Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:Censorship is more than just removing the videos. It can be overt or covert and in various degrees. Ideally everyone has the same access to express their ideas. If you are demonetizing videos, you are taking away someone's living. It's like when they place sanctions on a country and kill a bunch of people through starvation rather than bombs. The algorithms are manipulated to favor mainstream news sources. I get notification about CNN videos even though I don't subscribe to them. On the other hand, I don't always get notification for the videos that I do subscribe. Many of these sources, such as Jimmy Dore, comment that they get feedback from subscribers that they get unsubscribed and don't get notified. These are all ways that the media controls the narrative and they are part of censorship because they are at least partially removing the videos or making them harder to find. On MOL, we have censorship because some videos were placed where they much less likely to be seen or "discovered." by regular board readers.
"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 ****.
Some video makers have used the YouTube methods of operation to their advantage. They crowd out other video makers, who might not be as inflammatory but are more informative. It's not "censorship" of those other video makers, if that happens. And it's not "censorship" if the YouTube methods of operation are revised in a way that those video makers who gamed the system in their favor are unable to do that in the future.
"Ideally everyone has the same access to express their ideas." And they can still post on YouTube. Nothing in the article says that these video makers should be "demonetized" -- the person being interviewed doesn't propose that, even when the word "demonetized" is in a question she is asked.
You probably get notification about videos you don't subscribe to because of some sort of sponsorship. If you're on Twitter, you get "promoted tweets" of users you don't follow.
If someone is having problems with their Jimmy Dore subscriptions, the answer is not likely to be censorship. There was some right-winger who complained that Twitter was censoring Laura Ingraham, and he posted a picture of that "censorship". It turned out that what he posted was a picture of the Twitter notice that, because of his "content settings", he had chosen the one that limits content based on language. The guy was mocked because he was complaining, but he had censored himself.
So folks should check their settings. YouTube has some pointers --
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3382248?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en
It all seems so arbitrary, right? So it must be true that THEY are trying to censor people.
Let's take this video.
This video is monetized and spends a full hour telling us all about Nibiru - Planet X - and the Nibirians, AKA the Annunaki, an ancient race of God-like giants, who came from there originally and created Earth and ruled over us. And they will return to do so again, in fact some of them walk among us now in disguise manipulating bloodlines and events to affect their will upon us. Planet X's existence has been hidden from us by NASA.
But this 10 minute video which says the same thing was supposedly banned before and the author's channel demonetized.
Why? Enki and Enlil are discussed in both videos, the first video proves that NASA is censoring all pictures that include Nibiru, and yet it still has advertising and hasn't been banned from YouTube when the second one apparently isn't allowed advertising and may be banned again. Surely the channel the first video is posted on, which also contains an hour-long documentary about Annunaki technology discovered in ancient Sumarian archaeological sites and other places all over the world, which has nearly half a million views and is monetized and has been allowed to stay there since May 2017 should have been banned? This is important information which THEY don't want you to know. It's secret, governments work to hide it, and it goes against EVERYTHING the MSM will tell you about so-called Sumerian "myths". Julian Assange is looking in all the wrong places with his truth-finding. The truth is right here, and even he's hiding it from you.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:Some video makers have used the YouTube methods of operation to their advantage. They crowd out other video makers, who might not be as inflammatory but are more informative. It's not "censorship" of those other video makers, if that happens. And it's not "censorship" if the YouTube methods of operation are revised in a way that those video makers who gamed the system in their favor are unable to do that in the future.
South_Mountaineer said:Censorship is more than just removing the videos. It can be overt or covert and in various degrees. Ideally everyone has the same access to express their ideas. If you are demonetizing videos, you are taking away someone's living. It's like when they place sanctions on a country and kill a bunch of people through starvation rather than bombs. The algorithms are manipulated to favor mainstream news sources. I get notification about CNN videos even though I don't subscribe to them. On the other hand, I don't always get notification for the videos that I do subscribe. Many of these sources, such as Jimmy Dore, comment that they get feedback from subscribers that they get unsubscribed and don't get notified. These are all ways that the media controls the narrative and they are part of censorship because they are at least partially removing the videos or making them harder to find. On MOL, we have censorship because some videos were placed where they much less likely to be seen or "discovered." by regular board readers.
"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 ****.
"Ideally everyone has the same access to express their ideas." And they can still post on YouTube. Nothing in the article says that these video makers should be "demonetized" -- the person being interviewed doesn't propose that, even when the word "demonetized" is in a question she is asked.
