Censorship on YouTube

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
There are several reports from many users all over the world that YouTube censors videos and if necessary take them down without any justification.

I am pretty much against any censorship of any kind and I strongly believe in the freedom of expression and freedom of speech even if we don't like what others have to say.

I find this practise unethical and highly anti-democratic regardless of any given rights a company such YouTube may have at any given time.

I would like your views on this matter.

No censorship from my side no content warning and all these nonsense.

Lucifer
0
Advertisement
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
(Original post by Lucifer323)
There are several reports from many users all over the world that YouTube censors videos and if necessary take them down without any justification.

I am pretty much against any censorship of any kind and I strongly believe in the freedom of expression and freedom of speech even if we don't like what others have to say.

I find this practise unethical and highly anti-democratic regardless of any given rights a company such YouTube may have at any given time.

I would like your views on this matter.

No censorship from my side no content warning and all these nonsense.

Lucifer
Private owned website. Their rules. If you dont like them, then find somewhere else.
5
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Lucifer323)
There are several reports from many users all over the world that YouTube censors videos and if necessary take them down without any justification.

I am pretty much against any censorship of any kind and I strongly believe in the freedom of expression and freedom of speech even if we don't like what others have to say.

I find this practise unethical and highly anti-democratic regardless of any given rights a company such YouTube may have at any given time.

I would like your views on this matter.

No censorship from my side no content warning and all these nonsense.

Lucifer
YouTube is scared that they're going to lose ad revenue if they allow rightwingers/swearing back into their platform.
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by 999tigger)
Private owned website. Their rules. If you dont like them, then find somewhere else.
Well, the issue here isn't whether the company is private or not. In principle all these companies that are associated with social media are private, Facebook, Twitter, and pretty much everything else.

The issue is whether censorship can be justified and whether is it acceptable or not by their clients, i.e the public.

Also, by being a private company it doesn't give you special legal rights to throw out of your platforms whoever is chosen that doesn't fit the narrative.

The rules of every company have to line up with the laws of the state.

It's like saying this a private company that employs highly trained security staff who are authorised to shoot and kill anyone who is trespassing...
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
YouTube is scared that they're going to lose ad revenue if they allow rightwingers/swearing back into their platform.
One issue could be that but unfortunately there is a wide range of individuals who are either banned from social platforms and have their videos taken down in youtube.

Youtube has become a really problematic place for sharing videos.
0
Advertisement
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Lucifer323)
The issue is whether censorship can be justified and whether is it acceptable or not by their clients, i.e the public.

Also, by being a private company it doesn't give you special legal rights to throw out of your platforms whoever is chosen that doesn't fit the narrative.

The rules of every company have to line up with the laws of the state.
Are you suggesting that YouTube shouldn't have the right to decide what they host but should still have to bare all the costs?

If you don't like it then don't use it.
2
IanDangerously
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
YouTube is just one of many content platforms. They happen to censor more material than others because it’s typically kept mainstream and accessible to all audiences.

Political censorship definitely happens on their platform. I listen to a pro wrestling podcast that often contains a lot of comical ranting on whatever Donald Trump, politicians and the republican voters have done that week - the version on YouTube is often 20-30mins shorter than the full episode on the podcast apps (Spotify etc) because they cut all the political material out to avoid running into issues.
0
Advertisement
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Are you suggesting that YouTube shouldn't have the right to decide what they host but should still have to bare all the costs?

If you don't like it then don't use it.
The argument against this is that once they take editorial control over their content, they should be treated like any publication and be liable for the content they put out. If they don't want to be liable for the content they put out on their site, then they shouldn't be making editorial decisions and bar deleting illegal content, shouldn't get involved.

That's the right wing line currently.

It has some logic, not sure on the legal side though...
1
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
As I see it, the main problem so far is not necessarily with their policy (although it is interventionist), but stupidity of their algoritms that remove content automatically.
0
Advertisement
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
No they don't just get to make the rules up and if they are mugging people off they need to be punished.

(Original post by 999tigger)
Private owned website. Their rules. If you dont like them, then find somewhere else.
That's funny. I never thought you were a right wing american.
0
ZycieKawalera
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
Because they're owned by Google you're inevitably dealing with DARPA/CIA/Unit 8200 psychological warfare, so anything that is beneficial to straight white marital reproduction will just get shut down or drowned in a sea of beige multicultural transgender climate activists.
0
Advertisement
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by PTMalewski)
As I see it, the main problem so far is not necessarily with their policy (although it is interventionist), but stupidity of their algoritms that remove content automatically.
YouTube has gained a reputation of interventionism over the years as they seem to keep intervene and take down videos they just don't like. No explanation given, no justifications, nothing at all. They just take videos down if they don't like them.

Your comment about the algorithm is quite correct though.

YouTube used to be very open 10-15 years ago..

I may not agree with David Icke and his however the vast majority of the public doesn't agree either with David Icke's videos taken down as this amounts to censorship and is an act which is perceived to be very unethical and indecent.
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by IanDangerously)
YouTube is just one of many content platforms. They happen to censor more material than others because it’s typically kept mainstream and accessible to all audiences.

