Based on Agent Orange's very own claim, he is no longer allowed to run for a 3rd term, right?

YouTube will do whatever it will do under two guiding principles; that which makes them the most money and exposes it to the least legal liability. That's it. That is all they care about.

Prez wrote on Jun 3, 2023, 10:29:
The site owners are completely within their right to block whatever content they choose to.

Or not block.

The whole idea of free speech came from a group of men who couldn't conceive of the world we have today. The idea was a free exchange of ideas during an intellectual discussion. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for censorship, but "freedom of speech" should be viewed as a privilege which comes with responsibility. It is your "right" to stand on the corner and argue 1 + 1 should equal 3. But there are limits -- you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Actually, some "censorship" could do us a lot of good. Unfortunately, there is no way to "fairly" do it. So, we are stuck with the idiots yelling on the streets, or on YouTube.

That's the problem with the discussion on free speech and censorship. They almost always are categorized incorrectly from the outset. Free speech doesn't exist on a media forum operated by a private business, be it YouTube or Twitter. The site owners are completely within their right to block whatever content they choose to. The censorship discussion is equally mischaracterized, often purposefully and maliciously to spread disinformation, as in Beamer's Fox News example. That isn't censorship; that's protection of the public from purposeful misinformation that can cause actual, severe harm.

Often the argument gets made that by choosing what information to allow versus what to stifle, an organization is dictating what can be accepted as truth. That is indeed a concern and could lead to some Orwellian situations if abused. By all means, fight against that. But when you do, have some actual verifiable proof of what you are claiming. You want to claim that an election was stolen? Well for a charge that serious you had better have actual verifiable evidence that goes way beyond - I mean WAY beyond - what has been presented thus far. COVID and the January 6th insurrection prove beyond a shadow of doubt the extreme dangers of what can happen when the public is knowingly lied to under the guise of free speech.

Beamer wrote on Jun 3, 2023, 08:19:

GHOB wrote on Jun 3, 2023, 04:24:
Good. Censoring political speech is not something any social media company should be in the business of. They need to get out of the way and allow people to make up their own minds about what is true or false.

Because we've proven to be so good at that. It's 2023, Fox has revealed emails showing it knowingly lied, and people somehow still believe that the election was stolen. They still believe their loud minority is a silent majority. They still believe in ivermectin.

In the past, if there were enemy agents operating within the USA that were creating terrorist cells that were threats to our national security, our government would arrest these agents. These days, it's all too easy through social media and the guise of "free speech". The January 6 Insurrection is what happens when propaganda and lies are allowed to spread without any limit. Millions of Americans believe that they need guns so they can "overthrow tyranny", but it's becoming very apparent that when these people are misled by misinformation, they consider a functioning, legitimate democracy as "tyranny" when they aren't winning elections.

GHOB wrote on Jun 3, 2023, 04:24:
Good. Censoring political speech is not something any social media company should be in the business of. They need to get out of the way and allow people to make up their own minds about what is true or false.

Because we've proven to be so good at that. It's 2023, Fox has revealed emails showing it knowingly lied, and people somehow still believe that the election was stolen. They still believe their loud minority is a silent majority. They still believe in ivermectin.

Dev wrote on Jun 2, 2023, 17:38:
I think part of it is likely that one candidate will be running on these kinda claims and they didn't want to be put into the position of having to heavily censor a candidates speech during an election season. Just a guess.

I'd be willing to bet that is exactly the reason. Good call.

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on Jun 2, 2023, 17:46:

Saboth wrote on Jun 2, 2023, 17:08:
I think they didn't want to pay people to have to police all these conspiracies and fraud claims. Misinformation, encouragement of sedition and violence, and terrorism are not necessary for a functioning democracy...

GOOD! I miss the old days, prior to 2016, when the YouTube was filled with all kinds of bullshit... I love that shit and I love egging the crazy's on.

Nostalgia for the days of witche burnings and lynch mobs, eh.

GHOB wrote on Jun 3, 2023, 04:24:
Good. Censoring political speech is not something any social media company should be in the business of. They need to get out of the way and allow people to make up their own minds about what is true or false.

"What's true or false" isn't an opinion. All your approach results in is people getting brainwashed by people trying to destroy civil society. I'm sure all the propaganda you're hoovering in makes you feel like you're "making up your own mind" though.

Good. Censoring political speech is not something any social media company should be in the business of. They need to get out of the way and allow people to make up their own minds about what is true or false.

You mean...there are some things on YouTube that aren't true?

What could go wrong.

Alphabet needs those engagement dollars no matter how much it damages the country.
sickening

This comment was edited on Jun 2, 2023, 22:35.

Saboth wrote on Jun 2, 2023, 17:08:
I think they didn't want to pay people to have to police all these conspiracies and fraud claims. Misinformation, encouragement of sedition and violence, and terrorism are not necessary for a functioning democracy...

GOOD! I miss the old days, prior to 2016, when the YouTube was filled with all kinds of bullshit... I love that shit and I love egging the crazy's on.

I think part of it is likely that one candidate will be running on these kinda claims and they didn't want to be put into the position of having to heavily censor a candidates speech during an election season. Just a guess.

I think they didn't want to pay people to have to police all these conspiracies and fraud claims. Misinformation, encouragement of sedition and violence, and terrorism are not necessary for a functioning democracy...