Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as YT goes, whatever internal rules/TOS agreements they are using to justify their actions with regard to Jones, they need to be applying those rules/agreements to everyone who posts videos. And those rules should be clear to all users right from the getgo.
Not at all. You really expect, out of billions of people in the world of all ages, intelligence levels, literacy rates, legal training and common sense...that these "rules" would be clear to ALL of them.
I'm not aware of any such laws. There may be laws that certain insurance contracts and real estate contracts have to be clear to a layman, but I am not aware that the terms of service on a free (or other) site need to be.
Could you please cite your reasoning?
I moderated (started, ran and then oversaw a team of about 8) a BIG site for 18 years. We deleted content and banned users at the drop of a hat. No reason needed. Never needed one....they can still read the site. The public can still find out how to fix their dishwashers.
Back to the Disney rule...and common sense...and common decency. If someone walks into Disney World smelling like poop from 20 feet away they are likely to be confronted by management. If they walk in with ripped clothes showing a bra and more....they are likely for same. If a 350 lb guy walks into Disney world wearing a thong, same deal...likely to get a talking too.
There are literally thousands of different situations which all come under the heading of "this is not the kind of stuff we want here" and they are all up to the "moderators". Disney may refund their money..that's the only difference.
You can't really be thinking this through. Is Netflix or Amazon Prime Video REQUIRED to host video content by ANY AND ALL "producers" using the same rules...or do they get to pick and choose based on their own "feelings" as to what they want the site to be?
Obviously the later.
I am just going to have to assume that now we are a generation or two into online behavior and the current populace simply doesn't know the basics. Instead they are perpetual victims and spoiled rotten to the point where they fell that "Hey, he makes money from YouTube so therefore I can make money from Youtube even if they don't want me to".
In a sense I'm flabbergasted that this even needs to be explained.
Taking this out to the illogical conclusion...let's say some idiots take this to the SCOTUS. If such idiots win, then it DOES mean I can do my political or other speeches inside Disney, produce shows on Netflix and force Bezos to publish my new "here is my racist opinion" documentary.
In fact, any such "victories" in these matters are likely to backfire on "conservatives"...because they will be opening up every Echo Chamber to a flood of liberal content which they will be forced to publish...AND, maybe even pay us for doing so.
It seems so simple. There are literally 100's of sites right now where any hater, bigot, attention seeker, anarchists, caveman, racist, nationalist or hippie can go and "publish" all that they want.
The only issue here is that a particular crown wants the MONEY (that is, the free audience) which was built up with corporate money. As a google stockholder I don't want that.....
You are effectively saying that the Chinese Government and Putin should have full access to American Youtube and get paid for the ads placed on their videos and be able to say ANYTHING they want...in the history of the world I have never heard of such a thing. He who owns the radio station or newspaper decides...that's called "curating"
So the bottom line is that some of you are just fine with extremist views, hate speech and anti semitism in the media. Do you share these views or are you totally clueless about the kind of damage this does to a civilized society.
YouTube is private company and can determine what content is acceptable. Anyone in this country can stand on a street corner and spew out whatever nonsense they wish and accept the consequences. You can stand in a crowded theatre and yell fire but in the end you’ll be held accountable.
I'm a very liberal person but I believe in free speech, even if I disagree with whatever is being said and the sentiments are personally grotesque and despicable to me. However, YouTube is a private company as are Facebook, Twitter, and many others. So if they want to censor hate speech, love speech, or anything at all, that is their right. They might lose viewers (probably very few,) but that is ultimately their decision.
My concern is in the definition. What is "hate speech?" What exactly is an "extremist view?" How exactly is that defined? And who determines this? And will the definition broaden further the more YouTube and other companies choose to censor unpopular opinions?
Youtube officially demonetized him for the use of the term F#%gs on the shirt which was a thinly veiled slur, which as I already stated was against TOS for AdSense.
What he said in the videos somehow skirted the TOS, he made the Copy Cat killer argument.
" I didnt tell them to kill people in my name, I just told them to fight for what I believe is right."(in the context of Doxing Maza)
YouTube was created to allow individuals a platform to speak their own minds. It's the backbone of the channel.
