YouTube announcement on content policies

https://twitter.com/YouTubeInsider/status/1347231471212371970

by edward • 6 years ago

73 128 6 years ago

twitter.com

chasd002• 6 years ago

here it comes, power has changed hands and all mainstream social media is following right along.

It leaves a vacuum though, i bet parler's revenue doubles in 60 days.

vturner• 6 years ago

The impetus to leave these big tech platforms has gone up at least 40% for me. If I want filtered information, the big news players provide that 24/7.

tenpies• 6 years ago

I bet the credit cards, payment processors, and domain registrars all move against Parler within 365 days of Biden's inauguration.

Unfortunately the conventional financial system and regular internet are under the US Liberal control. Their approved narrative dictates who is allowed to use said infrastructure.

FeistyOtter• 6 years ago

On the one hand I understand why YouTube does it. On the other hand, as a Russian citizen, I shudder to think what will happen if russian government asks YouTube the same thing in regards to our election results. Turns out, instead of playing hide and seek with different parties by blocking unwanted information on the internet, all a government has to do is notify YouTube/Facebook/whatever that the "truth is this and this and would you be so kind as to block any kind of misinformation for us, thank you". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

jschwartzi• 6 years ago

Nothing is stopping the Russian government from doing that today, so I don't see why it matters.

I could say the same thing about your ask that YouTube allow a free-for-all on their platform but that's only because I'm witnessing the logical conclusion here in the US. We have to do something different or these events will repeat themselves.

s3tz2• 6 years ago

Maybe the path of least resistance isn't the best answer. This sets a very dangerous precedent.

staplers• 6 years ago

While I do believe we are at a "benevolent dictator" stage of social media, what happened yesterday should be feared by every democratic nation and regardless of the "side" you are on it should be avoided at most costs.

It's quite literally the seeds to fracturing a society.

AgentME3• 6 years ago

This action is YouTube pushing back against government misinformation! Why would you think it's a sign that they're more likely to push government misinformation in the future?

core-questions5• 6 years ago

Zoom out. This action is YouTube controlling the dialogue and acting as though they're the Ministry of Truth.

Here's an amazing suggestion for you: if you don't like someone's opinion, don't watch their videos. Amazing. Super easy to do. Just click that little X button at the top right and move on with your life. No draconian censorship, no 1984 bullshit required. Just walk away.

Adults who can handle contrasting opinions should be allowed to see, read, share, and issue them to their hearts' content. Even if you think they're wrong. It's kind of the whole damned point of free speech, which is being pissed away by childish morons who never understood why people fought and died for it to start with.

im3w1l5• 6 years ago

Youtube is pushing back against the Republicans. They will keep pushing back against Republicans after Biden's inauguration.

disown2• 6 years ago

Did you even read the tweet? It's not youtube pushing back against government misinformation. It's about youtube punishing their users who express "misinformation" or wrongthink. Youtube is doing the opposite of what you are claiming. They are making the government/establishment ( "and given that the election results have now been certified " ) narrative the default narrative that you cannot stray from on youtube.

I swear, the amount of people here blatantly and blindly support everything tech media does is rather interesting. I'd almost say there is a concerted effort here to push a pro-censorship and pro-tech narrative here backed by a political faction.

Oddly enough, you can still say Trump stole 2016 on youtube.

ReedJessen2• 6 years ago

It's a sign they are willing to chill speech they deem to be untrue. They have become the arbiters of truth on their platform.

Negitivefrags• 6 years ago

There is a distinction between the government and the people who are elected and work in the government.

The position of the government is that Trump lost the election.

The position of the sitting president is that he won.

If Trump signed an executive order saying “Actually I won” that would then be him acting as the government, but I suspect that such an order wouldn’t actually succeed and so the position of the government would still, at the end of the day, be Trump losing.

raverbashing• 6 years ago

Let's say your case happens and that there is a case to suspect of election interference and results tampering

The way to make the population aware is not through videos that people "MUST SEE!!11". Or typical manipulative ways of steering the masses.