You probably get notification about videos you don't subscribe to because of some sort of sponsorship. If you're on Twitter, you get "promoted tweets" of users you don't follow.
If someone is having problems with their Jimmy Dore subscriptions, the answer is not likely to be censorship. There was some right-winger who complained that Twitter was censoring Laura Ingraham, and he posted a picture of that "censorship". It turned out that what he posted was a picture of the Twitter notice that, because of his "content settings", he had chosen the one that limits content based on language. The guy was mocked because he was complaining, but he had censored himself.
So folks should check their settings. YouTube has some pointers --
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3382248?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en
Ok, I will post FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME, an excerpt from the article you accused me of not reading:
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 talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
ridski said:
It all seems so arbitrary, right? So it must be true that THEY are trying to censor people.
Let's take this video.
This video is monetized and spends a full hour telling us all about Nibiru - Planet X - and the Nibirians, AKA the Annunaki, an ancient race of God-like giants, who came from there originally and created Earth and ruled over us. And they will return to do so again, in fact some of them walk among us now in disguise manipulating bloodlines and events to affect their will upon us. Planet X's existence has been hidden from us by NASA.
But this 10 minute video which says the same thing was supposedly banned before and the author's channel demonetized.Why? Enki and Enlil are discussed in both videos, the first video proves that NASA is censoring all pictures that include Nibiru, and yet it still has advertising and hasn't been banned from YouTube when the second one apparently isn't allowed advertising and may be banned again. Surely the channel the first video is posted on, which also contains an hour-long documentary about Annunaki technology discovered in ancient Sumarian archaeological sites and other places all over the world, which has nearly half a million views and is monetized and has been allowed to stay there since May 2017 should have been banned? This is important information which THEY don't want you to know. It's secret, governments work to hide it, and it goes against EVERYTHING the MSM will tell you about so-called Sumerian "myths". Julian Assange is looking in all the wrong places with his truth-finding. The truth is right here, and even he's hiding it from you.
This is wacky stuff, but it's not political in the sense that it does not seriously challenge elite power structures. Although it mentions NASA, it is not about any current war or weapons manufacturer or sought after natural resource. This is not about the US funding terrorists, or expanding the drone war to Niger, or being after oil in the Middle East. The one that got flagged probably because it mentioned NASA (and maybe they missed the NASA connection in the other one) or who knows. Neither should be censored or demonitised, at least from what I read which was what you posted (no interest). Also, the people left working at NASA in the Trump administration might consider the uncensored one true.
nan said:
Ok, I will post FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME, an excerpt from the article you accused me of not reading:
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 talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
nan said:Ok, I will post FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME, an excerpt from the article you accused me of not reading:
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 talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
This started with your claim: "Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship"
There's still nothing showing Mother Jones supporting censorship. You're not even finding quotes that you can claim are a position on behalf of Mother Jones supporting censorship. Whether you read the article before you made the claim, or only after you started talking about it from the video, doesn't matter.
As for what the person in the interview said, I can't improve on what I already wrote. You don't seem to understand what they mean by "the algorithms" or "monetization structures", so trying to explain (again) in response to you that she hasn't proposed actual censorship wouldn't be worth the effort.
ridski said:
It all seems so arbitrary, right? So it must be true that THEY are trying to censor people.
Let's take this video.
This video is monetized and spends a full hour telling us all about Nibiru - Planet X - and the Nibirians, AKA the Annunaki, an ancient race of God-like giants, who came from there originally and created Earth and ruled over us. And they will return to do so again, in fact some of them walk among us now in disguise manipulating bloodlines and events to affect their will upon us. Planet X's existence has been hidden from us by NASA.
But this 10 minute video which says the same thing was supposedly banned before and the author's channel demonetized.Why? Enki and Enlil are discussed in both videos, the first video proves that NASA is censoring all pictures that include Nibiru, and yet it still has advertising and hasn't been banned from YouTube when the second one apparently isn't allowed advertising and may be banned again. Surely the channel the first video is posted on, which also contains an hour-long documentary about Annunaki technology discovered in ancient Sumarian archaeological sites and other places all over the world, which has nearly half a million views and is monetized and has been allowed to stay there since May 2017 should have been banned? This is important information which THEY don't want you to know. It's secret, governments work to hide it, and it goes against EVERYTHING the MSM will tell you about so-called Sumerian "myths". Julian Assange is looking in all the wrong places with his truth-finding. The truth is right here, and even he's hiding it from you.