Political censorship definitely happens on their platform. I listen to a pro wrestling podcast that often contains a lot of comical ranting on whatever Donald Trump, politicians and the republican voters have done that week - the version on YouTube is often 20-30mins shorter than the full episode on the podcast apps (Spotify etc) because they cut all the political material out to avoid running into issues.
In principle I agree with your observations.

However reagardless of what YouTube decides to do, as it has been much more accommodating 10-15 years ago, censorship is something which is perceived by the public to be unethical and indecent.

I also all for freedom of speech. Cutting, editing, and algorithms, must dissapear. Highly undemocratic I will say, but on the other hand democracy isn't in its best in the US. Here in Europe things have been most times better.
0
Advertisement
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Are you suggesting that YouTube shouldn't have the right to decide what they host but should still have to bare all the costs?

If you don't like it then don't use it.
Let's see this from the side of YouTube.

Explain me what is wrong with hosting David Icke and so many others with similar ideas.

They used to do it 10-15 years ago.

You don't agree with David Icke? Most don't by the way. You laugh at him you criticise him, he has an account you can contact him I believe and take it out at him.

You don't censor however any ideas. The vast majority of YouTube users find censorship really disturbing. Unethical and indecent.

Censorship is the beginning of the slippery slope.. if you know what I mean!
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by ZycieKawalera)
Because they're owned by Google you're inevitably dealing with DARPA/CIA/Unit 8200 psychological warfare, so anything that is beneficial to straight white marital reproduction will just get shut down or drowned in a sea of beige multicultural transgender climate activists.
Can you explain further what you are saying here?
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by TheStupidMoon)
No they don't just get to make the rules up and if they are mugging people off they need to be punished.



That's funny. I never thought you were a right wing american.
Rules and regulations have to line up with the laws of the State. Certainly a company cannot make up their rules and regulations.

There is a confusion by many users here which regard private companies somehow excempt from the laws.

They don't seem to realise that censorship of views could be merit legal action against these companies for a range of offences. I am concerned with the lack of knowledge in terms of the law. Even the basics.
0
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Let's see this from the side of YouTube.

Explain me what is wrong with hosting David Icke and so many others with similar ideas.

They used to do it 10-15 years ago.

You don't agree with David Icke? Most don't by the way. You laugh at him you criticise him, he has an account you can contact him I believe and take it out at him.

You don't censor however any ideas. The vast majority of YouTube users find censorship really disturbing. Unethical and indecent.

Censorship is the beginning of the slippery slope.. if you know what I mean!
It is all about money, advertisers don't want to be associating with companies that host generally unsavoury views. Procter and Gamble for instance wouldn't want one of their ads being shown anywhere near a COVID denial video so YouTube remove the video so that can't happen.

The vast majority of YouTube users don't care, they will continue to use platform. In fact between May 2018 and May 2019 the monthly viewership increased by 200 million users to 2 billion users.
0
Advertisement
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by ZycieKawalera)
They are trying to weaken/depopulate the goy.
Can you let is know what evidence do you have for that. If I understand the meaning of the word goy, you don't use it metaphorically as it seems..
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by DiddyDec)
It is all about money, advertisers don't want to be associating with companies that host generally unsavoury views. Procter and Gamble for instance wouldn't want one of their ads being shown anywhere near a COVID denial video so YouTube remove the video so that can't happen.

The vast majority of YouTube users don't care, they will continue to use platform. In fact between May 2018 and May 2019 the monthly viewership increased by 200 million users to 2 billion users.
Yes I am aware of what you are describing but still they doesn't justify censorship.

Do you know how many doctors and infectious disease experts can be characterised denialists by people and companies that have no medical or scientific background?! And then excluded from social media..

YouTube and other social media cannot decide on matters of science or medicine. Because censorship won't only affect David Icke but many others who are experts in their fields and happened not to have the same view as what is propagated by much of the media, i.e that everyone is at risk, everyone will die, the end of the world, catastrophy and mayhem for humanity, and these very unsubstantiated and unscientific claims-created and propagated by the media and adopted by YouTube in this case.
0
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Yes I am aware of what you are describing but still they doesn't justify censorship.

Do you know how many doctors and infectious disease experts can be characterised denialists by people and companies that have no medical or scientific background?! And then excluded from social media..

YouTube and other social media cannot decide on matters of science or medicine. Because censorship won't only affect David Icke but many others who are experts in their fields and happened not to have the same view as what is propagated by much of the media, i.e that everyone is at risk, everyone will die, the end of the world, catastrophy and mayhem for humanity, and these very unsubstantiated and unscientific claims-created and propagated by the media and adopted by YouTube in this case.
No, how many doctor and infectious disease experts can be characterised denalists?

You seem to be suggesting this a widespread issue, so how many examples of actual experts being censored on social media can you dig up?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (514)
33.75%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (629)
41.3%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (311)
20.42%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (69)
4.53%

Watched Threads

View All