Social Steven crowder demonetized

[Islam Imamate]

Moderation is fine, and with the levels of idiocy we find on the net, a necessary evil.

That said, base it on the first amendment. Easy fix that men smarter than today's left figured out over 200 years ago.

What do you mean "base it on the 1st amendment"? The 1st protects you from government censorship, not censorship by private actors. How would a company use that as a guide to moderation? It sounds more like a declaration of no moderation which is what the 1st amendment is for the government. At some point YT is going to want to moderate things that are technically legal. Think porn, perfectly legal but many social media sites and forums don't want it on their platform because it makes their sites NSFW.

 

[franklinstower]

What do you mean "base it on the 1st amendment"? The 1st protects you from government censorship, not censorship by private actors. How would a company use that as a guide to moderation? It sounds more like a declaration of no moderation which is what the 1st amendment is for the government. At some point YT is going to want to moderate things that are technically legal. Think porn, perfectly legal but many social media sites and forums don't want it on their platform because it makes their sites NSFW.

Git yer govrmnt hands off my medicare yeh durn morans...... furst amendment free speech in all private places!!!

First amendment he says......... for a private company he says.......

 

[spamking]

So if they accept being a platform they are not entitled to moderation?

IMO that's correct. Let the viewers/users choose for themselves what they want to view.

That's ridiculous.

No it's not. Do you want AT&T deciding who can call you or who you can call? Of course you don't. If YT is a platform then the need to provide their service, make sure it's fast/works and let the content manage itself.

all these sties have to have some level of moderation to make them acceptable to the general audience. Even 4chan has moderation.

If it's viewer-based moderation that allows folks to hide/view content based on rating then fine. Slashdot does that and it seems to work.

So not necessarily but also kind of? Which one?

I don't care. Take your pick.

The system of moderation which YT has in place. They don't want to be this ideal free speech platform that you apparently want them to be for some reason. They want people to flag objectionable content.

Again, flagging it is fine. IN MY OPINION I should make the decision what videos I watch on YT. Not you. Not YT.

 

[abiG]

There is no reason to base it on the first amendment. It is not a first amendment issue. The issue is what does a PRIVATE company have the right to do. The answer is pretty much whatever improves the bottom line.

It's the perfect choice... for those who believe in free political speech, that is.

What do you mean "base it on the 1st amendment"? The 1st protects you from government censorship, not censorship by private actors. How would a company use that as a guide to moderation? It sounds more like a declaration of no moderation which is what the 1st amendment is for the government. At some point YT is going to want to moderate things that are technically legal. Think porn, perfectly legal but many social media sites and forums don't want it on their platform because it makes their sites NSFW.

Right, I have acknowledged this over and over, but it works.

You either value free political speech or you don't.

 

[Cirris]

Moderation is fine, and with the levels of idiocy we find on the net, a necessary evil.

That said, base it on the first amendment. Easy fix that men smarter than today's left figured out over 200 years ago.

Moderation is fine.

The problem is the TOS is rather vague, and the enforcement is subjective and arbitrary. The TOS are also constantly evolving, and they often don't allow for "grandfathering" of past content that they continue to moderate using new TOS rules.

The counter-argument has been that the rules only apply to independent creators, and not mainstream outlets who seem to get a free pass. The "late night comedy bits" seems to be the most obvious points made.

Again, Crowder did not violate the user TOS according to Youtube themselves.

What Youtube did was try and appease VOX by using a "partner TOS" that they vaguely state content is subjectively "harmful to the community." In their eyes it allows them to demonetize Crowder's channel completely. Which is laughable considering they had already manually demonetized most of Crowder's videos to begin with.

There is no reason to base it on the first amendment. It is not a first amendment issue. The issue is what does a PRIVATE company have the right to do. The answer is pretty much whatever improves the bottom line.

If socialists think it's OK to regulate "PRIVATE" companies for safety, environment, competition, etc. then "It's a private company" argument is pure disingenuous bullshit. Especially of those same silly socialists were crying "Net Neutrality!!!" when the FCC changed their internet policies in 2017 allowing private ISPs to modify their own network traffic the way they wanted.

 

[franklinstower]

It's the perfect choice... for those who believe in free political speech, that is.


