Youtube Shadowbanning videos condemning racism? (clickbait title)

[Trik'Stari]

I'm not really sure how to do this without injecting my own bias, but I'm going to do my best.

 

Recently, Sargon of Akkad uploaded a video condemning and pointing out the hypocrisy of certain members of the left, when they failed to take any action or have any outrage over Louis Farrakhan comparing "the Jews" to societal Termites.

 

The biggest response by far, was Youtube de-listing his video so that it does not show up on the channel page, even for Sargon himself. As evidenced in his video pointing this out.

 

This is the video in question. As you can see it does not have a thumbnail even though it is supposed to.

 

This is the kind of thing I have talked about in the past on here in regards to censorship by social media companies. This is behavior that should be condemned widely, but here we have someone condemning it, being silenced. Why? Because it's someone they agree with or like? Because it goes against their narrative world view? If you're going to ban hate speech on your platform, that's fine, it's your platform. But when you decide to ban only certain hate speech and not others, that becomes an issue.

 

I would call silencing someone for pointing out and condemning another persons hate speech, advocating that hate speech.

 

Also worth noting that despite this kind of behavior, Twitter has not banned or otherwise punished Louis Farrakhan's account, nor that of many of his followers, despite their blatantly anti-semetic rhetoric.

 

I would ask very politely that we all remain as civil as possible in discussing this. This kind of thing needs to be discussed, and devolving into insults and anger will serve no purpose other than to get the thread locked 

[ARikozuM]

It seems the Constitution needs to be applied to businesses that are in the business of public communications, i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Google, otherwise they can control what hits front and center for monetary or political gain. 

 

There's also a double standard for the usage of words amongst different sects of society. Anyone in the majority is held to a higher standard or lower threshold compared to the minority. Because I'm a Latino I can say "nigga" or "spick" without seeming uncouth (I don't say either of these), but that's because it seems common for Latinos to do. If I were to say any other slur, I'd likely get pinged for it. This double standard needs to leave society for everyone or no one. 

 

I'll type more as it comes up during my CHM homework. 

[Sakkura]

He's not trying to condemn racism, he's trying to manipulate his audience into thinking the bad, evil liberals somehow condone racism as long as it's against the "right" people.

 

In reality, Louis Farrakhan has been called out repeatedly. Not just for anti-semitism but also homophobia (but Sargon probably condones the latter). Facebook also removed one of his videos a few days ago.

 

Youtube has the right to choose exactly what videos to show and in what way. They have no obligation to help spread alt-right propaganda. Just like Facebook has no obligation to help Farrakhan push his anti-semitic shit (even when it's a "joke"). Twitter made a different call, but that's ultimately their right. It took them a long time to finally cut off Alex Jones.

[Trik'Stari]

18 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

He's not trying to condemn racism, he's trying to manipulate his audience into thinking the bad, evil liberals somehow condone racism as long as it's against the "right" people.

 

In reality, Louis Farrakhan has been called out repeatedly. Not just for anti-semitism but also homophobia (but Sargon probably condones the latter). Facebook also removed one of his videos a few days ago.

 

Youtube has the right to choose exactly what videos to show and in what way. They have no obligation to help spread alt-right propaganda. Just like Facebook has no obligation to help Farrakhan push his anti-semitic shit (even when it's a "joke"). Twitter made a different call, but that's ultimately their right. It took them a long time to finally cut off Alex Jones.

Cutting off some people, and not the others, is the issue.

 

Also if you think Sargon is Alt-Right you're mistaken. The Alt-Right extremely dislike/hate him.

 

I've no issue with them banning people for hate speech, it's the bias and misuse of that power that I have an issue with.

[Himommies]

17 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

It seems the Constitution needs to be applied to businesses that are in the business of public communications, i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Google, otherwise they can control what hits front and center for monetary or political gain. 

 

51 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

This is the kind of thing I have talked about in the past on here in regards to censorship by social media companies. This is behavior that should be condemned widely, but here we have someone condemning it, being silenced. Why? Because it's someone they agree with or like? Because it goes against their narrative world view? If you're going to ban hate speech on your platform, that's fine, it's your platform. But when you decide to ban only certain hate speech and not others, that becomes an issue.