Of course the winners write history, if they were correct or not is in the end "less important" in some ways and more important in others

cle2• 6 years ago

Indeed, I don't know what the right answer is here. As a civilization, we're struggling to adapt to the sudden fundamental shift in how information flows. I see these things as experiments in ways to mitigate the negative externalities caused by the changes, which to me is a good thing. We should be trying stuff out to see what works. I just fear that we won't be able to understand the blast radius of these experiments and may end up causing something dreadful to happen.

nightski• 6 years ago

I'm going to be honest I wonder if the censorship and content policing isn't having a worse effect than allowing the content in the first place. Tech companies have demonstrated a very clear liberal bias (which in itself isn't a bad thing necessarily). However by removing/censoring content they are actually legitimizing it because people don't see these companies as a neutral third party but rather a biased dictator of information.

I have distant family that has bought into the conspiracy theories. But now that Youtube has started directing traffic away from their channels and putting up these warnings they feel under attack and have only doubled down on their beliefs. It makes it a lot harder to work with them/discuss these issues.

When 49% of the country voted for a man who is currently the sitting president by law, and you can't even retweet his tweets it's pretty upsetting to them. They feel like they are under attack by the Big Tech companies. I know why Twitter did this. But it's only creating far more polarization between the rich people in power (aka Big Tech) and these people.

picardythird• 6 years ago

But Youtube is actually defying the government. It’s the opposite of what you’re saying.

yongjik• 6 years ago

Slippery slope works in both directions. If the president is spreading misinformation on an election he just lost, and if everybody's OK with that, what happens when a more capable wannabe dictator comes next and spreads misinformation? We just let them seize the power?

CyberRabbi5• 6 years ago

This seems less like the end of the age of fake news and more like the beginning of the age of digital balkanization.

chasd002• 6 years ago

this is a very insightful comment, i'm going to bookmark your post and set a calendar event one year from now to come back a re-read it. I think you're exactly right.

odessacubbage3• 6 years ago

it's kind of heartbreaking how fractured everything is becoming. even outside of politics it feels like the places i found community are gone or dying, being replaced by walled gardens and personality fiefdoms. it never used to feel so lonely.

CyberRabbi5• 6 years ago

It used to get me down but now I see it as living through history. Our ancestors lived through worse. We’re witnessing the continued evolution of human civilization.

s3tz2• 6 years ago

slippery slope

balls187• 6 years ago

This is the logical consequence of doing something because you can, while not asking yourself "should you."

We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's high time (in the US and likely EU) we take a long look at Social Media practices and regulate them.

ketzo• 6 years ago

I understand, truly, the value of free speech. And I understand that censorship is an incredibly dangerous road.

But yesterday, a mob breached the Capitol attempting to stop the peaceful transition of power. In no small part because of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

The people running these companies, I believe, have a moral responsibility to act.

colordrops5• 6 years ago

So China is right, there is no other way to maintain social stability other than to control speech.

thatguy0900• 6 years ago

Or that there's no way to maintain social stability while optimizing other people's speech for maximum engagement and profitability.

hi5eyes• 6 years ago

its hilarious that chinese state media are on twitter using this to prove how their harshly authoritarian measures are justified

ReedJessen2• 6 years ago

This is what Youtube's actions convey to me. They believe that China is doing the right thing with their censorship actions.

SpicyLemonZest3• 6 years ago

I think we have to bite that bullet. I wouldn't quite characterize it as "China is right" - there's no plausible claim that social stability will be threatened by Winnie the Pooh, he's banned just because Xi Jinping doesn't want to be made fun of. But the vision of a future where anyone can say anything to an arbitrarily large audience is, I think, going to have to be buried.

tzs• 6 years ago

The world is analog, not digital, although many on HN forget this probably due to working with computers so much.

There are an infinite number of positions between China-style full control of speech and, say Parler or Voat style "anything goes including things such as calling for killing all the n__g__s and k_k_s and f_g___s".

Most systems that attempt to do useful work require some kind of friction or impedance or damping. I've seen nothing that suggests that information systems are any different.

gnarbarian4• 6 years ago

When people who get censored on all media platforms, ridiculed, ignored, and aren't allowed a day in court to even present their evidence. They're going to feel like the game is rigged.

I don't think it was a good idea to go inside the capital and it will cause very negative and counterproductive blowback.

Media coverage of this will be biased, compare it to the "mostly peaceful" protests happening all summer. It will be used as an excuse to further censorship and sideline sympathizers. The reaction will increase polarization and decrease our ability to communicate.

I'm not saying election fraud happened but I completely understand their frustration.

gregmac• 6 years ago

ridiculed, ignored, and aren't allowed a day in court to even present their evidence.

