A couple days ago, a gun channel was taken off youtube. Youtube shortly restores it and says it was taken down because it was thought to have violated the Google+ TOS, but it turned out to be nothing. Several other youtubers and fans expressed their concern, considering the highly suspicious timing and Google's already widely known stance. Tonight it was taken down again. Is this pure stupidity, or flagrant censorship?

https://mobile.twitter.com/hickok45

Views: 1640

Replies to This Discussion

"What really pisses me off about it is that this is motivated by the desire to censor different views."

I'm not sure that's demonstrated. This move is purely commercial. YT gets to pocket that revenue for the vast majority of users now.

I guess you could consider LBTQ stuff being moved to restricted as censorship.

From the article:

Last month, a number of companies, including Johnson & Johnson and General Motors Co., said they were suspending their advertising on YouTube after an investigation by Britain’s the Times showed how ads appeared alongside videos that promote hate and extremism.

And if that didn't demonstrate it enough, YouTube has a history of silencing those with viewpoints they don't like. This very thread demonstrates that.

The motivation is still following the money. Not censoring views. They are not taking down those videos, just limiting the options to monetize them, on their privately owned platform, unless they play by their rules. 

YT is not a public utility, or government entity. They are well within their rights to define the terms under which you get to use them. And none of that is censoring.

The motivation is still following the money. Not censoring views. They are not taking down those videos, just limiting the options to monetize them, on their privately owned platform, unless they play by their rules. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/coercion

YT is not a public utility, or government entity. They are well within their rights to define the terms under which you get to use them. And none of that is censoring.

What is wrong with you people?? Enough with this ridiculous statist straw man! God!

Then enough with the ridiculous equivocation about what censorship is. YT is doing no such thing. 

I didn't call this censorship. I said it was motivated by it. 

"Is this pure stupidity, or flagrant censorship?"

Sorry, I didn't know the goalposts had moved.

Hasn't moved. You have simply asserted without demonstrating that is the case, either historically or now. 

No, we were obviously talking about youtube limiting monetization options. Then you bring in something I said about Hickok's troubles. Nowhere have I said the monetization limitations are censorship.

Silly me for assuming replies in a discussion thread related to the OP. 

RSS

Latest Activity

Sir replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"You're still right."
36 minutes ago
Shane replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"You're new here so you don't know, there's a pretty rough dynamic amongst the group here. It's gotten even worse over the last two years."
2 hours ago
Josef Schmolsky updated their profile
2 hours ago
Wyatt Bardi updated their profile
3 hours ago
R. Max 2.0 replied to blackjack's discussion recommend a book
5 hours ago
Jason Rex Fraser replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"I get that this is debate, and difficult topics are sort of the purpose, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to get so into it and forget to be gentlemen. What it comes down to is neither side is going to budge here. People either love or hate…"
6 hours ago
Sir replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
""Nothing to see here" is a poor response to inconvenient news. It's clear that Trump the slavering racist dictator who'll blow up the world is gone, and that's noteworthy, even if it doesn't mean he's not bad in…"
7 hours ago
Sir replied to blackjack's discussion recommend a book
"Yea all that.  Blackjack, if you want to discuss things, sure, welcome.  But cutting and pasting post from other sites... let's have this be the last time that happens."
9 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service