Leaked Google Document shows the shift towards Censorship

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

MSNBC and CNN may have their spins, but they don't post out-and-out false stories

Yes, they do. And what they don't fabricate, they twist to the point that that it's propaganda.

[Commodus]

Just now, Amazonsucks said:

Yeah how Google and the rest of silicon valley is pushing their agenda by censoring specific viewpoints?

 

Their leaked memos and insiders spilling the beans isnt exactly news to people who pay even a little bit of attention.

 

Youtube literally uses the SPLC as trusted flaggers to censor people they disagree with. 

 

 

First, the SPLC claim was never substantiated, according to what research I can do; it was floated as a rumor by the Daily Caller (known to lie and push heavy spin), and the conservative echo chamber paraded it as if it were true.  And even if it is true, there's been a campaign among hardcore conservative outlets to smear the SPLC as a "far left" organization simply because it doesn't put Trump in a good light (what with his declaring neo-Nazis "nice people" and all).  And if we see the SPLC as it is rather than what the hyper-conservatives want it to be, that's not a bad thing.  Perish the thought that a group dedicated to fighting hatred and racism would actually help YouTube fight hatred and racism.

 

Here's the thing about those Google leaks: they're often presented to you in a purposefully deceptive context.  Like that one recording showing that Googlers weren't fond of Trump being elected... gasp, you mean workers at a diverse Bay Area company would object to a bigoted person becoming President?  Colour me shocked.  But it's not evidence that their personal feelings have translated to moderation.  I have yet to see tangible proof of directives or policies to that effect, just a lot of hand-waving.

[Commodus]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, they do. And what they don't fabricate, they twist to the point that that it's propaganda.

Evidence of outright fabricated stories?  I'd really like to see this.  Provide a link to the story if you can, and for the refutal provide a link that isn't from a hyper-partisan outlet (that means ruling out Fox News, Daily Caller, DailyKOS, Breitbart et. al.).

[Hobox]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Er, no.  MSNBC and CNN may have their spins, but they don't post out-and-out false stories.  I know you're determined to equivocate so you can pretend you're a counterculture rebel, but they still maintain basic standards.

 

And on the fake account/spam front: for goodness' sake, in this last instance even the junk peddlers at Unfollo acknowledge the politics of the affected accounts were across the spectrum.  The only common thread is that they were using fake accounts and spamming bogus stories.

People actually believe this. Wow.

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Evidence of outright fabricated stories?  I'd really like to see this.  Provide a link to the story if you can, and for the refutal provide a link that isn't from a hyper-partisan outlet (that means ruling out Fox News, Daily Caller, DailyKOS, Breitbart et. al.).

https://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/01/11/gun-show-loophole-explained.cnnmoney/index.html

The "Gun Shoe loophole" doesn't rxist, nor do private sellers have to "just think" that the person can legally purchase a weapon (they also are not allowed to sell at gun shows).

 

 

https://www.chicksonright.com/youngconservatives/2018/09/08/cnn-gets-caught-spreading-fake-news-about-kavanaugh-brit-hume-blows-whistle-on-them/

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resignation-20170626-story.html

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/cnn-biggest-fake-news-scam/

[Amazonsucks]

33 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Evidence of outright fabricated stories?  I'd really like to see this.  Provide a link to the story if you can, and for the refutal provide a link that isn't from a hyper-partisan outlet (that means ruling out Fox News, Daily Caller, DailyKOS, Breitbart et. al.).

Or CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, Washington Compost, etc. They are also hyper partisan and mostly fake. Cant use any of those dumpster fires either.

36 minutes ago, Commodus said:

First, the SPLC claim was never substantiated, according to what research I can do; it was floated as a rumor by the Daily Caller (known to lie and push heavy spin), and the conservative echo chamber paraded it as if it were true.  And even if it is true, there's been a campaign among hardcore conservative outlets to smear the SPLC as a "far left" organization simply because it doesn't put Trump in a good light (what with his declaring neo-Nazis "nice people" and all).  And if we see the SPLC as it is rather than what the hyper-conservatives want it to be, that's not a bad thing.  Perish the thought that a group dedicated to fighting hatred and racism would actually help YouTube fight hatred and racism.

 

Here's the thing about those Google leaks: they're often presented to you in a purposefully deceptive context.  Like that one recording showing that Googlers weren't fond of Trump being elected... gasp, you mean workers at a diverse Bay Area company would object to a bigoted person becoming President?  Colour me shocked.  But it's not evidence that their personal feelings have translated to moderation.  I have yet to see tangible proof of directives or policies to that effect, just a lot of hand-waving.