This isn't really exclusive to say YouTube or Twitter

The NYT or Random House aren't really obliged to publish anything just because its free speach 

[TetraSky]

18 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Because I'm a Latino I can say "nigga" or "spick" without seeming uncouth (I don't say either of these)

Nah, regardless of your race, you'll still be seen as uncouth. It's just tolerated, for some inane reason, yet the moment a different race says it (white being the prime example), all hell break loose, even if it's just "singing" the lyric of a terrible "song".

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

He's not trying to condemn racism, he's trying to manipulate his audience into thinking the bad, evil liberals somehow condone racism as long as it's against the "right" people.

 

In reality, Louis Farrakhan has been called out repeatedly. Not just for anti-semitism but also homophobia (but Sargon probably condones the latter). Facebook also removed one of his videos a few days ago.

 

Youtube has the right to choose exactly what videos to show and in what way. They have no obligation to help spread alt-right propaganda. Just like Facebook has no obligation to help Farrakhan push his anti-semitic shit (even when it's a "joke"). Twitter made a different call, but that's ultimately their right. It took them a long time to finally cut off Alex Jones.

They do. It's for narrative programing reasons. And, in the USA, no it really isn't their call. Classification under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act dictates quite a lot of what they cannot do if they are not going to be a "publisher". 

 

Further, there is a hierarchy for who you're allowed to be bigoted against in the USA, publicly. Especially if you're a connected power broker. Farrakhan is a black, outlier Muslim that's acceptable to the would-be oligarchs of the country. (See him at Aretha Franklin's funeral.) He is thus able to attack any of the acceptable out-groups, along with being able to act within the current narratives. (Non-elite or non-connected Jews are actually an out-group to Progressives and/or Corporatists. That's why Farrakhan can say what he has, for years. It serves to keep Jewish factions in line.)

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

 

This isn't really exclusive to say YouTube or Twitter

The NYT or Random House aren't really obliged to publish anything just because its free speach 

The NYT is actively employing an asian woman who goes on Twitter and says that she "enjoys being mean to old white men" and other blatantly racist things.

 

Indeed, this is not exclusive to Youtube or Social Media online at all. I brought it up here because it's a technology company doing it.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Himommies said:

This isn't really exclusive to say YouTube or Twitter

The NYT or Random House aren't really obliged to publish anything just because its free speach 

They, YouTube/Twitter/etc., aren't publishing anything. We can think of this as being an e-mail. Nobody, except the recipient, should have any say in whether something is blocked from view. 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Himommies said:

 

This isn't really exclusive to say YouTube or Twitter

The NYT or Random House aren't really obliged to publish anything just because its free speach 

If YouTube or Facebook are a "publisher", they're liable for every piece of Defamation on the platform. While I do agree they are a publisher, they also have a dominant position the market (so anti-trust rules apply) and they act in coordination with other Social Media to prevent other platforms from rising.

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

Nah, regardless of your race, you'll still be seen as uncouth. It's just tolerated, for some inane reason, yet the moment a different race says it (white being the prime example), all hell break loose, even if it's just "singing" the lyric of a terrible "song".

Because it's useful to the Elites that want to turn their societies into pure oligarchies. Their plans to obliterate national identity via immigration were published almost 100 years ago now. This is just one of the outcroppings to make that happen. There's also an Anarcho-Tyranny aspect to it. (Top & Bottom vs the Middle.)

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

They, YouTube/Twitter/etc., aren't publishing anything. We can think of this as being an e-mail. Nobody, except the recipient, should have any say in whether something is blocked from view. 

So my take on what you're saying is that them choosing what people can and cannot see, makes them a publisher?

 

I'm curious as to what differentiates a publisher from a social media company who is delivering other peoples content to the masses.

 

Because that sounds like what a Publisher does. I guess because they're an "open" platform and not exclusive like most publishers are? They certain profit off of the other peoples content that they deliver, like a publisher.

