponsored by her own company – despite YouTube’s track record of censorship."

    “The freedoms we have, we really can’t take for granted,” Wojcicki declared, adding that “we really have to make sure we’re protecting them in every way possible.”

    Wojcicki, however, went on to argue that “we also need to make sure there are limits,” and revealed that the company removed nine million videos in the last quarter, 90% of which were taken down by machines.

    She also said there is “a lot of content that technically meets the spirit of what we’re trying to do, but it is borderline, and so for that content we will just reduce – meaning we’re not going to recommend it to our users.”

    ****Understand yet? They know best. They will decide for you. They determine what you should be allowed to say or not say.
    Everytime you're listening to Breitbart, Carlson, Mark Levin, etc, you're listening to content they assembled or wish to convey. You're not guaranteed an equal opportunity to hear contrarian views. In fact you listen to them because they make you little e-peen tingle.

  6. Default

    I wonder what would happen if some liberal cause was censored by Youtube. I expect the cries for free speech would be quite loud.
    Last edited by Candor; 04-19-2021 at 10:08 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    5,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Candor View Post
    I wonder what would happen if some liberal cause was censored by Youtube. I expect the cries for free speech would be quite loud.
    You are correct.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,549
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~ View Post
    The phone company isn't the government but you DO have free speech on their platform because they are a medium based on the same protections granted to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and so on.
    Except that it's not, and the courts have upheld that.

    Recent Supreme Court precedent—in Manhattan Community Access Corp v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019)—has weighed against this argument, holding that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”
    https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/...-private-forum

    And then you go whole hog on persecuting a baker or florist when they choose to refuse service to people based on their faith.
    Pretty sure the Supreme Court upheld their right to do this, unfortunately they couldn't force people to continue using their service.

    Care to reply and be wrong again?
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,137
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Candor View Post
    I wonder what would happen if some liberal cause was censored by Youtube. I expect the cries for free speech would be quite loud.
    Yes, and the same people who are complaining about free speech and censorship from Google are the exact same people that would turn around tell these liberals that private businesses can set their own rules and that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government. Both sides are hypocrites when something goes against them. Just be fucking consistent for once.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    Yes, and the same people who are complaining about free speech and censorship from Google are the exact same people that would turn around tell these liberals that private businesses can set their own rules and that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government. Both sides are hypocrites when something goes against them. Just be fucking consistent for once.
    I'm not being hypocritical at all. I don't think social media sites should censor anyone - unless they specifically are stating something that is already against established law.

    Amazon (with AWS); Google (with their Cloud services); Twitter (read any "news" article these days- all they do is link Twitter posts); Microsoft (and all of their control of many systems); Apple (and all of their control of many systems); etc. are no longer just "private businesses".

    They are the mechanism and services that the majority of the world, through personal, business, and government work is processed.

    The owners of those companies determining the discourse allowed on those platforms - outside of what we consider protected speech under the 1st Amendment - is broken at this point.

    If they are going to edit their content - then 230 protections should not apply.

    If they want to remain a "public forum" and not censor content - then 230 protections should remain in place.

    I don't think the CEO of YouTube, which is owned by Google, should determine what you, I, or anyone else says on their platform - so long as we are within the law with regards to the 1st Amendment. That is not what they are doing. To think otherwise is to be ignorant.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •