Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

South_Mountaineer said:
The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 
...

 that's our nan!

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  

Did you read the MJ report? Did MJ say that the Federal Reserve video was monetized?

Can I tell that Corbett is FOS within 2 minutes?

What's happening on YT is kind of serious as it is radicalizing a significant part of the population with severely delusional b.s.
oh - and shows us where MJ is supporting censorship. The article is about how people are gaming the recommendation algorithms.

 Yes, I read the MJ report.  They present the Federal Reserve video and Corbet unfairly as though it were some nutty, antisemitic, right-wing conspiracy theory:

If you search for “Federal Reserve” on YouTube, one of the first videos to surface is titled “Century of Enslavement.” Using archival footage and the kind of authoritative male voice heard in countless historical documentaries, the 90-minute video espouses the idea the Federal Reserve was formed in secret by powerful, often Jewish, banking families in the early 20th century, causing America to spiral into debt. 

With over 1.6 million views, the video is categorized as “News and Politics.” It was created by a channel called the Corbett Report, which also boasts documentaries touting conspiracy theories, including that 9/11 was staged by the US government and that global warming is a hoax. Watching the video quickly leads users down a rabbit hole of “recommended videos” that detail Illuminati conspiracy theories and blame Israel for 9/11. 

I have been watching the Federal Reserve video and searching through the transcript and so far have not found any reference to "Jews," or "Jewish," or "Illuminati." He is critical of the 9/11 report, although have not had time to look into if he thinks it was staged, but I could not find anywhere he said global warming was a hoax.  He did an anti-propaganda piece on the famous National Geographic starving polar bear video which was misrepresented in the media.  I did not even know this video was a fake climate change picture, so I was grateful to Corbett for informing me. Corbett offers documentation on all of his claims, so, while you might not agree with him, he is not the typical windbag far out there loony, MJ wants you to think.  He's not even right-wing from what I can tell, although MJ lumps him in with them.  I think MJ should issue and apology to Corbett and rethink what the are doing as supposedly fair journalism.  

So, Corbet is an example of how we cannot trust MJ or YouTube to censor for fake news.  Cause here we have MJ creating fake news of their own to smear a contributor.

And they do support censorship.  In the interview with Becca Lewis, go-to "expert."

BL: Up until now these platforms have largely been given carte blanche; they have evaded regulation to a large extent. So even the shifting nature of the conversation, the fact these platforms are now facing pressure externally, is a promising sign. Even though you could debate how much actually came out of the congressional hearings, I think it’s a promising sign that they have started. In terms of talking about solutions, we need to be approaching these problems from multiple tracks. I absolutely think reassessing the algorithms [that surface extremist content] is one step that needs to be taken. Assessing what government regulation options are available is absolutely worthwhile, and then thinking about how YouTube monetization structures incentivize certain behaviors is something that needs to be done. It needs to be a multi-pronged solution.

She is saying these platforms have had a free run and that is a bad thing.  She thinks it is good they are facing pressure.  She is in favor of congressional hearings.  She proposes censorship algorithms and demonetization.  She is in favor of censorship.

jamie said:

nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  

AGAIN - please stop using nutjobs to make a point:

James Corbett is an anarcho-capitalist youtuber and conspiracy theorist. Seen by some to be an indie "new journalist" accused of being Russian propaganda fake news.  Others are less enamored. He claims to analyze, deconstruct, re-contextualize, and clarify Western propaganda in The Corbett Report, YouTube, Global Research TV and other shows and websites such as ex-FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post, NewsBud, and occasional events.

The Corbett Report
Supported by donations, subscriptions, and open source journalism, James Corbett discusses statism, 9-11 conspiracy theories, chemtrails, climate change denial and anti-dogma conspiracies that mainstream media would never discuss, as well as making claims about Obama's NWO.

In addition to the history of oil, power, and economics, alleged false flag events like the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Operation Gladio,. James Corbett claims to detail scandalous corruption, injustices, and expose conspiracies, psy-ops, black-ops, and the covert "deep-state secret", "ghost politics", globalist control, and domination agendas of the New World Order advocating a "revolution of the mind" to counter-cultural brainwashing dogmas to ultimately foil all centralized governments' monopolistic use of violence.

