YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

[null]

List of video hosting services - Wikipedia

There isn't a clear Monopoly in the sense that that paper suggests

It is not about "a paper". It is a topic being discussed as a serious legal topic - look at the wiki page. There will be various opinions but it is a discussion.

That alone is an indication that there is some merit in discussing it and that there is serious support for the proposition.

Here is the Harvard Law Review discussing the same thing - The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship .

 

[Savvir]

It is not about "a paper". It is a topic being discussed as a serious legal topic - look at the wiki page. There will be various opinions but it is a discussion.

That alone is an indication that there is some merit in discussing it and that there is serious support for the proposition.

Here is the Harvard Law Review discussing the same thing - The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship .

Did you even read that article?

It is probably true that Facebook has a First Amendment right to censor whatever it wants in order to maintain the kind of social space it wants. Facebook is not, and arguably should not be considered a common carrier, and thus it should not be forced into a legal strait jacket that would prohibit content-based terms of service.

 

[null]

Did you even read that article?

It is probably true that Facebook has a First Amendment right to censor whatever it wants in order to maintain the kind of social space it wants. Facebook is not, and arguably should not be considered a common carrier, and thus it should not be forced into a legal strait jacket that would prohibit content-based terms of service.

I will say it again.

The fact that it is being discussed by the world's leading law journals shows that it is a topic that has momentum.

I will say it again.

Different sources will have different opinions as is par for the course in such discussions.

I will say it for the first time although one would think this was implicitly implied

The "right" decision will never be known. The journals give an opinion NOT the "truth". The decision that is made eventually and transcribed into law will be the law (not the "right" law). I present those links as examples of the ongoing discussion. Your opinion and my opinion will be based on drawing from such sources and coming to our own opinion.

--

To understand how what I said applies to this means working with concepts and principles.

The principles which I mentioned before foreshadow the legal discussion and the legal discussion foreshadows an eventual legal question.

The legal question is also foreshadowed by the nascent "Social Media Utility Question" movements.

Whether you agree with the conclusions or part conclusions or not has no bearing on the fact that it is being discussed at high levels of US society and that a serious movement trying to bring this into legislation is already in place.

 

[Savvir]

Breh. People discuss topics all the time.
A topic being discussed has no bearing on it's validity or viability.

I took a position on the issue and you keep playing contrarian without committing to a viewpoint. You aren't really adding much other than just dropping random info that supports my point

I already spoke on the "movement" that is taking place. You havnt really commented on the contemporary political pandering that is behind it.

 

[null]

Breh. People discuss topics all the time.

A topic being discussed has no bearing on it's validity or viability.

I took a position on the issue and you keep playing contrarian without committing to a viewpoint. You aren't really adding much other than just dropping random info that supports my point

I already spoke on the "movement" that is taking place. You havnt really commented on the contemporary political pandering that is behind it.

1. They are not just "people". There is no limitation to the viability other than the Law itself which is what is under discussion.

What do you even mean by that. If the law changes what other impediments stand in the way?

List them.

2. This is a viewpoint is it not ?

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/33890331/

3. It ? What it? The law reviews are not discussing law in the context of contemporary partisan politics. Law is supposed to be a-political and it largely is in academia. Trump and others are not the only voices. This is not the only historical discussion about censorship. What principles regarding this are uniquely informed by current politics?

I haven't commented on political pandering because I fail to see the relevance. Create any other method of communication that allows for mass broadcast and eventually that the question will arise as to whether that medium should be brought under government regulation. That is nothing to do with current politics.

The contemporary discussion is being fanned by the WH but it is not the WH alone that sees this as a legal topic which needs to be decided. The fact that social media allows for counter-conditioning and counter-socialization has brought us to this point and hence Trump etc are just a part of that.

I don't have time and energy to write an essay but the question of normativeness is what is at hand here and how society maintains that.

Spoiler: ...

fuzzuk a typo. i'm tired.

EDIT: last thing for now.. this stuff too.

 

[Black Panther]

What you call "extremist" is just a nonchalant or moderate opinion to someone else.

Someone can just as easily call you "extremist".... I don't understand how you don't get that.

I do get that.

But if someone tells you how they define an extremist, or what constitutes extremist content, then that's what you go off of, until you see differently.

Meaning, give people a chance to be honest, and challenge them when they aren't.

Don't stand in the way of potential positive change because "something bad might happen." This world's already bad. Try to fix something. :denzelcmonson:

 

[Savvir]

1. the government is not running youtube
2. youtube banning members on it's platform is a legally protected right (for now)
3. I don't think "social media" is a utility nor will it be considered one unless there is a direct push from the right wing political parties to maintain the proliferation of extremist ideology that is crucial to their political power.
4. I believe extremists have a right to free speech
5. I don't believe censorship from a private platform is a violation of free speech

A. Are you for or against government takeover of "social media"
B. Are you for or against private entity censorship?

 

[Yaboysix]

Nahh..iont trust it..i already watch youtubers who shyt get taken down on some shady shyt already..