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

They do. It's for narrative programing reasons. And, in the USA, no it really isn't their call. Classification under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act dictates quite a lot of what they cannot do if they are not going to be a "publisher". 

 

Further, there is a hierarchy for who you're allowed to be bigoted against in the USA, publicly. Especially if you're a connected power broker. Farrakhan is a black, outlier Muslim that's acceptable to the would-be oligarchs of the country. (See him at Aretha Franklin's funeral.) He is thus able to attack any of the acceptable out-groups, along with being able to act within the current narratives. (Non-elite or non-connected Jews are actually an out-group to Progressives and/or Corporatists. That's why Farrakhan can say what he has, for years. It serves to keep Jewish factions in line.)

Section 230 of the CDA is a shield against liability, it is not relevant to what we're talking about here.

 

And the second paragraph is just more far-right propaganda like what Sargon of Akkad spews. Farrakhan is not "acceptable" as he has been condemned repeatedly.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, OnyxArmos said:

The way people in this thread are talking about Jews is honestly reminding me of a certain time in the 1940s

Look into the BDS movement. Though they're more in the "useful idiots" category, as they operate as something of a false front to hem in certain factions.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, OnyxArmos said:

 

I think that's enough politics for me to read in one day, good luck with this thread   

What I will say though is that I think the line between what should be censored and what shouldn't is really difficult to determine, especially on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube

I see only two solutions.

 

Either they don't get to censor people at all unless they actually violate the law. Which is difficult considering Youtube is available world wide.

 

Or they get to censor everyone and a regulatory body needs to be established to ensure they do so without discriminating.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I see only two solutions.

 

Either they don't get to censor people at all unless they actually violate the law. Which is difficult considering Youtube is available world wide.

 

Or they get to censor everyone and a regulatory body needs to be established to ensure they do so without discriminating.

From a Legal perspective, Social Media can't survive under current law. That's actually the "rub" in the situation, which is why they act the way they act. The platforms have always been tools for the powerful to control narratives. Ever wonder why China has banned almost all of the Western platforms? The information control is too important to allow anyone else to control it.

 

But, that legal reality is also how they keep the Social Media companies in line. The companies, and the billions their leadership make, can just be ended if they fall out of favor. It ends up looking very much like a Death Star approach to keeping them in line, but it works. It also allows for a law to be passed in one country to effect the ability for people in another country to communicate. Much of the actual, direct censorship comes from a set of German Laws, with some more laws seeming to be on the way that'll further increase things. It's a pretty good parlor game of censorship, but that's the current reality.

[DrMacintosh]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

It seems the Constitution needs to be applied to businesses that are in the business of public communications, i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Google, otherwise they can control what hits front and center for monetary or political gain. 

That will never work. Every country has its own laws which will never be in alignment with other countries. Its best to let these platforms remain private in what goes on their platform but with case exceptions for government officials who's statements must remain public record for legal reasons. 

 

Twitter is not a public utility and these companies are going to protect their brand and if that means banning Alex Jones, then so be it. 

 

Follow the ToS and you'll be fine, violate the ToS and you have no right to complain. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

You know what the real problem here is? they set the rules on what offends & what not , but then when it comes to responding to those set of rules they set , they cherry picks which specific ones which it applies to conveniently leaving out offenders that speaks for their political ideologies , not evenly or in a manner that's justifiable to anyone seeing this from a third party perspective. They're testing peoples intelligence at this point . it will fool a few for a temporary amount of time , but they wont be able to fool all the people.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

36 minutes ago, OnyxArmos said:

Dude I have no idea what you're even talking about

He's talking about the frogs. They're making the frogs gay!

 

45 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

They, YouTube/Twitter/etc., aren't publishing anything. We can think of this as being an e-mail. Nobody, except the recipient, should have any say in whether something is blocked from view. 

No, it's not like an e-mail: that's why there are copyright takedown notices, and liability for not taking down as requested, for Youtube/Twitter/etc, but not for e-mail.

[vanished]

This is all very interesting but we have enough of an issue with tech topics that can easily be pulled to the political side as it is.  The last thing we need is topics that are just purely political, and as far as I can tell this is.