Thanks a lot. I clicked on those to see what you were describing. Now I'm getting more suggestions o YouTube for video rants about ancient astronauts. Those are even worse than Jimmy Dore productions.
drummerboy said:
nan said:I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
Ok, I will post FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME, an excerpt from the article you accused me of not reading:
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 talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
Right, I guess what I cut and pasted from the article is just in my head only:
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.
I must be just making it up or maybe I posses secret powers that can read the words, "monetization," "these platforms are now facing pressure externally, is a promising sign." and "reassessing the algorithms." Of course a simpleton would demand concrete evidence, such as a blatent,"I support censorship and think we should ban these videos and demonetize them." A more intelligent response could handle the way professional people craft their words while still understanding what they are talking about. But some people, perhaps limited to concrete understandings of text, just resort to personal attacks.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:Ok, I will post FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME, an excerpt from the article you accused me of not reading:This started with your claim: "Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship"
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 talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
There's still nothing showing Mother Jones supporting censorship. You're not even finding quotes that you can claim are a position on behalf of Mother Jones supporting censorship. Whether you read the article before you made the claim, or only after you started talking about it from the video, doesn't matter.
As for what the person in the interview said, I can't improve on what I already wrote. You don't seem to understand what they mean by "the algorithms" or "monetization structures", so trying to explain (again) in response to you that she hasn't proposed actual censorship wouldn't be worth the effort.
Mother Jones published an article which featured an "expert" who endorsed censorship. Of course the magazine did not proclaim, "We support censorship." I'm sure that would not look good for them. But, they don't realize or care that a featured article does not look good for them and I'm glad some people are speaking out on that. I thought the Corbett guy made an excellent response.
limited to concrete understandings of text
bwahahahahahahaha
that sure explains a lot.
====================================
Do you understand that simply by writing sets of words next to each other, you do not create logical connection between them?
nan said:
She is talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
and then, magically connecting to
nan said:
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
so therefore - talk of changing algorithms is censorship.
govt. regs. is censorship.
monetization is censorship.
hokeydokey
My earlier point stands.
drummerboy said:
limited to concrete understandings of text
bwahahahahahahaha
that sure explains a lot.
====================================
Do you understand that simply by writing sets of words next to each other, you do not create logical connection between them?
nan said:and then, magically connecting to
She is talking about changing the algorithms. She is talking about government regulations. She is talking about monetization.
nan said:so therefore - talk of changing algorithms is censorship.
She is talking about censorship. Comprende?
govt. regs. is censorship.
monetization is censorship.
hokeydokey
My earlier point stands.
Yes, these are some of the ways they implement censorship. My earlier point stands.
nan said:
Yes, these are some of the ways they implement censorship. My earlier point stands.
At one point in this thread, you denounced libel laws as censorship. As I said, you have an expansive view of the concept. Not everyone shares it.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:At one point in this thread, you denounced libel laws as censorship. As I said, you have an expansive view of the concept. Not everyone shares it.
Yes, these are some of the ways they implement censorship. My earlier point stands.
No, you misunderstood my view. Not arguing against libel laws.
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter. That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?
South_Mountaineer said:
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter. That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?
Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)
Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech
nan said:This is wacky stuff, but it's not political in the sense that it does not seriously challenge elite power structures. Although it mentions NASA, it is not about any current war or weapons manufacturer or sought after natural resource. This is not about the US funding terrorists, or expanding the drone war to Niger, or being after oil in the Middle East. The one that got flagged probably because it mentioned NASA (and maybe they missed the NASA connection in the other one) or who knows. Neither should be censored or demonitised, at least from what I read which was what you posted (no interest). Also, the people left working at NASA in the Trump administration might consider the uncensored one true.
It's not wacky at all to those who believe it. Let's take a look at this thread from Sara Ashcraft, who goes even further beyond the Annunaki and delves into the Hivites, tying them directly to global terrorism, the Deep State and the New World Order. There are hashtags to look out for buried in this essay, including #hivitesgetlit, which is propogated by Qanon followers across Twitter, Instagram and Reddit. It's often mentioned in posts also tagged wwg1wga, posts that mention The Great Awakening, and right now we are at the beginning of Red October.