Right, I have acknowledged this over and over, but it works.

You either value free political speech or you don't.

I do value it but I want the government OUT OF areas they dont need to be in. This is not a free speech issue.

This is a slippery slope area. If we give the government power here where will it end? One day it we be that you have to allow some asshole the platform to counter preach in our churches or in our board rooms. This is just overreach that you guys are asking for.

 

[cincymma79]

I do value it but I want the government OUT OF areas they dont need to be in. This is not a free speech issue.

It is in these cases if they want to be a platform. It’s the same as a telephone. Verizon can’t ban people from their phones for hate speech

 

[franklinstower]

It is in these cases if they want to be a platform. It’s the same as a telephone. Verizon can’t ban people from their phones for hate speech

This is NOT a public service it is a PRIVATE platform that is for profit. It is a business. They can and should be able to implement any regulations they want. There are plenty of free market solutions like starting ones own platform.

 

[Ruprecht]

IMO that's correct. Let the viewers/users choose for themselves what they want to view.

No it's not. Do you want AT&T deciding who can call you or who you can call? Of course you don't. If YT is a platform then the need to provide their service, make sure it's fast/works and let the content manage itself.

If it's viewer-based moderation that allows folks to hide/view content based on rating then fine. Slashdot does that and it seems to work.

I don't care. Take your pick.

Again, flagging it is fine. IN MY OPINION I should make the decision what videos I watch on YT. Not you. Not YT.

You don't even have internet as infrastructure (aka net neutrality) courtesy of Trump and Pai, and you want to compel online video platforms to host all content without restriction (besides legality I assume)?
Seems like you're skipping a step there to say the least.

 

[franklinstower]

You don't even have internet as infrastructure (aka net neutrality) courtesy of Trump and Pai, and you want to compel online video platforms to host all content without restriction (besides legality I assume)?
Seems like you're skipping a step there to say the least.

This is the more important issue. We need internet neutrality first and foremost.

 

[Ruprecht]

This is the more important issue. We need internet neutrality first and foremost.

Seems crippling to dictate content to a commercial broadcaster.
You'd be better off with a Public Broadcaster for the internet that specialised in user generated content, if you want the sort of free speech guarantees that apply to government enacted.

 

[franklinstower]

Seems crippling to dictate content to a commercial broadcaster.
You'd be better off with a Public Broadcaster for the internet that specialised in user generated content if you want the sort of free speech guarantees that apply to government enacted.

I support this solution completely. This was the first battle and we lost it already. The attention being given now to private platforms ought to be redirected back to the original issue which is the great importance of net neutrality.

 

[Cirris]

You don't even have internet as infrastructure (aka net neutrality) courtesy of Trump and Pai, and you want to compel online video platforms to host all content without restriction (besides legality I assume)?
Seems like you're skipping a step there to say the least.

And I believe the best course of action regarding Net Neutrality, and "free speech" platforms is to make a consumer protection argument rather than a free speech one. Consumers should have the right to an open internet free of packet shaping and throttling. As the consumer should also have the right to CHOOSE who's content they see, rather than have tech companies regulate it for them.

Tech companies often argue that ISPs are the gateway to the internet and need to be forced to adhere to a neutral bandwidth concept. But Tech media giants themselves have become the gateway to visual media, and their vast market dominance makes then just as much a monopoly to visual media, as ISPs are to web traffic.

 

[OldBoy91]

There is no reason to base it on the first amendment. It is not a first amendment issue. The issue is what does a PRIVATE company have the right to do. The answer is pretty much whatever improves the bottom line.

Unless a bakery doesn't want to make a wedding cake for gay couples apparently. Never see the left arguing "private company" then.

 

[Islam Imamate]

IMO that's correct. Let the viewers/users choose for themselves what they want to view.

Hmm, well YT disagrees and wants moderation because they have advertisers to keep happy and a brand to protect. If you want a so called free speech social media or video sharing site its hard to have ads unless you accept the seediest of advertisers like pornographers. Otherwise you have to find another way to monetize the platform.

No it's not. Do you want AT&T deciding who can call you or who you can call? Of course you don't. If YT is a platform then the need to provide their service, make sure it's fast/works and let the content manage itself.

Nah I disagree, I want some moderation or else it devolves into a cesspit. Thankfully that is how YT is.