This guy is another one that RT will prop up to no end.  He's probably a regular on "Fault Lines".

 As I've explained to you before, James Corbett is not affiliated with RT.  He is independent journalist.  He has been on Fault LInes, but not regularly, as have many other non-Russian affiliated people.   

drummerboy said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 
...

 that's our nan!

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

nan said:

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

You weren’t.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 
...

 that's our nan!

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

 I read the article. Didn't watch the video. Doubt I'm missing anything. 

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 
...

 that's our nan!

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

 I read the article. Didn't watch the video. Doubt I'm missing anything. 

 You are missing the call for censorship, which you said was not there.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

You weren’t.

 I was referring to the other two, not you.

nan said:

 I was referring to the other two, not you.

Yup. You still weren’t. 

nan said:

You are missing the call for censorship, which you said was not there.

 You have an expansive view of what censorship entails:

She is saying these platforms have had a free run and that is a bad thing.  She thinks it is good they are facing pressure.  She is in favor of congressional hearings.  She proposes censorship algorithms and demonetization.  She is in favor of censorship.

is this still an Assange thread - or more of a anti-MSM thread?  Might have to rename the subforum to include threads like these.

jamie said:
is this still an Assange thread - or more of a anti-MSM thread?  Might have to rename the subforum to include threads like these.

 Like every other long thread, it sometimes veers off into related topics.  The Censorship topic is closely related to Assange and I continue to post articles on Assange as well.  But, other threads, that act the same way do not get threatened with relegation to the sub-basement and name changing. 

jamie said:
is this still an Assange thread - or more of a anti-MSM thread?  Might have to rename the subforum to include threads like these.

Excellent idea.     

End of the month.   

Let's start October right by welcoming this to the subforum. 

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 
...

 that's our nan!

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

 I read the article. Didn't watch the video. Doubt I'm missing anything. 

 You are missing the call for censorship, which you said was not there.

 The article isn't supporting censorship. 

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 
...

 that's our nan!

 Based on comments by drummerboy and South_Mountaineer I think I'm the only one who read the article.

 I read the article. Didn't watch the video. Doubt I'm missing anything. 

 You are missing the call for censorship, which you said was not there.

 The article isn't supporting censorship. 

 It is and I already explained that about 11 short posts behind the troll.

nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  

 The article describes how videos like this get suggested on YouTube, based on what the viewer is watching. I think that's what the algorithms do, that they're discussing. So, how did this come to your attention, @nan? What were you watching or reading that resulted in your seeing this?

nan said:

And they do support censorship.  In the interview with Becca Lewis, go-to "expert."

BL: Up until now these platforms have largely been given carte blanche; they have evaded regulation to a large extent. So even the shifting nature of the conversation, the fact these platforms are now facing pressure externally, is a promising sign. Even though you could debate how much actually came out of the congressional hearings, I think it’s a promising sign that they have started. In terms of talking about solutions, we need to be approaching these problems from multiple tracks. I absolutely think reassessing the algorithms [that surface extremist content] is one step that needs to be taken. Assessing what government regulation options are available is absolutely worthwhile, and then thinking about how YouTube monetization structures incentivize certain behaviors is something that needs to be done. It needs to be a multi-pronged solution.

She is saying these platforms have had a free run and that is a bad thing.  She thinks it is good they are facing pressure.  She is in favor of congressional hearings.  She proposes censorship algorithms and demonetization.  She is in favor of censorship.
  

that is a complete mis-read of what she said. 

What part advocates censorship?

I'm surprised you don't see the basic problem with YT's model.  The main problem with the MSM is that they're profit-driven. Take out profits and we'd have a much better media. The profit motive similarly skews YT. With YT it's not necessary that profits be removed - but it may very well be necessary to modify the recommendation algorithms so that the info that is delivered doesn't contain so much crap.

Surprised you're on the side of big corporate Google on this.

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  

 The article describes how videos like this get suggested on YouTube, based on what the viewer is watching. I think that's what the algorithms do, that they're discussing. So, how did this come to your attention, @nan? What were you watching or reading that resulted in your seeing this?

