YouTube Bans Ron Paul Institute

I seem to remember your former president getting banned? His shtick may have been that he entered politics as an outsider but once he was in he surely was a politician, and a famous one at that.

If it's just AI, you separate them with actual human oversight.

From what I understand, they moved less because of demonetization, and more because of the chilling effect it had on free speech. They needed to be super-careful in script writing to make sure they didn't anger the YouTube algorithm.

I'll also mention another darker side of this: Google is almost entirely liberal inside. If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering. AIs are not neutral, and Google's reflects the biases of the people who keep tweaking it.

WWW. There could be wide-access public radio and tv, but in practice it isn't used much.

On the internet? Not really - every site is privately owned and controlled by some entity with the right to decide what does and doesn't get published on their servers. Even laissez-faire "free speech maximalist" platforms like Gab and Parler are in theory entirely private and centralized, they just choose to allow public access (under their terms of service) and lax moderation. But in practice that decision is entirely arbitrary.

It is called 'the Internet' and can be used to disseminate whatever you want, within or (to a limited extent) outside of the bounds of the law of the land. As long as you remain within those bounds it is generally possible to say what you want although you might have to erect your own platform - in the form of a website, netcast, 'radio' station or video streaming service like Peertube - to be able to speak freely.

Centralised corporate platforms like Youtube, Twitter and Facebook are not public platforms and should not be treated as such. The 'net is the platform and should be treated as such. Just like the old telcos were not allowed to censor the phone lines it should not be allowed for internet access providers and backbone providers to refuse access or transit because they happen to dislike the message. There is a discussion to be had on whether service providers like AWS should fall under this regime, personally I see more in a decentralised approach but there are arguments to be made for including them.

Barring the repeal of Section 230 and some law declaring all social media platforms to be public property, it's true regardless of what the state of California says about shopping centers.

Yea, this one is to make sure that there isn't going to be regulations on youtube or other social media.

Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself.

I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'

They most certainly have a profit motive, they're a for profit business. It's not their only motive, but it's their primary one, and all other decisions they make are judged against their impact on the bottom line, this decision included. They may take risks that they know could negatively impact that profit if (keyword, if) it goes south, but there is still a very clear consideration for cost and profit there.

I'd be with you on this one, but his ban is coming off an announcement they are banning vaccine misinformation as well as all the last posts even on Twitter are relating to the vaccine.

The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.

1. Common misconception is only right leaning views are being demonetized, it's all politics so yea they are also being punished by youtube as well.

2. People aren't dieing/being permanently injured at rates that hospitals can't keep up with because of the lack of police because the movement was so effective that it has vast swaths of the population without policing. So much so standard solvable emergencies that you could normally be treated for at the hospital end up killing you due to lack of availability of doctors.

3. Those beliefs are based on studies that have been upheld and are reproducible how ineffective current policing policies are and are underperforming by numerous metrics and especially over all in areas with poverty or mostly minority population. So not paying them more money (defund)or rewarding them for underperforming, like one would a corporation that is under performing was the original goal. It has spun a vocal minority into more extreme views of abolishing the police entirely after having emotional reactions looking deeper at those numbers.

But they don't tell you what content violated the standard.

I don't know of any offhand, they are all separate. Closing exceptions would have been much easier than thousands of miles of coastline.