???? Really? You think YT was started as a charity??????
YT was created to attract users, which in turn attracts advertisers. It's advertisers (and investors who expect a return) who pay for the extensive internet infrastructure. Not the folks who post the videos, not the users who watch the videos, not the government, and not some extremely rich fairy godmother.
You don't seem to understand how this capitalism thingy works.
Not at all. You really expect, out of billions of people in the world of all ages, intelligence levels, literacy rates, legal training and common sense...that these "rules" would be clear to ALL of them.
I'm not aware of any such laws. There may be laws that certain insurance contracts and real estate contracts have to be clear to a layman, but I am not aware that the terms of service on a free (or other) site need to be.
Could you please cite your reasoning?
I moderated (started, ran and then oversaw a team of about 8) a BIG site for 18 years. We deleted content and banned users at the drop of a hat. No reason needed. Never needed one....they can still read the site. The public can still find out how to fix their dishwashers.
Back to the Disney rule...and common sense...and common decency. If someone walks into Disney World smelling like poop from 20 feet away they are likely to be confronted by management. If they walk in with ripped clothes showing a bra and more....they are likely for same. If a 350 lb guy walks into Disney world wearing a thong, same deal...likely to get a talking too.
There are literally thousands of different situations which all come under the heading of "this is not the kind of stuff we want here" and they are all up to the "moderators". Disney may refund their money..that's the only difference.
You can't really be thinking this through. Is Netflix or Amazon Prime Video REQUIRED to host video content by ANY AND ALL "producers" using the same rules...or do they get to pick and choose based on their own "feelings" as to what they want the site to be?
Obviously the later.
I am just going to have to assume that now we are a generation or two into online behavior and the current populace simply doesn't know the basics. Instead they are perpetual victims and spoiled rotten to the point where they fell that "Hey, he makes money from YouTube so therefore I can make money from Youtube even if they don't want me to".
In a sense I'm flabbergasted that this even needs to be explained.
Taking this out to the illogical conclusion...let's say some idiots take this to the SCOTUS. If such idiots win, then it DOES mean I can do my political or other speeches inside Disney, produce shows on Netflix and force Bezos to publish my new "here is my racist opinion" documentary.
In fact, any such "victories" in these matters are likely to backfire on "conservatives"...because they will be opening up every Echo Chamber to a flood of liberal content which they will be forced to publish...AND, maybe even pay us for doing so.
It seems so simple. There are literally 100's of sites right now where any hater, bigot, attention seeker, anarchists, caveman, racist, nationalist or hippie can go and "publish" all that they want.
The only issue here is that a particular crown wants the MONEY (that is, the free audience) which was built up with corporate money. As a google stockholder I don't want that.....
You are effectively saying that the Chinese Government and Putin should have full access to American Youtube and get paid for the ads placed on their videos and be able to say ANYTHING they want...in the history of the world I have never heard of such a thing. He who owns the radio station or newspaper decides...that's called "curating"
And that is the end of the story.
I'm not sure how you could read my previous posts and write what you've written about me, but oh well.
Google CEO: YouTube Will Begin Targeting 'Content Which Doesn't Exactly Violate Policies'
Quote:
A day after acknowledging that his videos did not violate its policies, YouTube decided to demonetize all of conservative comedian and commentator Steven Crowder's videos in response to a left-wing Vox employee complaining that Crowder repeatedly made fun of him because of his identity. On the same day, YouTube announced a mass ban on all content promoting one group as superior to another "in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.
Quote:
Pichai then offered a definition of what he means by "borderline content." "Content which doesn't exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm," he said, in language echoing YouTube's statement to Crowder days later.
The issue is "a hard computer science problem," said Pichai, but an even harder "societal problem because we need better frameworks around what is hate speech, what’s not, and how do we as a company make those decisions at scale, and get it right without making mistakes."
It's easier to ban people when your policies are vague.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Google CEO: YouTube Will Begin Targeting 'Content Which Doesn't Exactly Violate Policies'