..other than the nearly 60 court cases? [1] or the dozens of news outlets that have attempted and failed to find actual evidence? [2] Saying they're not allowed to present their evidence is patently false.

It's not like this is the first time the exact same people made the same claims with no evidence [3].

How long should they be taken seriously for?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+2020+election+fr...

[3] https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d

CyberRabbi5• 6 years ago

To take that position in good faith you’d have to support the censorship of political movements every time a government building was breached and/or vandalized by their protestors.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/state-officials-asses...

bananabiscuit2• 6 years ago

I’d put more of the blame on mainstream media which was basically gaslighting anybody who wanted to rest assured that the election results are accurate.

Calls were made too early too many times over the course of the last couple of months, eroding the trust of the 99% of the completely normal Trump supporters out there.

Even if the Democrats are 100% sure the election is totally squeaky clean there should be no problem to go over it with a fine tooth comb so that everyone can be certain. Instead any attempt at transparency was ridiculed from the beginning with lots of goal post moving to follow about just how much discrepancies there actually were.

Some law changes right before the election also don’t really make sense (like waiving the need to verify signatures and in fact making it impossible to do after the fact by destroying envelopes) and instead if bringing clarity to the situation, mainstream media ridiculed anyone who had doubts about this as being crazy.

grahamburger3• 6 years ago

The elections were certified. Not just by the media, also by the courts. Many of them, including the supreme court, have heavy republican representation. If there was any credible reason to doubt the results these Republican officials - many of them outspoken Trump supporters - would have considered it. This isn't about wanting people to feel secure about the election, it's about yelling and screaming until they get the results they want.

kortilla6• 6 years ago

Presidents have been literally assassinated long before the Internet. The county when to civil war without electricity. Yellow journalism was the original “fake news” and there was no utopia when everyone “agreed on the facts”.

Let’s not pretend the Internet has enabled something particularly nefarious here.

By pressing these companies to be the arbiters of free speech, you’re exacerbating the problem. These thoughts and people don’t go away, they just move to other platforms.

odessacubbage3• 6 years ago

if riots are the language of the unheard, maybe it's a bad idea to artificially make large portions of the american electorate unheard.

dgellow• 6 years ago

Honest question: would you say the same if that would be in a different country?

dominotw2• 6 years ago

always suprised to see the divergence of discourse on twitter vs HN. Twitter supports anonymity like HN.

top comment on HN is how this could be dangerous road to go down on.

top replies on twitter are how this doesn't go far enough.

jedimastert• 6 years ago

I'm actually somewhat surprised at HN's response. I've seen so many outcrys because platforms like YouTube are causing the collapse of civilization because they're allowing misinformation to spread so freely.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

toper-centage• 6 years ago

It really is a pandora's box and I'm extremely curious how the next year's will pan out for the tech giants and social media.

herbstein• 6 years ago

I'm actually somewhat surprised at HN's response

Me too. And that goes for the whole thing. The comments are filled with people peddling conspiracy theories, and saying we still don't quite know if there was significant fraud in the election. We're getting to a point where truth doesn't exist.

lordnacho• 6 years ago

So how is free and fair debate supposed to work? We may not want the government to decide who to silence, somewhere in the debate people have to say "I think what you just said is abhorrent and I'd rather you didn't say it in my café".

Problem is, there are only a handful of cafés in the world that everyone frequents and so there's an onus on the people who run them to make a lot of decisions about who gets to say what. Add to that the cafés don't live off selling coffee or having debates, they sell adverts for other things, which complicates their incentives.

I think it's awful how all the social media firms have waited until now to grow a spine, but I'm not sure what the best course would have been.

mountainb• 6 years ago

Liberal ideals of open debate are not very popular among the educated and powerful in the US anymore.

I'm sort of ambivalent on them myself, but I do think it's worth pointing out that events have arguably destabilized in tandem with the increasing use of censorship by the social media firms. Open debate is, per liberal theory, supposed to reduce political acrimony and to serve as a 'relief valve' for public discontent that would otherwise be vented in violence and disorder. As censorship increases, you should expect more disorder and more political violence rather than less if free speech theory is correct. If free speech theory is wrong, then censorship should cool political passions and enable the state to recoup legitimacy.