The SPLC is a hate group like the ADL, both of which are known to be used by Goolag for policing their content. Its not just a rumor pushed by some tin foil hatter either. Its pretty common knowledge that Google uses both groups to censor their platforms.

 

 

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

https://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/01/11/gun-show-loophole-explained.cnnmoney/index.html

The "Gun Shoe loophole" doesn't rxist, nor do private sellers have to "just think" that the person can legally purchase a weapon (they also are not allowed to sell at gun shows).

 

 

https://www.chicksonright.com/youngconservatives/2018/09/08/cnn-gets-caught-spreading-fake-news-about-kavanaugh-brit-hume-blows-whistle-on-them/

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resignation-20170626-story.html

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/cnn-biggest-fake-news-scam/

I'm automatically dismissing the Young Conservatives and Conservative Tribune links.  I asked you not to use hyper-partisan sources and you intentionally ignored that.  Also, you didn't provide a real refutal to the loophole story, just a blanket assertion that it doesn't exist.

 

The LA Times story is notable, and thanks for that, although I should note two things.  First, there's no evidence this is a systemic problem like it is at Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller.  And more importantly, CNN actually demonstrated accountability; while it should never have posted that story in the first place, it did retract the story and got rid of the writers involved.  I have yet to see that kind of accountability from Breitbart and crew (hell, at Breitbart lying is practically necessary to pursue a career).  Fox isn't as bad as that, but it often omits 'inconvenient' accurate news and lets its op-ed crew peddle false stories as fact without repercussions.

 

And to tie it back to tech, this is one reason why conservative sites are disproportionately more likely to find themselves downranked or purged.  It's not just that they sometimes promote known false stories; it's that you can't trust them to correct themselves even when they're wrong or caught lying.

[Commodus]

19 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

The SPLC is a hate group like the ADL, both of which are known to be used by Goolag for policing their content. Its not just a rumor pushed by some tin foil hatter either. Its pretty common knowledge that Google uses both groups to censor their platforms.

Evidence, please.  "Common knowledge" is not evidence.  And provide evidence only from reasonably objective sources (that is, no ultra-partisan outlets on either side of the spectrum).  The videos you linked are not objective.

 

And the SPLC is not a hate group.  Did you not see the part where I mentioned that there's an explicit smear campaign from hyper-conservative outlets against the SPLC?  It has done regretful things; but the notion that it's a hate group is ridiculous.

[Drak3]

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

asked you not to use hyper-partisan sources

Don't give a shit. If the material is verifiable, spurce doesn't matter. And if you can't abide by your own request, then your opinion isn't significant.

27 minutes ago, Commodus said:

this is one reason why conservative sites are disproportionately more likely to find themselves downranked or purged.  It's not just that they sometimes promote known false stories; it's that you can't trust them to correct themselves even when they're wrong or caught lying.

That is a load of shit. Conservative sites are targetted by known "Liberal" entities like Google and Facebook.

[Amazonsucks]

18 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Evidence, please.  "Common knowledge" is not evidence.  And provide evidence only from reasonably objective sources (that is, no ultra-partisan outlets on either side of the spectrum).  The videos you linked are not objective.

 

And the SPLC is not a hate group.  Did you not see the part where I mentioned that there's an explicit smear campaign from hyper-conservative outlets against the SPLC?  It has done regretful things; but the notion that it's a hate group is ridiculous.

And theres a censorship campaign from the other side of the spectrum to brand hate groups like the ADL and SPLC as legitimate organisations with purposes that dont match their actions.

 

John Stossel is pretty mainstream media btw.

 

Now you and i both know that youll claim that anything i link you to about the SPLC and ADL, which are both hyper partisan hate groups, is "not credible or too partisan" and dismiss it. You know that youre being intellectually dishonest and employing logical fallacies of false consensus and argumentum ad hominem in your fake request for more links as well.

 

I might as well ask you to verify the credibility and legitimate nature of the SPLC and ADL, despite them being illigetimate hate factories with a political agenda.

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

So long as their actions aren't politically motivated, I would have no problem with this.

 

 

The problem is that quite a lot of these companies have a very obvious bias towards one political party, and the temptation to use their power to that effect is too much for them to resist, as they have done in the past.

[Deus Voltage]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

I was about to ask but... on second thought... I don't think I want to know what this is

Believe me, you don't....

[EPENEX]

19 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

Blanket statements like that are not as noble as you may think they are. Censorship in some very specific cases is a good thing. Examples:

 

-Child porn

 

-Revenge porn.

 

-Blood play.

 

-Extreme BDSM (no safe words).

