Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:30:
This is the basis of the safe harbor protections internet websites enjoy. By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard.

By your logic, Blues is now a liable publisher for DELETING posts when the peanut gallery gets a little out of line. That's censoring what you believe to be 'free speech'. (no shade, I've had posts deleted before....)

The current theory is that the guy's original video was essentially de-indexed due to the the ~30 seconds he spent complaining about (but still displaying for the clicks) a dildo/vibrator weapon in the game. Other channels have been demonitized for things like this before. >shrug< I don't know if it's what you would call legitimate censorship, or just standard business practices?

I wonder if something similar was done for anyone's videos flaunting the massive purple dildo that was in Saint's Row III?

DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources, including Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram Alpha, Bing, Yandex, its own web crawler (the DuckDuckBot) and others. It also uses data from crowdsourced sites, including Wikipedia, to populate knowledge panel boxes to the right of the results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo

EDIT
Bing returns it
Yahoo doesn't

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:33:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:21:

JohnBirshire wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:16:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:02:
Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"

I just tried this out of curiosity...you're right, doesn't come up in search results. North America.

WAB's location is the United Kingdom.
I'm guessing it ain't location based.

Duck Duck Go does return it.

Which is interesting, since DuckDuckGo partly uses Google on the backend (at least the last time I checked) and just anonymizes the request. More to the point, the owner of youtube doesn't show the result, but a non-aligned engine does? Color me suspicious...

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:21:

JohnBirshire wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:16:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:02:
Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"

I just tried this out of curiosity...you're right, doesn't come up in search results. North America.

WAB's location is the United Kingdom.
I'm guessing it ain't location based.

Duck Duck Go does return it.

JohnBirshire wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:16:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:02:
Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"

I just tried this out of curiosity...you're right, doesn't come up in search results. North America.

WAB's location is the United Kingdom.
I'm guessing it ain't location based.

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:02:
Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"

I just tried this out of curiosity...you're right, doesn't come up in search results. North America.

Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:30:
Nice strawman there. No one is compelling speech. Compelling speech means I am required to say something (you know, like when various interest groups say that you must publicly support them or they will doxx and destroy you and your business) I would not normally say. We are talking about intentionally hiding, deleting, or banning ideas that the corporation dislikes. If the corporation's platforms are providing a public platform, then they are allowing public speech, not compelling it. This is the basis of the safe harbor protections internet websites enjoy. By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard. The fact that you have to work really hard to try and conflate forced speech with viewpoint neutrality just shows that even you know your point is bogus. No one is demanding youtube announce that Cyberpunk 2077 is a glitch-ridden mess. They're just demanding that youtube allow others to make such a statement on their supposedly public (which is what they claim themselves in order to maintain safe harbor) platform.

Truly hope you dropped an air-mic after you wrote that reply to the wanna-be intellectual. Holy shit what bs word-salad that was from him.

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:02:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:51:

Bodolza wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:45:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it.

I don't know what you're talking about. His 2 videos are the first 2 search results I get on both Youtube and Google Video search. Sounds like someone is just looking for more views by posting conspiracies.

Well, he either appealed the action, or it's region based, or you're looking at the wrong thing.

Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"
My region is North America, America.

Right, so it could be region based if other people are seeing.

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:51:

Bodolza wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:45:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it.

I don't know what you're talking about. His 2 videos are the first 2 search results I get on both Youtube and Google Video search. Sounds like someone is just looking for more views by posting conspiracies.

Well, he either appealed the action, or it's region based, or you're looking at the wrong thing.

Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"
My region is North America, America.

As for a conspiracy, puleeze

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 16:24:

Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 15:15:
So many people are firmly behind corporate censorship ("It's not censorship unless it's the government, man..."), never dreaming that their own opinions and speech will be the next to go. Like Robespierre to the guillotine, they are shocked that the monster they created has turned on them.

I understand that you have a grievance with the content moderation policies of private entities whom you interact with. How exactly should that grievance be resolved without introducing greater state burdens on the behavior and speech of private entities and individuals? If the state can compel private entity A to broadcast controversial claim B, what prevents the state from compelling private entity C to censor controversial claim D? If you believe that private entities should be compelled to broadcast all ideas, and censor none, what is to prevent you yourself from being compelled to speak a specific idea?

Any platform that is widely used and which people rely on for their living—YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc—should be free to moderate content. However, there needs to be transparency regarding editorial decisions and there needs to be independent arbitration for disputes. No-one is advocating that governments decide what content is and isn't acceptable but they have a duty to ensure that markets are operating in a fair manner.

In this particular case, a content producer had their video silently censored without notification or justification and that has a serious impact on their ability to earn a living. And it's not like YouTube has any legitimate competitors, meaning the market isn't functioning properly.

Bodolza wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:45:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it.

I don't know what you're talking about. His 2 videos are the first 2 search results I get on both Youtube and Google Video search. Sounds like someone is just looking for more views by posting conspiracies.

Well, he either appealed the action, or it's region based, or you're looking at the wrong thing.