 You are avoiding my point.  The article features an interview with an "expert" on controlling censorship, and she has strong opinions on ways to accomplish that:

BL: Up until now these platforms have largely been given carte blanche; they have evaded regulation to a large extent. So even the shifting nature of the conversation, the fact these platforms are now facing pressure externally, is a promising sign. Even though you could debate how much actually came out of the congressional hearings, I think it’s a promising sign that they have started. In terms of talking about solutions, we need to be approaching these problems from multiple tracks. I absolutely think reassessing the algorithms [that surface extremist content] is one step that needs to be taken. Assessing what government regulation options are available is absolutely worthwhile, and then thinking about how YouTube monetization structures incentivize certain behaviors is something that needs to be done. It needs to be a multi-pronged solution.

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  

 The article describes how videos like this get suggested on YouTube, based on what the viewer is watching. I think that's what the algorithms do, that they're discussing. So, how did this come to your attention, @nan? What were you watching or reading that resulted in your seeing this?

 You are avoiding my point.  The article features an interview with an "expert" on controlling censorship, and she has strong opinions on ways to accomplish that:

BL: Up until now these platforms have largely been given carte blanche; they have evaded regulation to a large extent. So even the shifting nature of the conversation, the fact these platforms are now facing pressure externally, is a promising sign. Even though you could debate how much actually came out of the congressional hearings, I think it’s a promising sign that they have started. In terms of talking about solutions, we need to be approaching these problems from multiple tracks. I absolutely think reassessing the algorithms [that surface extremist content] is one step that needs to be taken. Assessing what government regulation options are available is absolutely worthwhile, and then thinking about how YouTube monetization structures incentivize certain behaviors is something that needs to be done. It needs to be a multi-pronged solution.

 My question was related to the topic. As I mentioned, I already read the article. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

And they do support censorship.  In the interview with Becca Lewis, go-to "expert."

BL: Up until now these platforms have largely been given carte blanche; they have evaded regulation to a large extent. So even the shifting nature of the conversation, the fact these platforms are now facing pressure externally, is a promising sign. Even though you could debate how much actually came out of the congressional hearings, I think it’s a promising sign that they have started. In terms of talking about solutions, we need to be approaching these problems from multiple tracks. I absolutely think reassessing the algorithms [that surface extremist content] is one step that needs to be taken. Assessing what government regulation options are available is absolutely worthwhile, and then thinking about how YouTube monetization structures incentivize certain behaviors is something that needs to be done. It needs to be a multi-pronged solution.

She is saying these platforms have had a free run and that is a bad thing.  She thinks it is good they are facing pressure.  She is in favor of congressional hearings.  She proposes censorship algorithms and demonetization.  She is in favor of censorship.
  

that is a complete mis-read of what she said. 
What part advocates censorship?

I'm surprised you don't see the basic problem with YT's model.  The main problem with the MSM is that they're profit-driven. Take out profits and we'd have a much better media. The profit motive similarly skews YT. With YT it's not necessary that profits be removed - but it may very well be necessary to modify the recommendation algorithms so that the info that is delivered doesn't contain so much crap.
Surprised you're on the side of big corporate Google on this.

 If there is a "mis-read" it falls on you.   She is against platforms having "carte blanche" which is given to CNN/MSNBC/FOX despite the propaganda they spew (and sometimes have to apologize for).  She advocates for putting "pressure" on them through monetary means (starving them to death).  She looks for a "multi-pronged" solution.  

This is not a person standing up for free speech.

nan said:

 If there is a "mis-read" it falls on you.   She is against platforms having "carte blanche" which is given to CNN/MSNBC/FOX despite the propaganda they spew (and sometimes have to apologize for).  She advocates for putting "pressure" on them through monetary means (starving them to death).  She looks for a "multi-pronged" solution.  
This is not a person standing up for free speech.

Just to be clear - you are completely cool with Google totally controlling what we are presented with  so that they can maximize their profits? With no form of regulation?

drummerboy said:

nan said:

 If there is a "mis-read" it falls on you.   She is against platforms having "carte blanche" which is given to CNN/MSNBC/FOX despite the propaganda they spew (and sometimes have to apologize for).  She advocates for putting "pressure" on them through monetary means (starving them to death).  She looks for a "multi-pronged" solution.  
This is not a person standing up for free speech.