Reality is more complex than that, but we should at least acknowledge that our constitutional system of government assumes that free and open debate will help to maintain a peaceful and orderly republic.

mey• 6 years ago

These don't feel like cafés, and I think that hits the issue. They seem to be more billboards on the side of a highway. They encourage engagement but not community. I have personally found it rewarding to step off Twitter/Facebook, and into a discord/slack with some friends, keep up regular periodic video calls, and engage in moderated communities like HN.

These "cafes" are small/tiny and have a stronger social construct. We know each other and are held accountable to each other. Not just pissing on the commons.

lostmsu• 6 years ago

So how is free and fair debate supposed to work?

IMHO, storming White House already crosses the line for a free and fair debate. And so do baseless calls to do that.

dominotw2• 6 years ago

cynic in me thinks this is a business decision to ward off anti trust bills.

yesterday was a gift to social media monopolies.

throw7• 6 years ago

Why bother with these policies? They are not enforced in any type of uniformity. Rather, they should just say we take down anything we want. At least then, they wouldn't be seen as the hypocrites they are.

Nacdor• 6 years ago

This is a pretty vague announcement. What counts as "misinformation" or a "false claim" and who makes that decision? Will YouTube be contacting primary sources to verify all claims made in videos? Will they be relying on some designated "fact checkers"? Or maybe they're trying to tell us that ALL claims of voter fraud will automatically be deemed false without any form of review (this was the approach Twitter took with their labeling)?

colordrops5• 6 years ago

What people are missing with all of this is that censorship is a bandaid but doesn't address the root cause. The duopoly of parties that have captured the US political system are corporate servants that have allowed the public to descend into worse and worse conditions since the 70s. The reason Trump was successful was because he (falsely) claimed he would address this grift and corruption. Instead of addressing it, the establishment has tried to tamp down any dissent and promote censorship. Without relief and a release valve, the pressure in tank will certainly will get even higher and eventually explode, with a more competent and scary Trump 2.0 when the democratic establishment fails to deliver even through they now control everything.

Censorship is not necessary in a fair society.

rvz• 6 years ago

It seems that YouTube's about page already has false information. https://www.youtube.com/about/

We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.
We believe everyone should have easy, open access to information and that video is a powerful force for education, building understanding, and documenting world events, big and small.
We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.

With the events that occurred in the past year, these statements are completely false.

danhak2• 6 years ago

In my view, what is fundamentally an antitrust issue is getting improperly framed as a first amendment / free speech issue.

1) Any private company (or person) has the right to determine what speech they tolerate, amplify or disseminate

2) No company should be so big that their assertion of that right dramatically changes the national conversation

CyberRabbi5• 6 years ago

It’s also a civil rights issue. Private companies should not be allowed to violate human rights. This is why we fought for civil rights in the 60s.

danhak2• 6 years ago

Having a platform to express whatever you want is not a "human right."

And political affiliation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.

If you go on a political tirade, I have every right to kick you out of my home. Or office. Or restaurant. Or app.

throwawaybchr2• 6 years ago

This is absolutely correct, and it would benefit society immensely if #2 is solved quickly. A free marketplace of ideas, no matter how blasphemous, must always exist. President Obama said it best at his speech to the UN when he discussed the infamous YouTube video released prior to Benghazi. The answer is always more speech.

incrudible• 6 years ago

I consider this an unfortunate decision. Actively censoring "misinformation" regarding election irregularities will achieve the exact opposite of what (I hope) is intended here: to prevent harm.

Trump has already been successful in creating the image of a rigged election in the minds of his supporters. He has been working on this for at least a year. This already happened. It can't be undone by censorship.

The only thing that censorship will achieve is to further the "us versus them" mentality. Instead of visiting YouTube, where maybe 0.1% of the content is right-wing conspiracy talk, they will retreat to some "free speech" media site where every other channel is crackpot hour.

howmayiannoyyou• 6 years ago

Thus driving that content to other sites where no differing opinions will be found to moderate the extreme positions on either side, thus assuring further polarization. The posturing and virtue signaling is idiotic.

disown2• 6 years ago

I hope in addition to the antitrust lawsuits, congress and governments around the world look into collusion behavior between the big tech companies. It almost seems like they are part of a cartel acting together.

greatgib3• 6 years ago

The book "Fahrenheit 451" just called, it wants its dictatorial world back from the current society...