Anti hivites, and Qanon are Trump cultists, and they are mobilizing. The cannibalism and pedophilia they accuse hivites of committing fits perfectly into the Pizzagate theory - of course the Demon Rats are running a pedophilia ring from a DC pizza parlor basement, because they're all hivites, that's what they do. This, of course led to a man driving from North Carolina to DC to confront the pizza parlor with an AR-15.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/929089870211026944.html
To the larger point, as south_mountaineer says, now that he has watched that youtube clip, loads more films about Annunaki and, soon hivites and Pizzagate will start to appear in his recommended watches. Soon, it will start to recommend whole channels of it, and eventually, it will be hard to find anything which isn't QAnon, hivites, docs about Nephilim or lizard creature controlling the halls of our government. The way these algorithms work right now creates a whirlpool of content which can be difficult to extricate yourself from. Within a few curious clicks, you can find yourself being given nothing else to watch.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter. That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?
Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech
How can Facebook be part of the public square if you have to sign up to its service in order to read its content?
ridski said:How can Facebook be part of the public square if you have to sign up to its service in order to read its content?
It can be a complicated question, at least in legal terms. Malls, for instance, are private concerns that you have to drive to yourself if you want to be one of their consumers, yet several free-speech cases claiming their public squaredom have gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:How can Facebook be part of the public square if you have to sign up to its service in order to read its content?
South_Mountaineer said:Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter. That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?
Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech
Here's language in the Supreme Court decision Packingham vs North Carolina that supports the premise that social media is part of the public square:
Held: The North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. Pp. 4–10.
(a) A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. Today, one of the most important places to exchange views is cyberspace, particularly social media, which offers “relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds,” Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 870, to users engaged in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics. The Internet’s forces and directions are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today may be obsolete tomorrow. Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium. . . .
First, while the Court need not decide the statute’s precise scope, it is enough to assume that the law applies to commonplace social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Second, the Court assumes that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly-tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor.
Even with these assumptions, the statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens. Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
No, you misunderstood my view. Not arguing against libel laws.nan said:
I think the libel thing is an excuse to limit free speech.
As usual, you misquote me out of context I am not for breaking libel laws. However, I have heard people try to justify censorship by saying things like "we must do this because of libel laws" when they don't have to do that because of libel laws. It's a way of blaming someone else, kinda like the Democrats do with Russia.
nan said:
As usual, you misquote me out of context I am not for breaking libel laws. However, I have heard people try to justify censorship by saying things like "we must do this because of libel laws" when they don't have to do that because of libel laws. It's a way of blaming someone else, kinda like the Democrats do with Russia.
Your position would carry more weight if you had a working understanding of what libel laws require and prohibit. Do you?
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Your position would carry more weight if you had a working understanding of what libel laws require and prohibit. Do you?
As usual, you misquote me out of context I am not for breaking libel laws. However, I have heard people try to justify censorship by saying things like "we must do this because of libel laws" when they don't have to do that because of libel laws. It's a way of blaming someone else, kinda like the Democrats do with Russia.
My position is theoretical and does not require an understanding of libel laws. I'm against people using them as an excuse when they don't apply. Understanding what they require would be essential for anyone banning videos based on that. I don't have a job like that.
If you have no idea when they apply, you can’t judge when they are or aren’t an excuse. How do you decide, then, which people to be against?
DaveSchmidt said:
If you have no idea when they apply, you can’t judge when they are or aren’t an excuse. How do you decide, then, which people to be against?
Like when is this a problem, given that I don't even have a job censoring websites? Give me an example where I will have no idea how to evaluate a video for appropriate content.
nan said:
Like when is this a problem, given that I don't even have a job censoring websites? Give me an example where I will have no idea how to evaluate a video for appropriate content.
It's an issue, nan, when you instinctively cry "Censorship!" over actions that MSM or websites take to abide by libel laws and the principles behind them, which are beyond your current understanding.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:It's an issue, nan, when you instinctively cry "Censorship!" over actions that MSM or websites take to abide by libel laws and the principles behind them, which are beyond your current understanding.
Like when is this a problem, given that I don't even have a job censoring websites? Give me an example where I will have no idea how to evaluate a video for appropriate content.
I asked for an example, not a personal attack.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Censorship is more than just removing the videos. It can be overt or covert and in various degrees. Ideally everyone has the same access to express their ideas. If you are demonetizing videos, you are taking away someone's living. It's like when they place sanctions on a country and kill a bunch of people through starvation rather than bombs. The algorithms are manipulated to favor mainstream news sources. I get notification about CNN videos even though I don't subscribe to them. On the other hand, I don't always get notification for the videos that I do subscribe. Many of these sources, such as Jimmy Dore, comment that they get feedback from subscribers that they get unsubscribed and don't get notified. These are all ways that the media controls the narrative and they are part of censorship because they are at least partially removing the videos or making them harder to find. On MOL, we have censorship because some videos were placed where they much less likely to be seen or "discovered." by regular board readers.