Censorship of videos on social media

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
He is the only person in government whose networth
has actually gone down, since he got elected to office.

Doesn't seem very corrupt to me.

He is also not a politician.
He is not someone who dedicated his career

to going through the "cursus honorum" while working in government.
He is just an elected official.


by the way
interesting update minutes ago
Lt. General Thomas McInerney speaking at the White House
says that special forces were mixed in on Wednesday :smile:
when the capitol was stormed

and that they’re the ones who stole Nancy Pelosi’s laptop. :smile:

Lt. General Thomas McInerney:
Special Forces Took Nancy Pelosi Laptop Wednesday
Says She's Frantic :smile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Ady3z-Xy8






.
 

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Youtube censors content they feel is dangerous to business sponsors when they advertise on their platform and they ask Youtubers if they want to keep their virals/videos monetized, they have to adhere to Youtube's content standards.

Chris Chappell of China Uncensored and America Uncovered has a near-daily series of news segments criticizing the far-left of China's communism while they are capitalizing on their economic boom and the anti-social democratic right of American capitalism which was politically corrected against the public's will.

Youtube doesn't want business sponsors lose their draw in business profits if they advertise on very anti-China and anti-Trump opinions, or any form of politics involving the US government and different countries esp. with China.

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, expression and dissent, then as an employee for big box retailers, grocery chains and corporations who doesn't want to get near politics and controversy of any kind, I can see Youtube wants a medium of no unnecessary vs. justified censorship of content on the platform.
 

IleneK

Premium Member
But that means that the reason they are censoring people is born out of their corrupted relationship with the government.

Doing something in one's financial or personal interest is not necessarily corrupt. It is just self-serving. It may corrupt or it may not.

One's self-interest may correspond with the greater good. Or not. We really can't know any one's inner motives on any side of this matter.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Doing something in one's financial or personal interest
is not necessarily corrupt. It is just self-serving.
It may corrupt or it may not.
One's self-interest may correspond with the greater good.
Or not.
We really can't know any one's inner motives on any side of this matter.


MARK ZUCKERBERG DONATED $400 Million To Election Offices :smile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFF26CLLyc

and what a co-incidence that Zuckerberg was allowed access
that was denied to Republican Observers into the building
to watch mail ballots being counted in Philadelphia
A terrible insult to our Constitution!


.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Well, I really have to respectfully disagree with this, David. The fourth estate, the print media, even when digital, is bound by libel and slander law and media ethics. A key element of formal print media ethics is to be unbiased. And although that may not be humanly possible, it is a formal aspiration of the fourth estate media ethics, even though they may be privately owned corporations. So they do NOT have the right to shape public opinion any way they choose. This is taking into consideration the editorializing that is part of the printed press.

Social media is not the fourth estate. It comes later, it is not restrained by libel and slander law. And so in that regard, it is free and has the power to to shape public opinion. Social media ought to have laws governing it and probably will. It is just so new that there has not been time for the society to really recognize with it is and then rise up and legislate law similar to printed media law.


The Supreme Court ruled that broadcast news is not required by law to tell the whole truth. It's "infotainment", and not under oath to be entirely factual, even though it can be sued for libel and slander.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Doing something in one's financial or personal interest is not necessarily corrupt. It is just self-serving. It may corrupt or it may not.

One's self-interest may correspond with the greater good. Or not. We really can't know any one's inner motives on any side of this matter.

It is corrupt, if the power to do it comes from corrupting a government entity.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Youtube censors content they feel is dangerous to business sponsors when they advertise on their platform and they ask Youtubers if they want to keep their virals/videos monetized, they have to adhere to Youtube's content standards.

Chris Chappell of China Uncensored and America Uncovered has a near-daily series of news segments criticizing the far-left of China's communism while they are capitalizing on their economic boom and the anti-social democratic right of American capitalism which was politically corrected against the public's will.

Youtube doesn't want business sponsors lose their draw in business profits if they advertise on very anti-China and anti-Trump opinions, or any form of politics involving the US government and different countries esp. with China.

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, expression and dissent, then as an employee for big box retailers, grocery chains and corporations who doesn't want to get near politics and controversy of any kind, I can see Youtube wants a medium of no unnecessary vs. justified censorship of content on the platform.


That is completely fine. But then again, they should also be liable if they allow content which is breaking a law.
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
If they have editorial capabilities, they should be liable for the content which is uploaded to their site (like any editorial website would). Currently, the U.S. government has created special laws which prevent this.

If they only want to be a "plataform" for people to upload or discuss content, without any form of liability for the content that is uploaded there (such as copyrighted material), then they shouldn't be able to have editorial powers.

A special protection from government isn't "capitalism", its corporate cronysm. Capitalism is about getting government out of the economy.