Why most people don't realize that censorship leads us to a very very dark futur?

In my opinion, everything would be so much better if we could educate kids and adult on "critical thinking" and "intelligence", instead of censoring everything that could be "fake" (for real or not) based on decision of the ruling cast of a country.

evgen3• 6 years ago

Maybe it is because we are literally fucking watching mass misinformation and delusion spread by nefarious actors lead to mobs trying to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power in a nation armed with nuclear weapons. The nostalgic claims that good information will chase out bad and that sunlight is the best disinfectant to treat misinformation have been shown to be complete bullshit. The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization.

At this point we know with absolute certainty that a lack of censorship (either direct or self-censorship due to societal costs) leads to a very, very dark place. Time to start exploring other options.

greatgib3• 6 years ago

I'm sorry but your statements are completely ridiculous and based on nothing.

The problem your are seeing in the us is not really due to misinformation being available, but to the country on its way to Idiocracy.

The issue is the real lack of intelligence. A long tradition of corrupt leaders have pushed for the suppression of critical thinking in the population as it is way more convenient to control the population.

Trump leds to having people acting like that because everything now is about reacting and not thinking anymore.

Imagine one second that Google leaders were friends with Trump that would protect their interest. Which truth would be enforcing?

Look at the situation in China?

Look at Russia that poison its opponents but decide that the state truth is that it is a 'fake news'.

Read farhenheit 451 and 1984 and you will understand!

bumbada2• 6 years ago

Censorship is not the solution, totalitarian Governments come from censorship. They are never good.

With free speech, it should come responsibility. You should be responsible for your speech, if it is false, and pay for it in a Court, but you should not be censored.

The problem is that the same people that accuse Trump of spreading misinformation with no proofs are the same that cheered on the New York Times and WP accusing Trump of being a Putin puppet with no profs whatsoever over years because they wanted to prevent the "legitimate transfer of power" as you say.

If what you say is false, you should pay for it, including Trump, but you should have the right to say it.

kortilla6• 6 years ago

The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization.

What proof? There is still less war and conflict today than the last couple of centuries.

stouset3• 6 years ago

Why is it that free speech absolutists like you can’t see that the unfettered ability to spread mass disinformation has unambiguously led to a dark, dark present?

Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the benefits of commenting on a moderated forum where @dang has arbitrary power to delete posts and ban accounts. And it’s precisely because of his moderation on this privately-run publicly-available platform that we continue to enjoy relatively troll-free, level-headed adult discussions about difficult topics.

greatgib3• 6 years ago

It is scary how wrong you are. I think that you are speaking of facebook, not hn.

The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking.

As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform and in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. At worst it was debunked by the community.

Now, at the opposite, in my opinion, every article and opinion can be posted on HN. And the real value here are the comments and discussion around these links so that there can be a collective critical thinking réflexion about them.

Whoever can post anything, and sometimes I'm wondering if the article is true, if there are hidden fact or something that was deformed. And then, the comments let people all give their own opinion and often share interesting relating links and information.

From all of that, it give you a better base to have plentyfull of elements to make your own opinion on a topic!

briefcomment• 6 years ago

History is written by the victors.

throwawaybchr2• 6 years ago

In 1954 a Puerto Rican group fired shots into Congress - there was no social media back then. Jimmy Carter pardoned them.

The suggestion now is that social media is ok to use as a tool to organize the kind of looting and arson that results in the killing of people like David Dorn, but not organize a protest that results in vandalism of the hallowed halls of insider trading.

A few years ago, Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook did not see themselves as responsible for the online hate that led to it. Was it MSNBC that radicalized the shooter then? Where was he getting his information from?

The fact of the matter is that violent language against specific political figures is acceptable, and violence from others is not acceptable. This is further proved in specific cases like the Kathy Griffin decapitation video, the drawing of Trump's head being cut off (Facebook sent a specific memo to Cognizant that this was a valid exception).

This is being done because the vast majority of people working at these companies see fit to lecture the world on topics like unconscious bias, and then selectively apply their policies when it aligns with their personal politics - completely oblivious to the other cases where enforcement should be equal.

This will be seen as an escalation and further undermine the credibility of these companies in the eyes of millions. If at all they stay it will be because of prevailing trends and network effects only.