 

-Downright rape.

 

ect....

 

So before anyone here tries to be noble, censorship in some very specific cases is a good thing.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that statement, you are hating on things that you do not understand. Censorship does nothing but hurt people, regardless as to if those things are censored or not they will still happen. Censorship of it just causes the people that enjoy these things to feel more like an outcast. Also, if for example you are into rape porn but are unable to find any online, you will be more likely to act out and rape someone to feed that desire. In this case censorship is causing rape, not preventing it.

[Dataanti]

I'm surprised they didn't talk about this during this week's wan show, I thought it was easily bigger news then the terrible benchmarks

[Amazonsucks]

21 minutes ago, Dataanti said:

I'm surprised they didn't talk about this during this week's wan show, I thought it was easily bigger news then the terrible benchmarks

Do they ever talk much about google, twitter or facebook censorship really?

[Taf the Ghost]

34 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Do they ever talk much about google, twitter or facebook censorship really?

It's a good way to get demonetized and the video flagged. YouTube being a Google product and all that. There is a "discretion is the better part of valor" aspect to that.

 

Plus, they're Canadian. They've already got one-sided speech police systems they have to deal with. While not draconian, yet, that's only because of a lack of implementation. The social media political censorship is being pushed as a way to implement speech controls in roughly a similar way. Power & Control. Those are always core issues these things are about.

[Kamina]

Sometimes free helicopter rides are a necessary evil when shit like this proliferates.

[Jito463]

13 hours ago, Commodus said:

Er, no.  MSNBC and CNN may have their spins, but they don't post out-and-out false stories.  I know you're determined to equivocate so you can pretend you're a counterculture rebel, but they still maintain basic standards.

12 hours ago, Commodus said:

Like it or not, most fake news and Russian bots skews conservative.

 

 

11 hours ago, Commodus said:

Evidence of outright fabricated stories?  I'd really like to see this.  Provide a link to the story if you can, and for the refutal provide a link that isn't from a hyper-partisan outlet (that means ruling out Fox News, Daily Caller, DailyKOS, Breitbart et. al.).

Newsbusters.org, their literal mission statement is exposing bias in the media.  It might take some digging to find a specific instance of actual fabrication, as there's a lot of bias for them to report on.  Also, I find it interesting how you keep bundling Fox News in there, when they're the only MSM group I'm aware of, that actually has a pretty even split between left-wing and right-wing commentators.

 

Personally, I don't watch any of the Lame-Stream Media, though.  I haven't had a TV in nearly 12 years and I'm not about to start now.

[Uzume]

The US is fighting a cultural civil war at present. That isn't my issue as a citizen of another country (your internal politics are your business) but this does underline the need for us to balance our own reliance/exposure to US based services and infrastructure. We don't have the same intensely binary/partisan conditions in our country so we don't need or want to ideologically weaponize our information environment.

 

The increasing restrictions in the US are a golden opportunity for new tech companies all over the world to step up and provide more open services. Disruptions will occur in the short term, but the needed changes will help to decentralize, diversify and internationalize the internet in the long run.

 

So, bring it on. Fight your battles as you see fit, nothing of value will be lost that won't be rebuilt somewhere else.

[Amazonsucks]

16 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

 

 

Newsbusters.org, their literal mission statement is exposing bias in the media.  It might take some digging to find a specific instance of actual fabrication, as there's a lot of bias for them to report on.  Also, I find it interesting how you keep bundling Fox News in there, when they're the only MSM group I'm aware of, that actually has a pretty even split between left-wing and right-wing commentators.

 

Personally, I don't watch any of the Lame-Stream Media, though.  I haven't had a TV in nearly 12 years and I'm not about to start now.

Thats a pretty good meme to respond to him with. I try to be serious but it amazes me how brainwashed and willfully ignorant people like them are. Its scary really.

 

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, Uzume said:

a golden opportunity for new tech companies all over the world to step up and provide more open services

Hey, I'm all for it.  That's the free market at work, so far as I'm concerned.

[Kamina]

13 hours ago, Commodus said:

Like it or not, most fake news and Russian bots skews conservative.

Breh...

From an actual study: http://go.newswhip.com/rs/647-QQK-704/images/Hyper-Partisan Final.pdf

 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/occupy-democrats/

 

Not to forget all the leftist Astroturfing created by George Soros and others.

 

[RejZoR]

7 hours ago, EPENEX said:

I am going to have to disagree with you on that statement, you are hating on things that you do not understand. Censorship does nothing but hurt people, regardless as to if those things are censored or not they will still happen. Censorship of it just causes the people that enjoy these things to feel more like an outcast. Also, if for example you are into rape porn but are unable to find any online, you will be more likely to act out and rape someone to feed that desire. In this case censorship is causing rape, not preventing it.