Edit: When I do a Google search, his review does not come up at all. I even put his channel name in the search. All I get is his 2018 preview, and other sites that are posting his review (or talking about how he got blocked).
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=cyberpunk+2077+review+worth+a+buy

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it.

I don't know what you're talking about. His 2 videos are the first 2 search results I get on both Youtube and Google Video search. Sounds like someone is just looking for more views by posting conspiracies.

Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 17:30:
Nice strawman there. No one is compelling speech. Compelling speech means I am required to say something (you know, like when various interest groups say that you must publicly support them or they will doxx and destroy you and your business) I would not normally say. We are talking about intentionally hiding, deleting, or banning ideas that the corporation dislikes. If the corporation's platforms are providing a public platform, then they are allowing public speech, not compelling it. This is the basis of the safe harbor protections internet websites enjoy. By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard. The fact that you have to work really hard to try and conflate forced speech with viewpoint neutrality just shows that even you know your point is bogus. No one is demanding youtube announce that Cyberpunk 2077 is a glitch-ridden mess. They're just demanding that youtube allow others to make such a statement on their supposedly public (which is what they claim themselves in order to maintain safe harbor) platform.

^^exactly this

Nice strawman there. No one is compelling speech. Compelling speech means I am required to say something (you know, like when various interest groups say that you must publicly support them or they will doxx and destroy you and your business) I would not normally say. We are talking about intentionally hiding, deleting, or banning ideas that the corporation dislikes. If the corporation's platforms are providing a public platform, then they are allowing public speech, not compelling it. This is the basis of the safe harbor protections internet websites enjoy. By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard. The fact that you have to work really hard to try and conflate forced speech with viewpoint neutrality just shows that even you know your point is bogus. No one is demanding youtube announce that Cyberpunk 2077 is a glitch-ridden mess. They're just demanding that youtube allow others to make such a statement on their supposedly public (which is what they claim themselves in order to maintain safe harbor) platform.

Cyberpunk looks like fallout 4 in a smoke filled room on my ps5. Demons souls is amazing.

Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 15:15:
So many people are firmly behind corporate censorship ("It's not censorship unless it's the government, man..."), never dreaming that their own opinions and speech will be the next to go. Like Robespierre to the guillotine, they are shocked that the monster they created has turned on them.

I understand that you have a grievance with the content moderation policies of private entities whom you interact with. How exactly should that grievance be resolved without introducing greater state burdens on the behavior and speech of private entities and individuals? If the state can compel private entity A to broadcast controversial claim B, what prevents the state from compelling private entity C to censor controversial claim D? If you believe that private entities should be compelled to broadcast all ideas, and censor none, what is to prevent you yourself from being compelled to speak a specific idea?

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
Here's something really crazy. The only truly honest review of the current state of the game is Worth A Buy, and his video is now being censored. It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it. He recently released a follow-up video about the situation. The Internet is really turning into a big pile of fake news. It favors fake over facts. Ugh

Here's Mack's (pc) review (which is actually quite funny, particularly the rating segment at the end. He does it that way to try not to butt-hurt the fanboys lol):
WaB Cyberpunk 2077 Review

Here's his follow-up vid:
WaB Cyberpunk 2077 Follow-up

Weird
I wonder why they censored it that way unless it was a mistake.

Tossed him a youtube subscription for whatever that's worth.

Ozmodan wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 14:52:
Well, they never should have released it for the older generation consoles. That was a pure money grab. The game will never be able to run on those platforms with any sort of consistency.

Of course it's a money grab, literally the entire multi-platform industry is still grabbing for that money from the 150M+ old console audience. In case you've forgotten, this game was announced in 2012, so it's not like this was a last-second gambit, they were always planning to release there. Clearly they dropped the ball at some point along the way when their goalposts shifted to support newer PC hardware and soon the new consoles, but if the alternative is to just scrap all the work they put into those versions and give up 40% of their sales (pre-orders)... Can't say I blame them for cobbling together what they could.

Cutter wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 15:35:
That was meant as a shot at the three of them. Hence the plural piggies and not pig.

Ah, gotchya.

Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 15:15:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
Here's something really crazy. The only truly honest review of the current state of the game is Worth A Buy, and his video is now being censored. It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it. He recently released a follow-up video about the situation. The Internet is really turning into a big pile of fake news. It favors fake over facts. Ugh

Here's Mack's (pc) review (which is actually quite funny, particularly the rating segment at the end. He does it that way to try not to butt-hurt the fanboys lol):
WaB Cyberpunk 2077 Review

Here's his follow-up vid:
WaB Cyberpunk 2077 Follow-up

So many people are firmly behind corporate censorship ("It's not censorship unless it's the government, man..."), never dreaming that their own opinions and speech will be the next to go. Like Robespierre to the guillotine, they are shocked that the monster they created has turned on them.

In fairness to Mack, I have no idea on his stance about social media and search engine censorship, and I'm not advocating he be censored. I just find it funny that some of his fans are all butthurt about his review being hidden (not directing this at you), but have no problem demanding that anyone else that doesn't agree with their opinions be memory-holed tout suite! As if anyone can be trusted to decide what is and isn't allowable...

I doubt it is being censored as it is monetized.