I guarantee you that at this very second you could search twitter and find folks freely expressing their admiration for Rand Paul's neighbour, who attacked him so violently that he was critically hospitalized. There is a sickness in political discourse that is being selectively attended to by people suffering from the very same sickness.

bcheung2• 6 years ago

In order to be a free country there must be freedom, even if you don't like what other people say. This is a dangerous precedent.

We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said.

Having a free press and allowing citizens to be heard becomes crucial to a functioning democracy.

That being said, I'm also in favor of letting companies have freedom to run their companies as they see fit as long as it is legal and moral. But this decision by YouTube saddens me.

If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.

evgen3• 6 years ago

Either there are consequences for your lies and misinformation or truth is doomed and freedom will follow soon after.

If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.

This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. This event was not a response to censorship, it was a response to an subset of the population being fed a steady diet of outrage and misinformation and then putting on your surprised pikachu face when they get upset that their candidate lost an election. These people had the ability to be heard and debate and participate, they just are not willing to accept the consequences of that participation or to acknowledge that their candidate lost.

bcheung2• 6 years ago

Sure it wasn't the sole cause but it was definitely a strong contributing factor. Listen to the interviews of the people that were there.

It's human behavior when people don't feel like they are being heard and understood they raise their voice, become less agreeable, and when something is important enough to them and there is no peaceful way to resolve things they become violent.

Acknowledging what someone else says and repeating back to them what they are saying works amazingly well for disarming conflict.

When dialog ceases to be the means by which people can peacefully resolve their differences then violence is inevitable.

Censoring and banning people further escalates conflict because it takes away people's ability to feel like they are being heard and understood.

If instead the dialog going something like "well why do you believe that, what evidence do you have to support that claim, did you consider X, here's why I disagree with you, etc" then maybe people would have changed their minds.

Instead, by and large, the approach taken by the media and tech companies was "you guys are wrong, you're an idiot, and we are going to silence you". I don't think that helps and only further escalates things.

Along your point though, should there then be censorship of the ideas that led people to the BLM riots? I don't think censorship is the answer there either.

Who gets to decide what is true and how does that not lead to dangerous concentrations of power?

colmvp• 6 years ago

We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said.

I mean the US is already there.

I recall many years ago having to actively search for the positions and speeches from Ron Paul because he was barely given air time in debates.

Same goes for Andrew Yang where I only got to know him through alternative media sources (podcasts) instead of major news channels.

gnarbarian4• 6 years ago

You're completely right. It's been this way forever. It's just more obvious now.

diveanon• 6 years ago

The amount of virtue signaling and back peddaling by facebook, youtube, and twitter now that the results are certified is disgusting.

They profited for years off of this bile and misinformation and now that the tide is starting to turn they want to pretend like they weren't a huge part of the problem.

TheBobinator• 6 years ago

Google has a pending antitrust case heading for it. No secret Big Tech has been spending Billions trying to influence this election.

With that said.

DCPD failed to inform FPS\SS of the protesters breaking through 5 barricades and into a building designed to withstand seige until the protesters were almost in the chambers forcing them to flee. The factual narrative here is there was a compromise of congressional security and trust in DCPD.

How we end up, instead, getting the hyper-critical over-the-top insurrection narrative from every MSM company and all the heavy-handed fallout of that narrative without even evidence of busted doors I just don't know, but 4 dead and a handfull injured doesn't even amount to a weekend in Chicago.

Nobody is buying this narrative.

bumbada2• 6 years ago

Vae Victis!

Today Youtube has almost a monopoly on video content on the Internet. If you have a monopoly the priority of power is controlling it and censor "dangeorus information".

From now on it will be impossible for anyone to post anything substantial in youtube that goes against status quo or that offends anyone, specially those in charge.

A new window of opportunity has been opened for a new service that provides uncensored content over the internet.

asquabventured• 6 years ago

So https://banned.video ?

cable2600• 6 years ago

I am said to say but YouTube has become the Ministry of Truth, 1984 is coming true, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-...

Anything that does not fit Big Brother's version of history is censored and banned. YouTube and other big tech companies like Facebook have become Big Brother.

If you think they just cancel out the right, what if they cancel out the left and moderates as well?

It is the start of a civil war after Trump Patriots invaded DC and the Capitol building. We haven't seen the last of it. Censoring and banning people won't make it go away.

YouTube announcement on content policies

Related Stories