- 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
YouTube: More than 100,000 videos and over 17,000 channels removed
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:47 pm
for hate speech
YouTube apparently doesn’t like 1A
quote:
Many of the videos were removed before the 1st view because of the use of “hate speech detection” technology
YouTube apparently doesn’t like 1A
11
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:50 pm to NPComb
The 1A doesn’t apply to private companies 
I think youtube is horribly biased though.
I think youtube is horribly biased though.
This post was edited on 9/3/19 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:50 pm to NPComb
I really hope the market finds a solution to this before YouTube becomes a legal monopoly via regulatory capture, but I don't think it happens.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:51 pm to weagle99
quote:
The 1A doesn’t apply to private companies
I get what you mean, but google is publicly traded.
Needless to say, people should just stop using YouTube. Their direction is very clear.
This post was edited on 9/3/19 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:52 pm to NPComb
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.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 3:53 pm to Green Chili Tiger
shh you'll destroy their narrative
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:00 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I really hope the market finds a solution to this before YouTube becomes a legal monopoly via regulatory capture, but I don't think it happens.
The problem is multi faceted.
1 - most techies savvy enough to make it work are liberal progressive nerds in it for the big bucks.
2 - google serves the ads.
3 - woke corporations are on board with this censorship and they buy the ad space.
That's all just the tip of the iceberg. You get into hacking and security issues, corporate saboteurs and spies, etc. Organized boycotts.
Google is like a small fascist country being run and protected within our own borders.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:01 pm to NPComb
Do they monitor you tube tv the same way?
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:03 pm to NPComb
Yet "Russian meddling" is the greatest threat to our democracy 
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:05 pm to weagle99
If you cannot apply the first amendment then how bout the tried and true 14th?
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:33 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:It is still a private company.
but google is publicly traded.
The issue lies with whether or not YouTube is a public forum. They certainly claim to be a public forum - this insulates then from any civil or criminal culpability for anything posted on their servers. As long as YouTube has that distinction then they can’t really be sued for anything anyone says or does in the videos.
However, once they start discriminating as to which videos/speech they’ll disallow or which ones they’ll demonetize, they can no longer claim to be a public forum. They have become a publisher, and publishers can be sued and even held criminally accountable for the speech they choose to publish. YouTube does not want this.
Currently Prager U is suing YouTube/Google/Alphabet and is asking the court to make a determination. Either way is really fine, but YouTube will have to pick a side and follow that set of rules (or be forced to do such by the courts).
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:00 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
However, once they start discriminating as to which videos/speech they’ll disallow or which ones they’ll demonetize, they can no longer claim to be a public forum. They have become a publisher, and publishers can be sued and even held criminally accountable for the speech they choose to publish. YouTube does not want this.
Then they should be held to this standard, and if Google tries to buy out any upstart competitors (which are sorely needed for YouTube) their trust should be promptly bust.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:05 pm to NPComb
quote:
YouTube apparently doesn’t like 1A
Apparently this board still doesn't understand the First Amendment.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:08 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.
Your quotes are misleading. The 100,000 vids and 17,000 channels are derived by multiplying the 1.2% by 9,000,000 videos removed and the 0.4% by the 4,000,000 channels removed (+1000 wtf?). I don't know why the inflated from 16 to 17k.
That being said it was a small % of removals and YT has no 1A obligations.
This post was edited on 9/3/19 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:09 pm to Tactical1
quote:
Apparently this board still doesn't understand the First Amendment.
Apparently you still don't understand what a "public forum" is and the difference between it and a "publisher".
just another leftist lie, like calling George Stephanopoulus or Anderson Cooper "journalists".
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:11 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
The issue lies with whether or not YouTube is a public forum. They certainly claim to be a public forum - this insulates then from any civil or criminal culpability for anything posted on their servers. As long as YouTube has that distinction then they can’t really be sued for anything anyone says or does in the videos.
However, once they start discriminating as to which videos/speech they’ll disallow or which ones they’ll demonetize, they can no longer claim to be a public forum. They have become a publisher, and publishers can be sued and even held criminally accountable for the speech they choose to publish. YouTube does not want this.
None of this is correct...that is not how 1A application is determined. Internet forums are not the state. The law (which stat # I can't recall) does not hold internet companies liable for what users post - otherwise the internet wouldn't be possible. There's no requirement for "public forum" or non-discrimination in POVs.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:14 pm to gthog61
You seem mad.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:16 pm to gthog61
quote:
Apparently you still don't understand what a "public forum" is and the difference between it and a "publisher".
just another leftist lie, like calling George Stephanopoulus or Anderson Cooper "journalists".
Good Lord, what's your boggle?
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:47 pm to Tactical1
quote:
Apparently this board still doesn't understand the First Amendment.
It’s amazing that idiots like you want to be sensored by big tech liberal nerds. And do you not know about the protection YouTube receives, by law, for being classified as a platform and not a publisher? When was the last time AT&T cut off your phone conversation for “hate” speech?
And isn’t it amazing how hate speech isn’t applied when talking about President Trump? That must be live speech??
This post was edited on 9/3/19 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:49 pm to NPComb
Attorney General Barr needs to instruct the Antitrust Division to get to work.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News