- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: YouTube: More than 100,000 videos and over 17,000 channels removed
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:25 am to McCaigBro69
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:25 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
Needless to say, people should just stop using YouTube
Nah
0
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:38 am to cwill
quote:
Do you really believe the gov can force websites to allow any shite to be posted and have no right to boot people or comments that they don’t want on a website???
As a public forum, they are not held liable for public content. When they decide to classify themselves as a publisher/platform (for example, like the media), then they can be held liable for any content they put out. They are removing themselves from the public forum classification by managing the content. When you manage the content, you are then promoting/classifying the content based on your preferences, which means, you are no longer an open forum, but move in to the realm of promotion/endorsement. This is where liability comes in.
So if I start a company and run ads promoting an act that would result in harm/injury to one's self and others, I could be held liable for that. However, if i'm a public forum like google used to be, that does not censor content, only allows the free flow of information, it is much harder for me to be held liable, because i am not endorsing nor controlling the content.
This post was edited on 9/4/19 at 7:41 am
Posted on 9/4/19 at 8:11 am to BugAC
quote:
As a public forum, they are not held liable for public content. When they decide to classify themselves as a publisher/platform (for example, like the media), then they can be held liable for any content they put out. They are removing themselves from the public forum classification by managing the content. When you manage the content, you are then promoting/classifying the content based on your preferences, which means, you are no longer an open forum, but move in to the realm of promotion/endorsement. This is where liability comes in.
Where are y’all getting this nonsense from? This simply not the written law nor the case law.
Again, under your imagination of “internet law” no privately owned company/forum could manage/police its website. TD could be consumed by lawsuits or become a cesspool because the owners of the website would have no control over who or how it’s website is used. Conversely if they did manage the site and become a “publisher” and could be sued for the millions of comments per day they’d be flooded by those lawsuits. I think conservative ire at the current management of social media websites has created a blind spot with regard to freedom and free speech. Again if you don’t like how a privately owned social media company manages your posts on its pvt website then don’t post on that social media company’s pvt website. Go stand on your front lawn and yell “melt cuck” at your neighbors or passing cars...or print up flyers of same and stick under car windshields when no one is looking.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 9:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The fact that something is subjective does not mean that it is not “real.”
au contraire mon frere.
If everyone gets to decide what hate speech is, then everything is hate speech to someone. Since EVERYTHING can be classified as hate speech, that means all speech is hate speech. If all speech is hate speech, there is no such thing as hate speech because it’s just speech.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 10:13 am to NPComb
Posted on 9/4/19 at 10:23 am to beerJeep
quote:
au contraire mon frere.
If everyone gets to decide what hate speech is, then everything is hate speech to someone. Since EVERYTHING can be classified as hate speech, that means all speech is hate speech. If all speech is hate speech, there is no such thing as hate speech because it’s just speech.
Pornography is subjective. Clearly there are certain acts we can all agree are porn and the disagreement comes in at the fringes. I would suggest "hate speech" is similar...regardless, it is protected by the 1A...which doesn't apply to privately owned websites moderation.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 11:07 am to member12
quote:The fact that it's real to YouTube makes it real when youre using YouTube
The fact that something is “real to you” doesn’t make it actually real.
It's not a hard concept to understand
Posted on 9/4/19 at 12:44 pm to NPComb
They removed my channel “World War II Radio” because of hate speech. I had uploaded hundreds of news broadcasts, music programs, political speeches, sports programs, and radio shows from 1932-1945. They took it down because some of the broadcasts had Hitler in them. No warnings or anything. Just poof gone one day and a nasty email.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 6:17 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Name 2
As of last week:
Way of the World
Iconoclast
James Allsup
Believe it or not, even more of them get deleted and then brought back. Multiple times. Also, almost all channels I follow are mass demonetized.
But, hey. I can still look at garbage like The Young Turks and Ana New Nose.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 6:40 pm to TheFonz
It's absolutely insane YouTubers have to avoid any mention of certain historical figures or facts, regardless of context.
It's as though YouTube is straight out admitting they operate without a brain.
It's as though YouTube is straight out admitting they operate without a brain.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:13 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
quote:
More than 100,000 videos and over 17,000 channels removed
for hate speech
quote:
Just over 66% of video removals were for being spam, misleading content or scams, while 90% of channel removals fell into that category. Hate speech violations accounted for 1.2% of video removals and 0.4% of channel removals.
The real problem here isn't the removal of 'hate speech', it is he removal of 'misleading content'. Just who decides what 'misleading content' is? Deeming something to be 'misleading' is far more subjective than 'hate speech' and far easier to abuse.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News