When the various social media companies began they were classified as providers, similar to a phone company, and according to the law (preexisting) they have special tax status because of this. They are not an editorial category, just providing the service, like the phone company who provides the line but doesn't not interfere with who you can call or what you can say. And, again according to this law, they have protection from liability as to what is said by someone using the service they provide.
Recently, however, as they have grown larger and actually gigantic, they have taken onto themselves the power to determine who does and does not use their service, what they can say etc.
Which is why Trump has been planning to change their status, removing them from protection of that law, from provider to that of an editorial service, like for example a newspaper, who can be held reliable for the opinions and articles they publish. And their advantageous tax status would disappear and they would be taxed like editors, newspapers, etc.
At the moment they are flexing their muscles with the idea that the left will be in power and allow anything, so long as it censors the right, conservatives, Trumpers, etc.

Twitter still has postings from this summer where various politicians in effect called for violence during the riots in Democratic cities, including Harris. And they are not being removed and don't run any risk of being censored.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 21.43.55.jpg
    Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 21.43.55.jpg
    55 KB · Views: 12

wan

Well-known member
These social media platforms are private sector corporations. They can make their own editorial decisions.

That's also the case for broadcast news.

That's Capitalism.

But usually when people turn to social media platforms or in fact any kind of entity that dispenses information, they are generally looking to get a whole spectrum. They don't want just left-leaning news (as the kind being dispensed on major social media like facebook, twitter ..etc), they want everything.

Yes these websites can make their own editorial decisions. However, people can also exercise their power to look elsewhere for info that is less biased. This too is the power of capitalism. People "vote" by not giving their attention or money to media outlets that are hugely biased. This is one reason why sites like gab.com is gaining so much traffic.
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Currently CNN is putting pressure on numerous national radio hubs (sorry, not sure what the correct term is), to remove Parlar, the new provider that many conservatives have been turning to, to avoid censorship.
Censorship pure and simple.
 

wan

Well-known member
Doing something in one's financial or personal interest is not necessarily corrupt. It is just self-serving. It may corrupt or it may not.

One's self-interest may correspond with the greater good. Or not. We really can't know any one's inner motives on any side of this matter.

I am not sure why you are so focused on white-washing what they do, as if being merely self-serving is such a huge step up from being genuinely corrupt. Does it really matter? Can you not see what they are doing is wrong? That they use their special relationship with the government to censor people?
 

david starling

Well-known member
I am not sure why you are so focused on white-washing what they do, as if being merely self-serving is such a huge step up from being genuinely corrupt. Does it really matter? Can you not see what they are doing is wrong? That they use their special relationship with the government to censor people?

If you don't agree with what they do, then boycott them. You can delete their websites.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
If you don't agree with what they do, then boycott them.

You mean boycott social media platforms like facebook, twitter..etc? Yeah, I do that already. However, this is not enough. I want to call them out openly, draw people's attention to their evil-doing, and hopefully change the laws so that these organizations cannot abuse their immense power to censor people and do evil like that.

No offense David but your post is akin to telling people to not associate with or talk to a murderer, if they disapprove of what he does, namely murder. This is plain stupid. It is NOT enough to merely not associate with or talk to a murderer. We must actively seek to bring him to justice. It's the same principle.

Question for you david: do you think it's OK for facebook, twitter etc to use their special relationship with the government to censor people? Yes or no.
 

david starling

Well-known member
You mean boycott social media platforms like facebook, twitter..etc? Yeah, I do that already. However, this is not enough. I want to call them out openly, draw people's attention to their evil-doing, and hopefully change the laws so that these organizations cannot abuse their immense power to censor people and do evil like that.

No offense David but your post is akin to telling people to not associate with or talk to a murderer, if they disapprove of what he does, namely murder. This is plain stupid. It is NOT enough to merely not associate with or talk to a murderer. We must actively seek to bring him to justice. It's the same principle.

Question for you david: do you think it's OK for facebook, twitter etc to use their special relationship with the government to censor people? Yes or no.

If what they're doing is legal in a court of law, yes.
 

wan

Well-known member
If what they're doing is legal in a court of law, yes.

So you are essentially telling me that you let laws dictate morality to you, david. If the laws say something is ok, that makes it ok in your book. Is this what you are telling me, david? That you think censorship is fine, as long as the law allows it?

Several hundred years ago, slavery used to be legal. The laws said slavery was OK. Do you see where I am going with this, David?
 

david starling

Well-known member
So you are essentially telling me that you let laws dictate morality to you, david. If the laws say something is ok, that makes it ok in your book. Is this what you are telling me, david? That you think censorship is fine, as long as the law allows it?

Several hundred years ago, slavery used to be legal. The laws said slavery was OK. Do you see where I am going with this, David?

Fact-checking doesn't matter to you? From what I can see, they're censoring false claims, especially if they could lead to violence. That's okay with me.
 
Last edited:
Top