I don't care. Take your pick.

Dodge noted.

Again, flagging it is fine. IN MY OPINION I should make the decision what videos I watch on YT. Not you. Not YT.

Okay but what standards do you judge the flagging against? Should they remove any content that is flagged? That'd be worse for the likes of Crowder. Right now they only remove it or issue a reprimand if it violates the YT ToS. Crowder hasn't been banne

 

[Ruprecht]

And I believe the best course of action regarding Net Neutrality, and "free speech" platforms is to make a consumer protection argument rather than a free speech one. Consumers should have the right to an open internet free of packet shaping and throttling. As the consumer should also have the right to CHOOSE who's content they see, rather than have tech companies regulate it for them.

Tech companies often argue that ISPs are the gateway to the internet and need to be forced to adhere to a neutral bandwidth concept. But Tech media giants themselves have become the gateway to visual media, and their vast market dominance makes then just as much a monopoly to visual media, as ISPs are to web traffic.

Not really, because due to infrastructure you do in fact have regional monopolies with ISPs. There's no such monopoly with online video platforms.
You're not only saying that being able to generate and host visual media is an essential service, but that being able to use the most popular platforms is an essential service. That the most popular commercial suppliers shouldn't have their content policy dictated by their company directors or advertisers, but by government mandate. Either that or you want to apply that open access to all platforms, which means there won't be actual competition due to the incredible barrier to entry that would create.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

IMO that's correct. Let the viewers/users choose for themselves what they want to view.



No it's not. Do you want AT&T deciding who can call you or who you can call? Of course you don't. If YT is a platform then the need to provide their service, make sure it's fast/works and let the content manage itself.



If it's viewer-based moderation that allows folks to hide/view content based on rating then fine. Slashdot does that and it seems to work.



I don't care. Take your pick.



Again, flagging it is fine. IN MY OPINION I should make the decision what videos I watch on YT. Not you. Not YT.

AT&T is more akin to the ISP

YouTube is more akin to Comedy Central, Foxnews, ESPN, CNN etc...

We did have the Fairness Doctrine back in the day but I think it was rightly repealed.

 

[JamesRussler]

Since this is the most recent thread on social media censorship, I’ll leave this here. SCOTUS just handed this down today:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/

A private media company that manages a public access television station is not a state actor under the First Amendment. 5-4, strictly partisan vote (Conservatives-Liberals).

A lot of commentators were watching this case because of potential implications it had for social media censorship. Although the case was limited to its facts, this does not portend good outcomes for future lawsuits against private media companies under the First Amendment, even if those companies are acting at the behest of government entities.

 

[cincymma79]

This is NOT a public service it is a PRIVATE platform that is for profit. It is a business. They can and should be able to implement any regulations they want. There are plenty of free market solutions like starting ones own platform.

Then they don’t get the protections of a platform and get regulated like tv and radio do

 

[spamking]

Hmm, well YT disagrees and wants moderation because they have advertisers to keep happy and a brand to protect.

Which is why I said they need to decide what they are . . .

If you want a so called free speech social media or video sharing site its hard to have ads unless you accept the seediest of advertisers like pornographers. Otherwise you have to find another way to monetize the platform.

Are you reading what I'm posting here or what? Because it really seems like you're not.

Nah I disagree, I want some moderation or else it devolves into a cesspit. Thankfully that is how YT is.

Are you not familiar with Slashdot's moderation? IMO that type moderation would prevent that cesspool. Or at the very least prevent you from being drug into it unless you absolutely wanted to be.

Dodge noted.

What exactly am I dodging? How much more clearer do I need to be about my opinion on this entire situation?

Okay but what standards do you judge the flagging against?

Users would set their own filters. They can choose to view comments rated on a scale of 1-5. On Slashdot the default is a 3. So most of us won't see comments moderated or ranked at a 3 or below, but you can set this at any number between 1-5.

Should they remove any content that is flagged?

If they're a platform no. As I've said several times already. Leave it alone and let the users decide for themselves.

That'd be worse for the likes of Crowder. Right now they only remove it or issue a reprimand if it violates the YT ToS. Crowder hasn't been banne

Unless they changed their stance this he never actually violated their ToS.