YouTube deletes “lawsuit against vaccine passport” press conference video
twitter.com
twitter.com
I agree, but this doesn't bring mention to the real point :
Messaging and telecommunications groups that are privately held are de-facto responsible for national presidential public messaging in the United States, and this gives them legal leverage to commit whatever kind of censorship they care to.
This doesn't call for action towards the censoring body, it calls for public action towards the creation of a publicly funded messaging option for government officials and other official channels that should be held to constitutional standards rather than corporate private standards.
It sounds like you're describing https://malliotakis.house.gov/.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/225143126129948/
The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Here's their video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MlXaRxlFo
"it is back up after appeal. It's great that it's been restored - though with no explanation of why it was taken down, or why they decided it was OK to go back up. Strictly speaking according to the YouTube guidelines they were within their rights to take it down, it says clearly "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19" are not allowed, and Tess Lawrie clearly made these."
It wasn't? Where can I watch a copy of it then?
It might not be a repository of legal filings, but it's certainly not just an entertainment site. Opinion-oriented media, news programs, court footage, press releases, and educational videos have all been intentionally promoted in the past by Youtube.
The issue at hand is that some press releases are being permitted (and even promoted by YT) whereas others are not, despite the fact that there's no particularly notable difference in the authority of those speaking. (Obviously I recognize that this press release in particular more likely than not contains dangerous misinformation, but I still object to the idea that Youtube can unilaterally decide what is and is not dangerous misinformation).
That is a self-refuting statement. If Youtube was just an entertainment site: then they wouldn't be deleting legal content, with apparent public interest, provided to them for free.
You can be an entertainment service and still regulate the content you host. Would you expect Netflix to host this content?
The law doesn’t require that “platforms” treat content neutrally. It only states that hosts are protected from litigation due to user content if the hosts follow the requirements. There is no explicit or implied punishment for hosts/platforms if they fail to treat content equally. That is simply the host exercising their 1A rights of Free Association (and disassociation).
Be careful what you wish for if you want Section 230 eroded. AFAIK the only erosion so far was SESTA/FOSTA and that destroyed a handful of sites like Craigslist Personals/Casual Encounters. You are advocating trading private company contract enforcement for overbearing threats of government prosecution.
Censorship is dumb and tyrannical. The founding fathers of the US understood this 240+ years ago.
The founding fathers mandated smallpox vaccines without discussion and a few Congress sessions later required sailors to buy health insurance and passed the Sedition Act, which is close enough to censorship.
What is dumb is acting like this is a slam dunk issue. There are valuable and relevant supports on both sides of this issue.
I would love to see someone unseat YT’s position as the biggest UGC video database (hopefully one that puts effort into DMCA counter-claims), but this is what the market have given us.
But if you want to be precise, one side of the government is colluding with the big tech companies.
You're the one bringing up the 'founding fathers'. This isn't a constitutional issue. You're not being censored. YouTube is a private company. If you don't like don't use it. That's how free markets work. This Nicole Malliotakis person has her own website. Nothing is stopping her from posting it there.
>I never claimed the government did this
>one side of the government is colluding with the big tech companies.
What? Those are contradictory statements. Pick one.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-big-brother-to-be...
The fact is that what YT did was legal, so the “easy” thing to do is complain about it, which won’t change their behavior. All of the things that would change this behavior are hard things.
You are free to not use YouTube, just as I am free to use it. As is everyone else in this thread. You are free to vote with your wallet, not with mine.
Then, it was the ex-president's allies and they established rules about what was and wasn't acceptable in public discourse. What would be truth and fiction. What was conspiracy and truth. What was Covid truth and not (disregarding the often contradicting policies from WHO and CDC)
And everyone on one side f the aisle was like, yeah! Get 'im! Damned liar(s)! It's their platform, they can do what they want. It's not the government so it's not censorship. They only censor bigots.
And how do they treat things in Thailand, Hong Kong or Myanmar, who is the official government and who is the insurrectionist, who is truth and who is usurper?
Well, here we are, very much closer to the plateauing/basining(?) of the slippery slope as we find ourselves at the bottom --with the willful approval of a great proportion of the population because, you know, slippery slopes are fallacies.
No? Donald Trump's official Youtube channel is still up and running[0].
And you seriously think the only reason other social media platforms didn't ban Trump for four years is that they needed to "work up the nerve?" Not because he went a little unhinged and started ranting conspiracy theories and undermining the integrity of the election?
YouTube deletes Trump video and suspends new uploads: A new video on the president’s account violated YouTube policy on inciting violence. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/12/22218757/you...
It doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope if it goes down then comes back up again.
once a precedent is set, a transient acceptance of the action is established as a prior act.
you don't re-cork that genie, that's the whole idea of the slippery slope argument.
forever-more when YouTube considers an action towards something it can always now be said .. "Well in the case of X we did Y."
The 'slippery slope' isn't referring to the actions committed themselves, it's referring to a pattern of acceptance and renormalization that occurs after which biases the decision-making group into further actions of a similar vein.
There are too many one sentence questions on these issues of censorship. I would say they provide no value to the conversation.
I haven't seen the studies you're talking about, but the FDA claims Ivermectin hasn't yet been proven effective, and the WHO says it should only be used in clinical trials. But assuming for the same of argument you're correct, your claim is that the only available source of knowledge about Ivermectin anywhere would have been videos which were deleted from Youtube, making it impossible for anyone to avail themselves of this miracle cure due to Youtube's "censorship", and that there are people who avoided taking any of the other existing and effective COVID vaccines and who died of COVID as a result, and that Youtube is therefore to blame.
That's pure speculation based on an already far-fetched premise.
This was a case where the (obviously from the start) bad science was propagated, primarily through mainstream media, leading to basically the entire anti-vaccine movement we see today.
The question I think this raises is: can we trust typical journalists to do their due diligence when they make claims about very serious public health issues? In the context of the Wakefield MMR scandal, I think we were shown that the answer is no. Following that, the question is what to do about it.
This affects more than one person (this was entirely predictable). He was the excuse. That is all. Now that they got "permission" to suppress ideas as they wish, they, surprise! They are.
It wasn't a single person. It was the vast majority of a political party, involving people in government, military, law enforcement, and useful idiots required to fill in a mob.
I'm not from the US thus I have no dog in the race, but even I am fully aware that the rhetoric regarding "it's their platform, they can do what they want" is a very specific realization of the much broader and weaponized argument of "it's their business, they can do what they want" that has been used extensively for years by the political party that supported the incumbent candidate.
The "it's their business, they can do what they want" is an argument used extensicely to whitewash the attack and persecution of minorities and political rivals, as is epitome by the infamous "gay wedding cakes" meme.
So ultimately what this argument illustrates is that there is a political and ideological movement in the US which is adamant in demanding they should be immune to the rules they actively force upon others. Up until that moment, the incumbent's party was very adamant on the concept of arbitrarily denying access to goods and services to what they perceive as political and ideological reactionaries. That sentiment suddenly shifted once the consequences also applied to them.
We need to treat large digital platforms like public utilities. Social media is the new digital town square. And large tech conglomerates are too powerful, and need to be split up where possible, and regulated like a public agency where they can’t be (network effects).
What I really would expect to result from regulating the big social media players is that you'd simply institutionalize their dominant position. Regulatory regimes tend to discourage upstarts and often do little to reign in incumbents. After 2008 when increased regulation came after those bad "too-big-to-fail" banks... did we end up with smaller, but more diverse banking institutions or even fewer bigger banks that all looked pretty much the same? I could very well be wrong, but my sense is that we didn't move solve that problem and I don't think regulated big social media would be much better than what we have today.