YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views
They bout to turn youtube into resetera
First they will start with the 'white supremacy' videos, but then it will turn into anything that's not pro-gay, pro-illegal immigration, pro-tranny, and anything that relates to that liberal agenda. Black folks will start getting banned too. Don't think it ends where it starts.
First they will start with the 'white supremacy' videos, but then it will turn into anything that's not pro-gay, pro-illegal immigration, pro-tranny, and anything that relates to that liberal agenda. Black folks will start getting banned too. Don't think it ends where it starts.
Have any pro-Black YouTubers been de-platformed yet? :bpohh:
null
...
The wording is actually general enough to cover biased or politically motivated treatment of consumers.
And it started yesterday.
Justice Department Reviewing the Practices of Market-Leading Online Platforms
The "wording" doesn't matter because antitrust laws don't cover political bias or extremist censorship .. they are business practices that are anti competitive. I don't think you really understand the concept behind such laws and are just relying on the general narrative being pushed by right wing voices.The wording is actually general enough to cover biased or politically motivated treatment of consumers.
And it started yesterday.
Justice Department Reviewing the Practices of Market-Leading Online Platforms
null
...
Nope it says "harm to customers" which covers censorship.
What's the precedent for this?
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
"Extreme" views is anything those interest groups that provide "neutral views" to youtube says is "extreme".
null
...
e-grow please. It is their stated aim. It is a clear interpretation of information on the .gov site I linked.
It is all over the press.
Just as I said it would turn out.
Look up the word "precedent" and apply that meaning to my reply about antitrust cases, censorship and consumer harm.
Because 100% free speech is allowed when you're a fakkit.
Shut the fukk up lame nikka. Litterally a billion people log onto Youtube around the world, they are not a private company.
null
...
Look up the word "precedent" and apply that meaning to my reply about antitrust cases, censorship and consumer harm.
No e-grow you insisting on a precedent is a canard.
What you are supposed to say is "without an identifiable precedent it is unlikely that they will achieve their stated aims".
The absence or presence of a precedent has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether that is their aim or not. I'll leave you to waste your time looking for one.
That's the direction of the logical implication.
If the absence of a precedent means that one cannot be established none would ever be set.
I studied formal logic at a post graduate top 5 global uni and despite the fact that you didn't if you think about it this should be pretty obvious.
null
...
by the words of the Chairman Cicilline
“Our antitrust laws were enacted ... more than 100 years ago in the context of railroad monopolies, and maybe in the face of automation and this new economy, the digital economy, we need to do some refreshing of our antitrust statutes,"
also
Just watch the first 10 mins of this - Section 230.
Anyone who thinks they are not trying to fundamentally change how these companies operate and in particular remove their "monopoly" power to control what we see they is being willfully obtuse.
5m:06s - paraphrased: "The American people are instead subject to both overt censorship and covert manipulation. I believe it is time to rethink that deal. If big tech cannot provide us with clear evidence that it is not playing big brother there is no reason why Congress should give them the 230 subsidy".
6m:14s paraphrased: "This [tracking and manipulation] much change. Google cannot hide behind its algorithms. We need insight to protect free speech".
“Our antitrust laws were enacted ... more than 100 years ago in the context of railroad monopolies, and maybe in the face of automation and this new economy, the digital economy, we need to do some refreshing of our antitrust statutes,"
also
Just watch the first 10 mins of this - Section 230.
Anyone who thinks they are not trying to fundamentally change how these companies operate and in particular remove their "monopoly" power to control what we see they is being willfully obtuse.
5m:06s - paraphrased: "The American people are instead subject to both overt censorship and covert manipulation. I believe it is time to rethink that deal. If big tech cannot provide us with clear evidence that it is not playing big brother there is no reason why Congress should give them the 230 subsidy".
6m:14s paraphrased: "This [tracking and manipulation] much change. Google cannot hide behind its algorithms. We need insight to protect free speech".