People don't seem to even understand what censorship is. Censoring and/or removing child pornography is not "censorship", it's just dealing with illegal content which, we can all agree is correct and supported. What censorship we talk about is, well, it's when someone has a brain fart that he or she or even as far as entire corporation with its leadership all of a sudden doesn't like X and they'll do everything to silence that group of people or even individuals who support, endorse or align with that X. Latest example being silicon valley desperately trying to silence conservatives on all ends and meddling with politics that affect worlds largest superpower, all while they are pretending they are not doing anything, thinking everyone is so dumb they won't notice it. This isn't some sort of conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo, it's happening right in front of everyone's eyes and they are not even hiding it much anymore. And none of it has legal merits, it all stands on "they are private companies, they can do whatever they want". Sure, but that should only apply until they start affecting things outside of their shit. When for example social network starts affecting things outside of it, it's no longer "we're private company and we can do whatever we want". Especially since all major social platforms clearly and openly cater just to one group of people. Which is why they are fighting off government regulations on that regard and why they all hate Gab social network so much because Gab doesn't cater to any of this censorship BS. Gab for example will deal with illegal content, but won't ban or censor people because they are conservatives, democrats, nationalists or whatever. But of course, it's opponents, Twitter, Facebook and Google won't stop spreading BS about it how Gab is a "white supremacists" social network and similar nonsense just to spread paranoia and prevent users from switching over. Censorship is also how both Google and Apple banned Gab from both of their app stores because they refused to bow down to their censorship BS "standards". Which is complete BS and should be happening, but it did, but dumb sheep gobble it up like fresh grass believing Gab is really evil that must be stopped. What's even more worrying is that these giants seem to be more obsessed over some people in red MAGA hats endorsing their own country and nation, but do very little or next to nothing dealing with for example ISIS propaganda bots and preachers who spread actual terror and go on on their platforms unchallenged for months and years while some conservatives get instant suspension or ban because they say there are only two frigging genders.

 

And like 3/4 of things that user mentioned isn't even real. The stuff you find on openly accessible porn sites is all simulated stuff that doesn't harm anyone. It can be "rape porn", but no one is actually raping anyone, it's just simulated stuff. Or all the "incest" or "teens" porn where you can be assured it's none of it. We, humans are funny creatures and we have different, sometimes very bizarre desires. If someone gets of of that, why not. They are just actors pretending to be doing something, no different than actors in regular movies, they just happen to have a sexual note to it as a core content.

 

What is really worrying are secret channels and websites where they perform real things like rape, child pornography, torture and stuff like that. I've never seen one, never even heard about one, but you can be assured they exist as criminals adapt to new technology quickly, they just don't pop up as 3rd, 15th or even 55th result on Google Search. And no one has control over it until police uncovers it through other channels. Which again doesn't fall under "censorship" category, it's again just dealing with illegal content and activities.

 

I wouldn't have any problems with social networks if they gave everyone equal opportunity to express themselves. But we all know that's not the case and because of that, I frankly don't care if all social networks just die and stop existing. And I'm not even conservative or "right winger" being butthurt or something, my political leanings are slightly off center to the left and on the libertarian side of things. I just strongly believe people should be allowed to express things freely, even if they are sometimes controversial. Discussions make changes, one sided censorship just creates echo chambers and echo chambers are sheep factories that just make people even dumber than they already are.

[Amazonsucks]

@RejZoR

 

You might like this video.

 

 

[Deus Voltage]

11 hours ago, EPENEX said:

I am going to have to disagree with you on that statement, you are hating on things that you do not understand.

Like what? I am hating on censorship or what exactly? please be more precise.

 

 

11 hours ago, EPENEX said:

Censorship does nothing but hurt people, regardless as to if those things are censored or not they will still happen. Censorship of it just causes the people that enjoy these things to feel more like an outcast. Also, if for example you are into rape porn but are unable to find any online, you will be more likely to act out and rape someone to feed that desire. In this case censorship is causing rape, not preventing it.

So let me get this straight, and do correct me if I'm wrong, you consider censorship of rape to be wrong because it will incentivize people to commit that act more often due to them not finding a cathartic outlet?

 

Do you realize the amount of mental gymnastics that you have to go through just to make that point? I think it's the very opposite. It is rape porn and messed up stuff like that which incentivize psychopaths to commit the act. I have to make a very clear distinction here, I'm talking about rape porn, not porn itself, I'm fine with regular porn.