Just to be clear - you are completely cool with Google totally controlling what we are presented with  so that they can maximize their profits? With no form of regulation?

 

 How is this helping Google to "maximize their profit?"  To maximize their profit they show us ads and we click on them.  There are plenty of people who will click on "Political Extremist" sites.  This is not about profit.  It's about censorship. 

 V

Who knew that Alex Jones was simply taking swipes at public officials?

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

 If there is a "mis-read" it falls on you.   She is against platforms having "carte blanche" which is given to CNN/MSNBC/FOX despite the propaganda they spew (and sometimes have to apologize for).  She advocates for putting "pressure" on them through monetary means (starving them to death).  She looks for a "multi-pronged" solution.  
This is not a person standing up for free speech.

Just to be clear - you are completely cool with Google totally controlling what we are presented with  so that they can maximize their profits? With no form of regulation?

 

 How is this helping Google to "maximize their profit?"  To maximize their profit they show us ads and we click on them.  There are plenty of people who will click on "Political Extremist" sites.  This is not about profit.  It's about censorship. 

 well, at least we know that you don't know how youtube works. They don't merely show you ads. They recommend videos for you to watch, based on who knows what. And it's that recommendation algorithm which is at the heart of this dispute.

Which, by the way, you haven't even mentioned - even though it's the whole point of the MJ piece. Which you said you read.

Why do some of you have to quote all or most of the prior posts when replying. It makes this thread very hard to read.

Is it a tactic to keep ridski away?

The algorithms which are at the heart of most social media platforms have contributed more to the division of our country then any other medium - including Trump and the MSM.

drummerboy said:
 well, at least we know that you don't know how youtube works. They don't merely show you ads. They recommend videos for you to watch, based on who knows what. And it's that recommendation algorithm which is at the heart of this dispute.
Which, by the way, you haven't even mentioned - even though it's the whole point of the MJ piece. Which you said you read.

 Which is why I asked how @nan found this guy and his video, because I thought that was relevant to the topic. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

 If there is a "mis-read" it falls on you.   She is against platforms having "carte blanche" which is given to CNN/MSNBC/FOX despite the propaganda they spew (and sometimes have to apologize for).  She advocates for putting "pressure" on them through monetary means (starving them to death).  She looks for a "multi-pronged" solution.  
This is not a person standing up for free speech.

Just to be clear - you are completely cool with Google totally controlling what we are presented with  so that they can maximize their profits? With no form of regulation?

 

 How is this helping Google to "maximize their profit?"  To maximize their profit they show us ads and we click on them.  There are plenty of people who will click on "Political Extremist" sites.  This is not about profit.  It's about censorship. 

 well, at least we know that you don't know how youtube works. They don't merely show you ads. They recommend videos for you to watch, based on who knows what. And it's that recommendation algorithm which is at the heart of this dispute.
Which, by the way, you haven't even mentioned - even though it's the whole point of the MJ piece. Which you said you read.

Yes, they want you to click on things. We agree on that. But how does censorship help them with clicking?

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
How is this helping Google to "maximize their profit?"  To maximize their profit they show us ads and we click on them.  There are plenty of people who will click on "Political Extremist" sites.  This is not about profit.  It's about censorship. 

 well, at least we know that you don't know how youtube works. They don't merely show you ads. They recommend videos for you to watch, based on who knows what. And it's that recommendation algorithm which is at the heart of this dispute.
Which, by the way, you haven't even mentioned - even though it's the whole point of the MJ piece. Which you said you read.

Yes, they want you to click on things. We agree on that. But how does censorship help them with clicking?

"Censorship" would be removing the videos.  Nothing in the article says "remove the videos".

The people who make these videos get free advertising when their videos get recommended to viewers.  That's what all the algorithm talk was all about.  Google earns advertising money when people watch these videos, and the video makers get an audience and some advertising dollars as well.  

For example, how did you come across the video you posted, which you had watched (earning ad money for Google and the maker) and basically shared and promoted (providing more opportunity for ad money for Google and the maker)?

Post edited to add - And I know that if I watch the video, Google will make a note on that, and I'm likely to get suggestions for more right-wing conspiracy garbage, and I'm not interested in that ****.