They will try this with folks like my nikka corey Holcomb and try to ban him from youtube.

 

[HellRell804]

I wish we could just give all the soft, overreacting, #resistance type people California, Washington state, and Oregon and let them create their own gay, authoritarian, hedonistic, socialist paradise...

Then watch and laugh as they start starving to death and start executing "dissidents" because socialism doesn't work

 

[null]

1. the government is not running youtube
2. youtube banning members on it's platform is a legally protected right (for now)
3. I don't think "social media" is a utility nor will it be considered one unless there is a direct push from the right wing political parties to maintain the proliferation of extremist ideology that is crucial to their political power.
4. I believe extremists have a right to free speech
5. I don't believe censorship from a private platform is a violation of free speech

A. Are you for or against government takeover of "social media"
B. Are you for or against private entity censorship?

The government is not necessarily going to "take over" social media by regulating it any more than they have taken over your Internet provider by regulating them.

So that is a bit of a leading question.

Through the prism of this qualifier my answers are.

1. Against.

2. That depends.

Private entity censorship is already with us and I don't have any issues with large parts of it.

Network TV for example is heavily regulated and I have no issue with that. See list below drawn directly from the FCC website.

Freedom of Speech - The Public and Broadcasting

The FCC and Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment, as well as Section 326 of the Communications Act, prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with freedom of expression in broadcasting. The Constitution’s protection of free speech includes programming that may be objectionable to many viewers or listeners. Therefore, the FCC cannot prevent the broadcast of any particular point of view. In this regard, the Commission has observed that “the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” However, the right to broadcast material is not absolute. There are some restrictions on the material that a licensee can broadcast. These restrictions are discussed below.

Criticism, Ridicule, and Humor Concerning Individuals, Groups, and Institutions. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech similarly protects programming that stereotypes or may otherwise offend people with regard to their religion, race, national background, gender, or other characteristics. It also protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs and institutions, including the government and its officials. The Commission recognizes that, under our Constitution, people must be free to say things that the majority may abhor, not only what most people may find tolerable or congenial. However, if you are offended by a station’s programming, we urge you to make your concerns known in writing to the station licensee.

There are restrictions in these areas now.
Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if:

• The station licensee knew that the information was false;
• Broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm; and
• It was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.

News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover.

Programming Inciting “Imminent Lawless Action.” The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can curtail speech if it is both: (1) intended to incite or produce “imminent lawless action;” and (2) likely to “incite or produce such action.” Even when this legal test is met, any review that might lead to a curtailment of speech is generally performed by the appropriate criminal law enforcement authorities, not by the FCC.

Obscene, Indecent, or Profane Programming. Although, for the reasons discussed earlier, the Commission is generally prohibited from regulating broadcast content, the courts have held that the FCC’s regulation of obscene and indecent programming is constitutional because of society’s interest in protecting children from potentially harmful programming and supporting parents’ ability to determine the programming their children will be exposed to at home.

etc

Also restrictions exist now in these areas.

Child Programming rules - Children's Educational Television .
Loud Commercials rules - Loud Commercials
Education Broadcasting rules - Commission Policy on the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcasting .

and more.

FCC Link

Television

 

[null]

I wish we could just give all the soft, overreacting, #resistance type people California, Washington state, and Oregon and let them create their own gay, authoritarian, hedonistic, socialist paradise...

Then watch and laugh as they start starving to death and start executing "dissidents" because socialism doesn't work

What about how it works in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland ?

 

[HellRell804]

What about how it works in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland ?

If it works it works

I'll just be happy to not hear all the bytching and moaning, the complaining about everything, the authoritarianism, the manipulating victimhood into power. I'm just sick of it

 

[RAX 010]

This is troubling...

 

[null]

If it works it works

I'll just be happy to not hear all the bytching and moaning, the complaining about everything, the authoritarianism, the manipulating victimhood into power. I'm just sick of it

 

[HellRell804]

So you're saying America should be more like small hegemonious white countries?

Cause that works when the majority of people can agree on issues, but you need a different approach when you have a gang of different ethnic groups trying to coexist. You have to force a consensus, which, ironically, we're seeing the left trying to do now by "deplatforming" (censoring) their opponents. Once you fail at censoring your opponents (because Streisand effect) then the guillotine comes out. And as we've already seen the left is more than willing to play fast and loose with words to mar their ideological opponents.